Last Sunday, the Cypriot people voted for their representatives in Parliament for the next five years. The next day brought to the fore again timeless questions about the 1979 law on the election of members of the House of Representatives.
First, why are persons elected with a minimum of preference crosses and left out others who secure multiples? And second, does the result, as it results from the law, reflect the true will of the citizens?
As for the first, an important parameter that is often confused should be clarified. Seats are secured by parties based on votes and not by candidates based on preference crosses. By extension, as the sorting of seats is done today, the number of preference crosses of a candidate is irrelevant.
In relation to the second, according to many, no, it does not reflect it. Those who are skeptical of the allocation argue that the legislation contains distortions that lead to injustices. The reality is that there has indeed been an important provision for years that challenges common sense. This text will deal with it extensively below.
Lawyer Achilleas Emilianidis comments on the electoral system in Cyprus in "F tis Kyriakis", while her opinion is submitted by Evi Tsolaki, a candidate who narrowly stayed out of Parliament this year and is concerned about the correctness of the process.
For his part, lawyer Simos Angelidis raises for discussion the possibility of electing state MPs by horizontal voting, in order to ensure that notable personalities with wide acceptance among the electorate will have a place in the House of Representatives.
The electoral law
In Cyprus, the electoral law is particularly complex, which is why, as far as possible, "F" will try to explain it in simple words.
The first distribution is made by electoral district. The important point at this stage is the electoral measure of each region. To be calculated, the total number of valid votes in the region is divided by the number of seats allocated to it (Nicosia 19, Limassol 12 and so on). That is, if in a hypothetical scenario the valid votes are 100,000 and the seats are 20, then the electoral measure is 5,000. In order for a party to secure a seat from the first distribution in each province, it will have to exceed the number of votes calculated as an electoral measure. The more times it surpasses it, the more seats it wins. If in a hypothetical example the "X" party received 34,000 votes in Nicosia with an electoral measure of 5,000, then it secures 6 seats from the first distribution. It uses 30,000 votes for these seats and the remaining 4,000 remain in the basket for the future. These 4,000 votes constitute the unused balance of the "X" party in Nicosia.
Only those parties that have exceeded 3.6% of the valid votes nationwide participate in the second distribution. At this stage, the entire territory of the Republic of Cyprus constitutes a single electoral district. All parties add up their unused balances in each constituency to get a total number. Based on the result, a priority list is created for the seats that will be allocated next. The total unused balances of all parties participating in the second allocation is divided by the number of seats available. This results in the electoral measure of the second distribution. Then, the unused balance of each party is divided by the electoral measure to calculate how many seats it is allocated from the second allocation. The process of allocating seats starts with the first party on the priority list, which has the largest unused balance. The seat is given to the constituency where the party or coalition has the highest balance, as long as there is an unallocated seat there. If not, the next region with the next highest balance is considered.
In the third distribution, the final distribution takes place and is usually the one that creates the most reactions. It is used as a final mechanism so that no chairs are left empty. Only parties with a percentage of 7.2% of valid votes or more participate in it. According to the electoral law, if there are still unallocated seats after the second distribution, then these are given one by one to the parties or coalitions with the largest unused balances from the second distribution. A priority order is again observed based on the range of unused balance of each party.
Seats end up in the wrong provinces and persons
The process of the third distribution has occupied the Supreme Court several times, with the first and most important being the decision of Zachariadis v. Liveras in 1982. This was followed by Chatzipavlou vs. Charalambidis, Kenevezou vs. Themistocleous and the latter, Konstantinou vs. Pantelidis in 2022.
In all cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the unused balances of the parties that arise after the first allocation are also used for the third distribution, in order to judge the province in which a party will take the seat. This essentially means that the votes used in the second distribution to secure a seat are not deducted from the total resulting after the first and are therefore available for the third as well.
The above certainly clashes with common sense, since part of the remaining votes should not be available in the third distribution, since it has already been used in the second.
The Parliament does not correct the distortion
Since 1979, when the electoral law was published in the official gazette of the Republic of Cyprus, a total of 41 amendments have been made, with the last one being voted last March. Despite the fact that since 1982 the Supreme Court has been issuing decisions in the logic mentioned above, the House of Representatives has not taken measures to solve an issue that everyone perceives to be problematic and leads to a distorted result.
