The last general election in Spain took place on 23 July 2023. Spain, according to the Economist’s Democracy Index 2022 Report is a full democracy, one of 24 countries among the 167 countries reviewed which receives this accolade, at a time when there has been an erosion of democratic norms in many parts of the world and a resurgence of censorship and repression. We are both Spanish citizens and having observed over many years the practice of democracy in Spain have often asked ourselves to what extent are the results of elections, such as the most recent one, a reliable reflection and expression of what citizens want for their own welfare, prosperity, and general satisfaction? Having reflected on this question from several different perspectives our sense is that there is a substantial gap between the formal results of the election and the extent to which voters feel that these results reflect their best interests and create a sense of empowerment. To remedy this deficiency in future elections, we advocate for three crucial elements currently lacking from the Spanish electoral system. Furthermore, we are convinced that these elements have broader applicability, to all democratic regimes well beyond Spain, including the many “flawed” democracies identified in the Democracy Index.

1. Preserving the autonomy of elected officials

Political parties are characterized by sets of policy positions — most of them predictable — covering every issue that concerns the lives of constituents. Today, deputies in the lower chamber and senators in the upper chamber must express themselves and vote in parliament according to the doctrines and platforms of the party they represent. Tell us the party they are affiliated with, and we will tell you about their opinion on each policy issue. Even when new parties have tried to break with this model over the past decade, these parties and the political spaces in which they operate have all ended up resembling the traditional state of play they sought to reinvent, one of subservience to the values and beliefs of the party they represent.

However, in a departure from pre-constitutional practice, Article 67 of the Spanish Constitution establishes that “the members of the Cortes Generales (the Parliament, in more conventional jargon) shall not be bound by an obligatory mandate.” That is, deputies and senators are free to vote as they please and are not obliged to follow the instructions of their parties or electors. In contrast to strict party-line voting and availing themselves of the autonomy provided to them by the Constitution, the members of the Cortes Generales should vote according to their own conscience and criteria, not under the pressure of political parties or other interest groups. This is important because it opens the possibility of a richer debate within parliamentary proceedings, the emergence of new, creative solutions to complex legislative challenges and makes better use of the talents and capacities of members of parliament, who will be less rigidly constrained by sometimes outdated political party platforms.

2. Open Lists

Today’s parties are best described as factions. As such, they split and divide society, rather than uniting it across its diversity. The function and merit of a party system should be its capacity to unite an electorate across social cleavages. Divisions are inherent in society and certainly do not require further intensification by political parties.

The fact that parties have failed to play this uniting role is largely due to the electoral law. The system should be reformed and closed lists should be eliminated so that voters can elect people, rather than party brands and acronyms. There are interesting proposals on the so-called preferential vote, which would allow each voter to assign an order of preference on his or her ballot. According to some studies, this would allow a more reliable expression of the popular will and result in a more accurate distribution of seats. Even with preferential voting, however, the core issue of closed lists remains: their preparation often precipitates fierce intra-party battles between different factions and powers, who fight for prominence at the expense of other factions. 

Moreover, as demonstrated by Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem (also known as Arrow’s Paradox) which established that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide  ranking that also satisfies three “fairness” criteria, such as that if every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y: or if every voter’s preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group’s preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters’ preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change). In other words, there is no sure-fire method of designing a fair voting system that always produces consistent and logical results when voters have different preferences. In other words, no voting method can perfectly guarantee that the collective preferences of the electorate will be logically ordered.

3. Suppressing the concept of candidacy

The concept of “candidacy” is an even more problematic element than the two we have already explored. The proliferation of marketing gimmicks inherent in contemporary politics, aimed toward winning vote share, impairs the judgment and reason of constituents. It is one more way of trivializing the sacred democratic act of electing the candidate who is best equipped to govern the constituency.

… elections tend to be won by the candidates who have the best propaganda apparatus

Presently, candidacy often forces politicians to compromise their principles and values, as the common good matters little if it does not generate positive results at the polls. Parties perceive both a need and an opportunity to modify citizens’ opinions through complex methods of persuasion and manipulation. After all, what is a candidacy if not an intervention in the electoral process in order to obtain a desired result?

That is why elections tend to be won by the candidates who have the best propaganda apparatus, complete with effective advertisements and slogans, instead of the experts and wise individuals whose vocation of selfless service to society is evident in their professional careers. What we abhor in any other professional field is the norm in today’s politics: individuals who claim to be supreme authorities, individuals of elevated character and ability while denigrating the qualities of their peers. Imagine a doctor or lawyer telling his clients that he is the best in his field because he says so, and that his colleagues are utterly unfit for the job. They may believe this is the case but will generally refrain from expressing their views so candidly for fear of alienating potential patients or clients. But politicians are in the habit of doing so routinely because it is expected of them, who are generally seen by the public as being persons of inferior moral quality, often opportunities and narcissists seldom motivated by notions of service or the public good. In the United States, for instance, various polls point to the generally low regard in which politicians are held in the eyes of the public, with only 19 percent of the population thinking that, for instance, members of Congress are doing a good job. 

Psychological studies have shown the extent to which the very act of declaring one’s candidacy for elected office may corrupt and degrade the candidate, plunging them into egocentrism, arrogance, and a lack of empathy. It may make them more biased, aggressive, and disloyal to the truth, ultimately disconnecting them from reality. In extreme cases, these factors may contribute to repression, political violence and a desire to stay in office as long as possible, whatever the cost to society and the world.

Modern electoral politics are at times volatile and disheartening, but still present the truest potential for the will of the electorate to be reflected in national leadership. By incorporating the three elements explored above, Spain and other countries facing similar political challenges may obtain a brighter democratic future.