For 30 years we have been struggling with our electoral system 0 7

As is known, the "Without Parties" movement, which called for a revolution in the electoral system, effectively ceased to exist after the departure of a well-known director. However, the very idea, according to former Supreme Council deputy and ex-Minister of Defense Talavs Yundzis, is correct and timely. Lawyer and political scientist Yundzis, in an interview with the portal ogrenet.lv, spoke extremely critically about the electoral system that has existed in Latvia for the last 30 years. He also called for a political discussion on transitioning to a majoritarian system, that is, elections in single-member districts.

"The time is quite right. Moreover, such a system cannot be changed in a month or a year. But starting discussions is overdue, because we have been struggling for thirty years with, to put it mildly, a not very suitable proportional electoral system.

The time is most appropriate – we need to start discussions. I would even say that in the future, in a year, two, or three, we could reach a referendum. Only our Constitution currently does not realistically and factually allow for any referendum due to the disproportionate requirements established in it to initiate one. A referendum would be important not only for the votes 'for' or 'against'. A referendum is a school of public enlightenment – over three, four, or more months, all arguments for and against are laid out, and the people begin to understand what it is.

We have been living in a paradoxical situation for more than thirty years. When something not very flattering happens in the Saeima, journalists and politicians often say: 'it's your own fault. Who did you elect there?', as if the voter is to blame for everything.

Let's look at the situation from the voter's perspective. In the last elections to the Saeima, 19 party lists were presented to the voter. In each, there were from twenty to thirty or more candidates. Only in the Riga district, there were about six hundred people across all lists. And the voter is told — please, make the 'right choice'!

I personally tried to count how many candidates I actually know. For one party – maybe five out of eighteen, for another – one or two. In such a situation, talking about a 'right choice' is like buying a cat in a sack. To understand who these six hundred people are, I would need months to research for eight hours a day. No one does this and no one will. So the people are not to blame, but the system – it is extremely weak.

And, buying a cat in a sack, along with a good 'cat' on the list come the 'helpless kittens' – mostly people without sufficient experience in any profession or management sphere. The deputies are not to blame — the system is responsible for this. The same goes for ministers — ministers are born from the same Saeima. Many parties actually have no competent person who could be appointed as a minister, because few of them have even led a small team, and now these people are supposed to manage a sector with thousands of employees. What good can come of that? This is a problem of the system, not of the people.

Moreover, this system creates weak parties. To create a party, it is enough to find one composer, one athlete, some famous person, add dozens of unknown names – and the list is ready. Parties are often interest groups, not ideological teams. No one seems to be 'personally to blame' – that's just how the system is built.

But it cannot be said that we have not seen better elections! On March 18, 1990, elections to the Supreme Council took place. Latvia was divided into electoral districts, candidates were known, and the rules were clear. I ran in the Lielvarde, Kegums, and Birzgale electoral districts — in three small parishes. In this electoral district, there were seven candidates, and only one had the chance to be elected. For three months, all candidates met with voters — in cultural houses, libraries, on the street, at homes, in parishes. Voters knew who they were voting for. Out of 7-10 candidates, you can really choose who is genuine over three months. These were single-member districts.

I remember the words of the then-chairman of the Supreme Council Anatolijs Gorbunovs in 1993: such a quality parliament as the Supreme Council will not exist again. At that time, I did not understand what he meant. Now I understand. The proportional system is incomparable – in it, people know one popular composer or athlete, but what about the others? Parties do not need to try to form quality lists — the main thing is to find 'locomotives' that will pull the entire list.