By Antonis Anzoletou

The issue of changing the electoral law is a permanent subject of debate in the wells of the Parliament and among party leaders. It will be promoted by Kyriakos Mitsotakis; This is the question of many blue MPs who know well that the prime minister does not change what he says. It is recalled that he appeared reassuring, arguing that in three years the landscape will not be the same and the government will gather its forces. Government officials are exaggerating by turning back the clock to the 2023 elections with New Democracy reaching 40.5% after four years in power. He moves on another wavelength Adonis Georgiadis who calls for a change in the electoral law, as he emphasizes that he does not believe in cooperative governments. Pavlos Marinakis, while briefing the political editors, insists on the Prime Minister’s line that there is no intention to change the system to a more majority one.

Today there is a bonus for the first party of 20 seats when it reaches 25%. For every additional 0.5% he will receive one more seat and for the upper limit of 50 seats the percentage needs to reach 40%. It is clear that self-reliance is directly dependent on the smaller parties that do not manage to pass 3% and enter the Parliament.

The dominant scenario for a change in the electoral system, which is not confirmed by any government circle, is to increase the threshold that a party needs to get a ticket to the Parliament. The rise of the elbow is calculated in one or two units. It is a fact that since smaller parties find it difficult to enter the Parliament, the goal of self-reliance for the first formation is facilitated. At the same time, the possibility is not given to opportunistic and often far-right – anti-systemic forces that “ride” in the most populist way a wave of society’s anger to become gigantic through their representation in the Parliament. Although in several cases they are “undressed” by their continuous exposure presenting a lack of arguments or an inability to remain a composed group.

According to the other point of view, if the threshold is increased to 4% or 5%, this can work as a rallying point for the smaller parties. When the tide changes it is normal for the voters to adapt to the climate of polarization that will be caused against the government. The “narrative” that the majority is trying to limit pluralism in the Parliament will be heard in many layers of society. If in the previous elections the threshold had been at 4%, Victory and Freedom Sailing would not have had representation with the Plenary being made up of six parties. At the same time, New Democracy would have an increased majority compared to the 158 seats it received 14 months ago. Ideas on how the majority of the system could be strengthened have fallen on the table, but they are all just scenarios. Many argue that the fairest measure that should be introduced in the electoral law is that the bonus that the first party gets depends on the difference it has with the second.