Advertisement

The Arduous Way Towards a Uniform Electoral System for the European Parliament

  • Rudolf HrbekEmail author
Chapter
Part of the European Administrative Governance book series (EAGOV)

Abstract

This chapter deals with the European Parliament’s (EP’s) initiative of November 2015 towards introducing a uniform electoral system for EP elections.

It recalls functions of elections in democratic political systems, identifies major weaknesses of previous EP elections and explains major innovations (the added value) of the new proposal (especially a more prominent role for parties at European level; greater equality of voters; institutionalisation of the ‘Spitzenkandidaten’ procedure).

Finally, it discusses the chances for a successful implementation of new rules for the 2019 elections and concludes with a pessimistic outlook.

References

  1. Costa, O. (2016). The History of European Electoral Reform and the Electoral Act 1976: Issues of Democratisation and Political Legitimacy. European Parliament History Series, European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussels, October.Google Scholar
  2. Donatelli, L. (2015). A Pan-European District for the European Elections? The Rise and Fall of the Duff Proposal for the Electoral Reform of the European Parliament. Published as No. 44/2015 in the Series ‘Bruges Political Research Papers’.Google Scholar
  3. European Parliament. (2015a). Debate on the Reform of the Electoral Law of the EU (Debate), October 27. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20151027&secondRef=ITEM-016&language=DE&ring=A8-2015-0286.
  4. European Parliament. (2015b). European Parliament Resolution of 11 November 2015 on the Reform of the Electoral Law of the European Union (2015/2035(INL)).Google Scholar
  5. Federal Constitutional Court (Germany). (2011). Judgement of the Second Senate of 9 November 2011–2 BvC 4/10 – Rn. (1–160).Google Scholar
  6. Federal Constitutional Court (Germany). (2014). Judgment of the Second Senate of 26 February 2014 – 2 BvE 2/13 – paras. (1–30).Google Scholar
  7. Haug, V. M. (2014). Muss wirklich jeder ins Europäische Parlament? Kritische Anmerkungen zur Sperrklausel-Rechtsprechung aus Karlsruhe. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen, 2, 467–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hrbek, R. (2011). Europawahlen als “Second-Order National Elections”? Ein Paradigma im Licht der Europawahlen 2004 und 2009. In J. Mittag (Ed.), 30 Jahre Direktwahlen zum Europäischen Parlament (1979–2009): Europawahlen und EP in der Analyse (pp. 63–79). Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hrbek, R. (2013). Deutsche Europawahlen künftig ohne Sperrklausel? Das Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom November 2011 und seine Folgen. Integration, 4, 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kalcik, R., & Wolff, G. B. (2017). Is Brexit an Opportunity to Reform the European Parliament? Bruegel Policy Contribution, Issue no. 2/2017.Google Scholar
  11. Maurer, A. (2016). Europäisches Parlament. In W. Weidenfeld & W. Wessels (Eds.), Jahrbuch der Europäischen Integration 2016 (pp. 69–80). Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mittag, J. (Ed.). (2006). Politische Parteien und europäische Integration. Perspektiven transnationaler Parteienkooperation in Europa. Essen: Klartext.Google Scholar
  13. Mittag, J., & Steuwer, J. (2010). Politische Parteien in der EU, Wien.Google Scholar
  14. Nogaj, M., & Poptcheva, E.-M. (2015). The Reform of the Electoral Law of the European Union. European Added Value Assessment Accompanying the Legislative Own-Initiative Report (Co-Rapporteurs Hübner, D./Leinen, J.)’, September 2015, European Parliamentary Research Service (PE 558.775).Google Scholar
  15. Official Journal of the European Communities. (1976). Decision of the representatives of the Member States meeting in the Council relating to the Act concerning the election of the representatives of the Assembly by direct universal suffrage, 8 October 1976, L 278.Google Scholar
  16. Official Journal of the European Union. (2002). Council Decision of 25 June 2002 and 23 September 2002 Amending the Act Concerning the Election of the Representatives of the European Parliament by Direct Universal Suffrage, Annexed to Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom, L 283, 21 October 2002.Google Scholar
  17. Official Journal of the European Union. (2003). Regulation (EC) No. 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Regulations Governing Political Parties at European level and the Rules Regarding Their Funding, 4 November 2003, OJ L 297, 15.11.2003, 1.Google Scholar
  18. Official Journal of the European Union. (2007). Regulation (EC) No. 1524/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Regulations Governing Political Parties at European Level and the Rules Regarding Their Funding, 18 December 2007 Amending Regulation (EC), No 2004/2003, L 343/5.Google Scholar
  19. Official Journal of the European Union. (2014). Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No. 1141/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, 22 October 2014 on the Statute and Funding of European Political Parties and European Political Foundations, L317/1.Google Scholar
  20. Ouest France. (2017). Sorbonne Speech of Emmanuel Macron, September 26. Retrieved 26 April 2018, from http://international.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2017/09/29/macron-sorbonne-verbatim-europe-18583.html.
  21. Reif, K., & Schmitt, H. (1980). Nine Second-Order National Elections. A Conceptual Framework for the Analysis of European Elections Results. European Journal of Political Research, 1(8), 3–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Report on the composition of the European Parliament (2017/2054(INL) – 2017/0900(NLE)), 26 January 2018.Google Scholar
  23. Schmitt, H. (2005). The European Parliament Elections of June 2004: Still Second-Order? WEP, 3(2005), 650–679.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TübingenTübingenGermany
  2. 2.College of EuropeBrugesBelgium

Personalised recommendations