The simple proportional system is presented as the fairest electoral system, and in contrast to it, any other system is considered as a deduction and a compromise. That is, even its critics consider it to be an ideal system, which we, for various reasons related to strict management requirements, are forced to modify.

But why is it considered perfect? Because he is considered the most representative. But what does more representative mean? This means that all seats in parliament are equal, since they correspond to the same number of votes. Thus, the parliament becomes in miniature an exact copy of the people who elected it, and in this sense ideally representative. But is it really so?

The requirement for exact representation, which simple proportionality must ensure, is inspired by direct democracy and is consistent with indirect representation. Ideally, in order to have absolutely fair representation, every citizen should have a representative. In this case, of course, the citizens would be divided in two, half would be representatives of the other half, and apart from the other issues raised, we would not have solved the basic problem that led to the replacement of direct democracy by representative democracy. democracy, namely the mass problem. Thus, we must select a few representatives who represent the many. However, many are not the entire population of the country. These are the ones who have the right to vote. Those who have the right to vote are divided into constituencies. The demarcation of districts matters and can be relatively arbitrary. Thus, in the 2023 elections, an MP in Athens A will represent approximately 35,000 citizens, in Samos 49,000, and in Lefkada 28,000. But this analogy is also theoretical. In reality, far fewer of those registered will make it to the ballot box, unevenly across districts, so again MPs will not represent the same number of voters. In addition, deputies are elected through their parties and are elected inter-party. There is also a second distribution. All this means that in parliament there will be deputies of simple proportionality with a large number of votes and deputies with a very small number.

But does ideal representation also require that Parliament be as accurate a reflection of society as possible? Would the simple proportionality of women in parliament, then, bring them into a proportion corresponding to that which they have in the population and in the electorate, where they form the majority? Will lawyers, doctors and engineers shrink in favor of other professional groups? I don’t think.

Above, I want to say that the ideal representation is not something simple and self-evident. It depends on how we define it, on our goals, on the elements we choose to characterize it. Even a simple analogy cannot accurately single out the congestion of society in Parliament. And this happens not because we are imperfect and do not achieve the ideal, but because we have certain principles, many goals and concerns. We want, for example, proportional representation, but we don’t want to turn the whole country into a territory, because this has undesirable consequences. We want small population groups to be represented in parliament (eg Thracian Muslims or the LGBTI community), but we don’t want criminals to be represented. We want women to be represented, but we don’t want women to be their representatives. After all, the deputies, as stated in the Constitution, do not represent and are not the mouthpieces or proxies of specific groups, but “represent the nation”, a being-subject. The parliament is representative, but also a legislative and auditing body, and ensures the stability of the government. All of this and more make up the goals and principles that characterize the ideal performance we want. I am not saying that those who support simple analogies do not share them. I say that they forget about them when they project as an ideal representation only a numerical datum, which in itself is not ideal. After all, if this were enough, then it could be argued that the sample of the population, selected in a “scientific” way, i.e. sociologists, will be more representative of the population than a body of representatives created by elections with simple proportional representation. But we do not even think about it, because we want the people’s will to be expressed through elections.

Ms. Vaso Kinti is Professor of Philosophy at EKPA.