Thread by @EDC_eudemocracy

European elections are citizens' only way to directly elect their European representatives. Ahead of the #EP2024 elections, we are breaking down issues with the @Europarl_EN's proposed system of #transnationallists. We must do better! ... a 🧵 1/15
More 👉 eudemocracy.eu/shortcomings-e…

The EP's proposal, adopted in May 2022, proposes the creation of a common EU constituency elected via #transnationallists for #europeanparties and movements. Among others, it relies on a "group system" to increase diversity. So far so good. Or is it? 2/15

The EP's proposal includes three groups of Member States, roughly based on their demography, and illustrates what alternated rankings on an electoral #transnationallist might look like. Indeed, the list does look like a nicely diverse list. 3/15

However, a closer look reveals clear limitations and shortcomings of this system: it is very volatile, it induces a structural discrimination bt Member States, it enables over-representation, and it does not sufficiently respect #europeanparties' preferences. Let's dive in! 4/15

Firstly, the group system is very volatile. The EP proposes 3 groups: but why these exact groups and not others? Why not 4 or 5 groups? Why should a country be at the bottom of a group & not at the top of the next? These extrinsic factors have a major impact on end results. 5/15

Running the numbers on the EP's proposal and on variations of it highlights the impact of the group system. Member State sizes are constant, votes are constant, the only change is the decision to place a Member State in one group or another, and it changes everything. 6/15

Actually, not everything changes. While most Member States see their number of elected citizens go up and down at random, we do not that the EP's proposal seems best suited for the largest EU Member States -- since they always lose out in other scenarios. 7/15

Secondly, the group system creates a structural discrimination: Member States near the bottom of their group are almost systematically bypassed by smaller Member States located at the top of the next group. The design of the group system therefore creates winners and losers. 8/15

Once again, running the numbers confirms that this applies to all group systems. It's not just that bigger Member States get more seats (which would be democratic), but that the bigger Member States **within each group ** have a consistent and undue advantage over others. 9/15

Thirdly, the EP's proposal promotes diversity & places a limit of 6 MEPs per country. But this is a flawed concept of representation. If #Germany and #Malta each have 3 MEPs, their citizens are not at all represented equally or fairly, which is detrimental to democracy. 10/15

Given that the constituency only has 28 seats (pb in itself), Member States cannot be represented proportionally. And if more candidates from smaller States are in top positions, great! But the group system arbitrarily pushes up candidates & creates this over-representation.11/15

This leads to EU citizens from medium- and small-sizes Member States being 20, 30 or 60 times more represented than EU citizens from larger States -- and as high as 80 times for Malta. Far worse than degressive proportionality where representation "only" is 10 times higher. 12/15

Finally, while seats are allocated to each list according to its order, the group system forces #europeanparties/lists to re-order their preferred ranking of candidates. While this may be necessary to ensure diversity, it has a major and unnecessary impact on lists. 13/15

Comparing election outcomes to #europeanparties/lists' preferred ranking, we see the major impact of the group system's re-ordering. Candidates are picked far down the lists, failing to respect parties/lists' political preferences when more respectful systems exist. 14/15

In conclusion, the EP's proposal is arbitrary & highly volatile, entrenches over-representation, fails to respect #europeanparties/lists' preferences, and, above all, creates an unavoidable structural discrimination. It is damaging for our democracy & should not be adopted. 15/15