INU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 12: MFU spm. om, hvilke krav der stilles i hvert af de 27 EU-lande for, at et parti eller en bevægelse kan blive opstillingsberettiget til et Europaparlamentsvalg

Indenrigsudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
INU Alm.del
Offentligt

Electoral systems

and outcomes

The European

Elections of

May 2019

STUDY

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Kai Friederike Oelbermann

and

Friedrich Pukelsheim

PE 652.037 – July 2020

INU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 12: MFU spm. om, hvilke krav der stilles i hvert af de 27 EU-lande for, at et parti eller en bevægelse kan blive opstillingsberettiget til et Europaparlamentsvalg INU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Endeligt svar på spørgsmål 12: MFU spm. om, hvilke krav der stilles i hvert af de 27 EU-lande for, at et parti eller en bevægelse kan blive opstillingsberettiget til et Europaparlamentsvalg

The European Elections

of May 2019

Electoral systems and outcomes

This EPRS study provides an overview of the electoral systems and outcomes in

the May 2019 elections to the European Parliament. It analyses the procedural

details of how parties and candidates register their participation, how votes are

cast, how valid votes are converted into seats, and how seats are assigned to

candidates. For each Member State the paper describes the ballot structure and

vote pattern used, the apportionment of seats among the Member State’s

domestic parties, and the assignment of the seats of a party to its candidates. It

highlights aspects that are common to all Member States and captures

peculiarities that are specific to some domestic provisions.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

AUTHOR(S)

This study has been written by Kai-Friederike Oelbermann (Anhalt University of Applied Sciences) and

Friedrich Pukelsheim (University of Augsburg) at the request of the Members’ Research Service, within the

Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS) of the Secretariat of the European Parliament.

The authors acknowledge the useful comments made by Wilhelm Lehmann (European Parliament/European

University Institute) on drafts of this paper.

PUBLISHER

Members' Research Service, Directorate-General for Parliamentary Research Services (EPRS)

To contact the publisher, please e-mail

[email protected]

LINGUISTIC VERSIONS

Original: EN

Manuscript finalised in June 2020.

DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT

This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament as

background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole

responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official

position of the Parliament.

Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is

acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.

Brussels © European Union, 2020.

PE 652.037

ISBN: 978-92-846-6956-1

DOI:10.2861/129510

QA-04-20-445-EN-N

[email protected]

htto://www.eprs.ep.parl.union.eu (intranet)

htto://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank (internet)

htto://epthinktank.eu (blog)

The European Elections of May 2019

Executive summary

In this study, the European Parliament (EP) elections of May 2019 are analysed with a

particular emphasis on procedural electoral rules: on how votes are cast, how seats are

distributed among the different political parties and how they are distributed afterwards

within the different electoral lists to determine the elected candidates. Ballot structure and

vote pattern, the apportionment of seats among domestic parties, and the assignment of

the seats of a party to its candidates are discussed in detail, separately for every Member

State of the European Union.

Section 2 divides the conversion of votes into seats into three phases: (1) the allocation of

all seats between the Member States; (2) the apportionment of the seat contingent of a

Member State among its domestic parties; and (3) the assignment of the seats of a domestic

party to its candidates. The situations before and after the withdrawal of the United

Kingdom from the European Union are treated, with a total of 751 and 705 EP seats

respectively. For the apportionment of seats among parties, nine different methods were

used at the elections; they are reviewed in a unified manner. The voting patterns in the

Member States comprised various list systems and single transferable vote schemes. The

voting patterns are detailed and labelled in a way that is indicative of how they actually

determine successful candidates. Table 2.3.1 puts together some of the structural data;

Table 2.4.1 shows the Political Groups that formed in the new EP.

Section 3 present pertinent data from the 2019 elections separately for every Member State,

such as number of constituencies or electoral districts, vote pattern, electoral threshold,

parties who participate in the apportionment process, and vote counts that enter into the

calculations. The transition from the parties’ votes to their seats and from the seats of a party

to its successful candidates is followed up so as to identify incumbent Members of the EPs.

Section 4 provides an attempt to see the 2019 elections from a Union-wide perspective. The

actual size of a political group in the EP is compared with the hypothetical number of seats

the group would have been apportioned on the basis of its electoral support. The electoral

support of a group is obtained by summing up the votes of all domestic parties who joined

it. The emerging discrepancies emphasise yet again the political challenges evolving from

trying to raise the implementation of common principles to a higher level at future

European elections.

Section 5 concludes with a brief 'contextualisation' to the history and political impact of the

electoral reform. Important work in electoral-systems research suggests that further

harmonisation of the current system of quasi-national elections analysed in this study will

remain an essential ambition for European decision-makers if they wish to make the

European elections a more effective instrument of Union-wide democratic legitimation.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Table of contents