The failure does not concern the total number of seats a party receives, but the province in which the seat is ultimately allocated. But this is not as simple as it sounds, since it can lead to a domino effect of changes. When a party gets a seat in the second allocation due to a high unused balance in a particular province, this balance is not deducted or reset for the next phase. As a result, the same pool of votes is available for the third apportionment, potentially changing the district to which the next seat will be allocated. A candidate of the same party in another province can be directly affected by this fact, who would take the seat if the balance that has already been used did not count again. He should influence someone else, and so on.
In the big picture, this provision undermines the equivalence of the vote, in the sense that a number of votes affects the final result twice.
State MPs and horizontal voting
In addition to correcting the problematic welfare recorded in this text, the Parliament could also consider broader changes that will strengthen the expression of the people's will.
Lawyer Simos Angelidis, speaking to "F", referred to the possibility of electing state MPs. In such a model, part of the MPs will be elected on a nationwide basis and will be able to be voted for by voters of all regions, without changing the electoral strength of the parties.
As Simos Angelidis explains, the election of state MPs could also be combined with horizontal voting. In practice, this would mean the creation of a pan-Cypriot list of persons from all parties, who would be included in a single state ballot. The voter could choose a person from this list, regardless of the party he voted for in his constituency.
Such an arrangement could favour the election of persons of wider acceptance by all parties. At the same time, it would respond, to some extent, to the desire of a large portion of citizens to be able to support candidates running with different party combinations.
Achilleas Emilianidis: What could be improved
LawyerAll electoral systems have weaknesses. However, the comparison between the crosses received by a candidate of a small party in a small province against the crosses received by other candidates in larger provinces, is completely inappropriate and is not due to an error of the system. In our electoral system, as in most modern systems, the vote counts for the political party and, because the system is proportional, the seats are distributed based on the percentages secured by each political party. Subsequently, the first in crosses in that party is elected. In fact, this means that the first candidate in crosses of a small party will have much fewer crosses than a candidate who was not elected by a large party. And obviously, a candidate in small provinces will have much fewer crosses than a candidate in larger provinces because there are much fewer votes available.
There are, however, other points where the electoral system could be improved: a) the minimum entry rate for the second distribution enhances the cohesion of the parliamentary parties, instead of representing more parties with 1-2 MPs. However, the reduction of e.g. to 3% could be discussed, if it seems, in practice, that it deprives parties representing a respectable percentage of the electorate from entering, b) the distribution of seats in electoral districts in the "third distribution" is based on decisions of the Supreme Court that recalculate the unused balances remaining after the first distribution. This does not affect the total seats received by the parties, but creates a distortion as to the provinces in which each party gets a seat in the third allocation, c) the way in which the enhanced proportional representation is applied after the first allocation may be subject to a more general review to avoid distribution of seats that may be extraordinary.
Evi Tsolaki: Legislation causes injustice
Candidate for parliament with DIKO in the 2026 parliamentary elections
The process has been completed and has been carried out based on Legislation. However, this Legislation seems to cause injustice and the justified reaction of both candidates and voters regarding the distribution of seats and I believe that it needs improvement.
First of all, the participation threshold in the second distribution should be changed. Furthermore, I share the view of Dr. Achilleas Emilianidis, that during the third distribution, the votes used during the second distribution should be removed and only the remaining unused balances should be utilized. Clearly, this is something that the House of Representatives should see.
However, what created for me and I imagine for other candidates a very serious concern is the fact that for a long time and with 100% of the votes counted, there was a specific distribution of seats in the Districts. As an example, I mention that on the official website of the Central Elections Service, which was automatically updated, it appeared for more than two hours that DI.KO was receiving two seats in Limassol. Obviously, this did not take into account votes and possible objections made at polling stations, which ultimately changed the distribution of seats, resulting in justified, in my opinion, reactions.
The Central Elections Service should be very careful in what it presents publicly since 100% means a total count of votes and distribution of seats based on the current Legislation.
