Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Handlingskraftiga regeringar eller proportionell representation? - En undersökning av riksdagsspärrar i de skandinaviska länderna

Liljeblad, Ebba LU (2023) LAGF03 20231
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats analyserar parlamentariska spärregler i svensk, norsk och dansk rätt. Analysen omfattar de olika spärreglerna i gällande rätt, hur spärrarna tillkommit och legitimerats i förarbeten, samt vilka parlamentariska kon-sekvenser spärrarna har genererat. Sverige, Danmark och Norge har alla olika spärregler. Sverige och Norge har högst procentuell spärr på fyra procent. Den norska spärren omfattar dock endast en viss del av mandaten, då endast utjämningsmandaten omfattas. Den danska spärren omfattar också bara utjämningsmandaten men den procentuella spärren är lägre, då endast två procent av rösterna krävs för ett utjämningsmandat. I alla skandinaviska länder har spärrarna legitimerats som ett nödvändigt skydd mot politisk... (More)
Denna uppsats analyserar parlamentariska spärregler i svensk, norsk och dansk rätt. Analysen omfattar de olika spärreglerna i gällande rätt, hur spärrarna tillkommit och legitimerats i förarbeten, samt vilka parlamentariska kon-sekvenser spärrarna har genererat. Sverige, Danmark och Norge har alla olika spärregler. Sverige och Norge har högst procentuell spärr på fyra procent. Den norska spärren omfattar dock endast en viss del av mandaten, då endast utjämningsmandaten omfattas. Den danska spärren omfattar också bara utjämningsmandaten men den procentuella spärren är lägre, då endast två procent av rösterna krävs för ett utjämningsmandat. I alla skandinaviska länder har spärrarna legitimerats som ett nödvändigt skydd mot politisk fragmentering, samt som en garant för handlingskraftiga regeringar. Oppositionspartier och remissinstanser har dock framfört kritik mot spärreglerna då reglerna har ansetts odemokratiska och att de sätter proportionell representation ur spel.

Det finns alltså flera överväganden som måste göras vid val av riksdagsspärr. Förespråkare för höga spärrar brukar framföra politikens effektivitet och handlingskraftighet som det främsta argumentet. De parlamentariska dödlägena som befaras vid lägre spärrar kan motverkas av högre spärrar. Med höga spärrar påverkas dock grunden för demokratin när en stor del av befolkningens röster riskerar bli bortkastade. Höga spärrar kan även skapa legitimitetsproblem och misstro hos de väljare som konsekvent förlorar val. När för många känner sig bortkopplade från det politiska systemet ökar risken för att grupperingar ska få för sig att överkasta systemet. Med lägre spärrar blir där-emot fler representerade, vilket kan öka valdeltagandet och känslan av tillhörighet. Dock kan extremistiska partier få en större plattform, vilket riskerar underminera det demokratiska statsskicket om inte tillräckliga skyddsregler finns implementerade.

Med en höjd riksdagsspärr hade Sverige kunnat komma i strid med internationella åtaganden. För de stater som har ratificerat EKMR finns enligt Europadomstolen dock en bedömningsmarginal för staterna när det kommer till spärregler. Spärren hade därmed kunnat höjas om skälen för det är legitima. (Less)
Abstract
This thesis analyses electoral thresholds in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The analysis includes the different thresholds in existing law, how the thresholds came to be and how they were legitimized in the legislative procedure, as well as which parliamentary consequences the thresholds have produced. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all have different thresholds. Sweden and Norway have the highest percentual threshold at four per cent. However, the Norwegian threshold only covers the compensatory mandates. The Danish threshold also only covers the compensatory mandates, but the percentual threshold is lower as only two per cent is needed for a compensatory mandate. In all Scandinavian countries, the thresholds have been legitimized as a... (More)
This thesis analyses electoral thresholds in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The analysis includes the different thresholds in existing law, how the thresholds came to be and how they were legitimized in the legislative procedure, as well as which parliamentary consequences the thresholds have produced. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all have different thresholds. Sweden and Norway have the highest percentual threshold at four per cent. However, the Norwegian threshold only covers the compensatory mandates. The Danish threshold also only covers the compensatory mandates, but the percentual threshold is lower as only two per cent is needed for a compensatory mandate. In all Scandinavian countries, the thresholds have been legitimized as a necessary protection against political fragmentation and as a guarantee for capable governments. However, opposition parties and referral bodies have criticized the thresholds for being undemocratic and that the thresholds jeopardize proportional representation.

Hence, there are many considerations when choosing an electoral threshold. Advocates for high thresholds usually say that high thresholds are optimal for political efficiency and actionable governments. The risk for parliamentary deadlocks associated with lower thresholds can be counteracted with higher thresholds. However, high thresholds affect the foundation of democracy when a big part of the population votes can be wasted. Moreover, high thresholds can create legitimacy issues and mistrust among the voters who consistently lose elections. When too many voters feel disconnected from the political system, the risk that groups of losing voters want to overthrow the systems increases. With lower thresholds more votes are represented, which can increase electoral participation and the feeling of belonging. Though this can lead to a platform for extremist parties, which can undermine the democratic government if there are not sufficient constitutional safeguards.

If Sweden was to increase its electoral threshold, Sweden could potentially come into conflict with its international obligations. However, for the states which have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights there is a margin of appreciation when it comes to electoral thresholds, according to the European Court of Human Rights. If the reasons for it are legitimate, the threshold could be raised. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Liljeblad, Ebba LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20231
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
statsrätt, komparativ rätt
language
Swedish
id
9116580
date added to LUP
2023-06-29 13:13:42
date last changed
2023-06-29 13:13:42
@misc{9116580,
  abstract     = {{This thesis analyses electoral thresholds in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. The analysis includes the different thresholds in existing law, how the thresholds came to be and how they were legitimized in the legislative procedure, as well as which parliamentary consequences the thresholds have produced. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark all have different thresholds. Sweden and Norway have the highest percentual threshold at four per cent. However, the Norwegian threshold only covers the compensatory mandates. The Danish threshold also only covers the compensatory mandates, but the percentual threshold is lower as only two per cent is needed for a compensatory mandate. In all Scandinavian countries, the thresholds have been legitimized as a necessary protection against political fragmentation and as a guarantee for capable governments. However, opposition parties and referral bodies have criticized the thresholds for being undemocratic and that the thresholds jeopardize proportional representation. 

Hence, there are many considerations when choosing an electoral threshold. Advocates for high thresholds usually say that high thresholds are optimal for political efficiency and actionable governments. The risk for parliamentary deadlocks associated with lower thresholds can be counteracted with higher thresholds. However, high thresholds affect the foundation of democracy when a big part of the population votes can be wasted. Moreover, high thresholds can create legitimacy issues and mistrust among the voters who consistently lose elections. When too many voters feel disconnected from the political system, the risk that groups of losing voters want to overthrow the systems increases. With lower thresholds more votes are represented, which can increase electoral participation and the feeling of belonging. Though this can lead to a platform for extremist parties, which can undermine the democratic government if there are not sufficient constitutional safeguards. 

If Sweden was to increase its electoral threshold, Sweden could potentially come into conflict with its international obligations. However, for the states which have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights there is a margin of appreciation when it comes to electoral thresholds, according to the European Court of Human Rights. If the reasons for it are legitimate, the threshold could be raised.}},
  author       = {{Liljeblad, Ebba}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Handlingskraftiga regeringar eller proportionell representation? - En undersökning av riksdagsspärrar i de skandinaviska länderna}},
  year         = {{2023}},
}