The news electoral law and the Constitution: political scientists regard

Political scientists regard the goals of the system and the disproportion of votes and mandates as the main criterion to distinguish the electoral systems of majority vote and proportional vote. According to different definitions, the new electoral system, introduced by the new electoral law for the lower chamber can be considered a relative majority system as apposed to a pure proportional system. The new electoral system for the lower chamber must therefore clearly be qualified as a majority system. This is why those provisions of the law 204/2000 on parliamentary elections concerning the electoral system, contradict article 18 paragraph 1 of the constitution, that provides for elections for the lower chamber to be held “according to the principle of proportional vote.” The law 204/2000 on parliamentary elections introduces a principle revision of the electoral law, which would be permissible only through constitutional amendment. The combined electoral law (proportional system for the lower chamber and majority system for the senate) as stated in article 18 of the Constitution, is an important pillar of the constitutional design. Bereft of this distinction, the purpose of a two-chamber-system of Parliament would be undermined. Article 18, which provides for the combined electoral law, must therefore be interpreted strictly. A change of article 18 would also contradict article 9 paragraph 2 of the Constitution which prohibits an amendment of basic elements of the democratic constitutional state. Due to the enormous disproportion of votes and mandats as well as the margin of 20 percent for the coalition of four parties, the new electoral law contradicts article 5, stating that the political system is based on the “free competition of political parties”, and article 6, stating that with their decisions, the majority must take into account the protection of the minority.