Diskursivní rovina sporu o volební reformu v Rumunsku v roce 2012
The Discourse Dimension of the Dispute Over the Romanian Electoral Reform in 2012

Summary/Abstract: This article deals with the argumentation between opponents and advocates of the electoral reform which was approved by the Romanian parliament in May 2012. The text discusses the validity of the arguments raised by both sides of the dispute. For this purpose, the text considers only parliamentary debates and the argumentation of the Constitutional Court. The author employs arguments from the fields of political science and law to discuss the three main areas of the dispute. These are the representativeness of the intended electoral system, the number of elected representatives, and the timing of the electoral reform. The analysis concludes that the arguments to support each of the two main forms of electoral system – majoritarian and proportional – were used correctly. However, the arguments in favour of each system sometimes omitted important disadvantages connected with that system. Although the Constitution of Romania allows wide-ranging changes to the electoral system, the omitted consequences have to be taken into consideration. The text supplements discussions on electoral engineering with a focus on the constitutionality and validity of the arguments raised during the debate. From this perspective, it is necessary to take into consideration not just the mechanical effects of the electoral system but also its possible broader impact.

• Details
• Contents