1. Introduction ______________________________________________________ 1

2. From votes to seats, and from seats to MEPs ____________________________ 3

2.1. Allocation of seats between Member States _____________________________________ 3

2.2. Apportionment of seats among parties _________________________________________ 4

2.3. Assignment of seats to candidates_____________________________________________ 7

2.4. Political Groups in the new European Parliament _________________________________ 9

3. The 2019 elections, by Member State_________________________________ 10

3.1. AT – Republic of Austria ____________________________________________________ 10

3.2. BE – Kingdom of Belgium ___________________________________________________ 12

3.3. BG – Republic of Bulgaria ___________________________________________________ 15

3.4. CY – Republic of Cyprus ____________________________________________________ 17

3.5. CZ – Czech Republic _______________________________________________________ 18

3.6. DE – Federal Republic of Germany____________________________________________ 20

3.7. DK – Kingdom of Denmark __________________________________________________ 22

3.8. EE – Republic of Estonia ____________________________________________________ 24

3.9. EL – Hellenic Republic______________________________________________________ 25

3.10. ES – Kingdom of Spain ____________________________________________________ 27

3.11. FI – Republic of Finland ___________________________________________________ 29

3.12. FR – French Republic _____________________________________________________ 30

3.13. HR – Republic of Croatia ___________________________________________________ 32

3.14. HU – Hungary ___________________________________________________________ 34

3.15. IE – Ireland______________________________________________________________ 35

3.16. IT – Italian Republic_______________________________________________________ 38

3.17. LT – Republic of Lithuania _________________________________________________ 42

3.18. LU – Grand Duchy of Luxembourg___________________________________________ 43

3.19. LV – Republic of Latvia ____________________________________________________ 44

3.20. MT – Republic of Malta ____________________________________________________ 45

3.21. NL – Kingdom of the Netherlands ___________________________________________ 46

3.22. PL – Republic of Poland ___________________________________________________ 49

3.23. PT – Portuguese Republic__________________________________________________ 52

3.24. RO – Romania ___________________________________________________________ 53

3.25. SE – Kingdom of Sweden __________________________________________________ 54

3.26. SI – Republic of Slovenia___________________________________________________ 56

3.27. SK – Slovak Republic ______________________________________________________ 58

3.28. UK – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland_______________________ 60

4. Citizens and representatives from a Union-wide viewpoint _______________

5. Conclusion ______________________________________________________

6. References ______________________________________________________

7. Appendix: Acronyms, country codes, party tabs, links ___________________

The European Elections of May 2019

1. Introduction

The ninth European Parliament (EP), with a five-year term from 2019 to 2024 was elected on

23-26 May 2019. This study is devoted to the electoral procedures leading from votes to

parliamentary seats, and from seats to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Our focus is on

procedural standards implemented by the Member States of the European Union (EU) at the 2019

elections, rather than on the political consequences of the elections as such.

The heterogeneity of electoral regulations is formidable and perplexing.

The common principles

which the 2019 elections had to follow are laid down in the 1976 European Election Act. This decrees

a number of general rules to be observed by all Member States, such as to adopt a proportional

representation system, while leaving much leeway for each Member State when incorporating the

common principles into its domestic provisions. Duff (2011) reviews the history of the Election Act

and includes a consolidated version of the 1976 Election Act amended by the 2002 act.

Below we compile data on procedures, voters, parties, candidates and MEPs, with as much of a

unified structure and terminology as possible, in an attempt to survey the paths from voters to MEPs

in comparative perspective between Member States.

Member States are discussed in the

alphabetical order of their two-letter codes because the latter are language-independent.

Section 2 sets out with an overview of general aspects of how seats are allocated between Member

States (Section 2.1), how seats are apportioned among parties (Section 2.2), and how seats are

assigned to candidates (Section 2.3). As political work in the EP is carried out by a few Political

Groups rather than by the plethora of the political parties of the Member States, Section 2.4 lists the

Political Groups in the EP, at the time of the constitution of the new Parliament on 2 July 2019.

Incorporation of the Political Groups enables a united view of the otherwise diverse elections, true

to the Union's motto of 'United in diversity'.

We would like to thank Lorenzo Cicchi (Firenze), Svante Janson (Stockholm), Dragana Kopčić (Ljubljana) and officials

from the EP´s information offices in the Member States for valuable help. – All calculations in this paper were carried

out using the software

BAZI – Calculation of Allocations by Apportionment Methods in the Internet

which is freely

available at

www.th-rosenheim.de/bazi.

A compact synopsis is Giulio Sabbati, Gianluca Sgueo and Alina Dobreva (2019): 2019 European elections: National

rules. At a Glance Infographic. European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 623.556. For general analyses see, e.g.,

Donatella M. Viola (Editor) (2016):

Routledge Handbook of European Elections, With a Foreword by J.H.H. Weiler,

Routledge, London. For a specific analysis of the 2019 elections see, e.g., Rudolf Hrbek (2019): Europawahl 2019: neue

politische Konstellationen für die Wahlperiode 2019–2024,

Integration – Vierteljahreszeitschrift des Instituts für

Europäische Politik in Zusammenarbeit mit dem Arbeitskreis Europäische Integration

42, 167–186.

Andrew Duff (2011): Report (A7-0176/2011, 28.7.2011) on a Proposal for a Modification of the Act Concerning the

Election of the Members of the European Parliament by Direct Universal Suffrage of 20 September 1976

(2009/2134(INI)). Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the European Parliament, PE 440.210v04-00. See also Edward

Whitfield (2015): 40

Anniversary of the 1976 Act on Direct Elections to the European Parliament, European

Parliamentary Research Service Historical Archive Unit, PE 563.513. Olivier Costa (2016): The history of European

electoral reform and the Electoral Act 1976, Issues of democratisation and political legitimacy, Study, European

Parliamentary Research Service Historical Archive Unit, PE 563.516, and Silvia Kotanidis (2019): European Union

electoral law. Current situation and historical background. European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 642.250.

Similar material for the 2014 elections is provided by Wilhelm Lehmann (2014): The European elections: EU legislation,

national provisions and civic participation, Study for the AFCO Committee, Revised edition, European Parliament, PE

493.047, and Luciano Bardi and Lorenzo Cicchi (2015): Electoral rules and electoral participation in the European

elections: the ballot format and structure. Study for the AFCO Committee, European Parliament, PE 536.464.

See the appendix for a table listing two-letter code, short name and official name of each Member State.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Section 3 is the data section. For every Member State we present some descriptive data, the

transition from votes to seats, and the assignment of seats to candidates (Section 3.1–3.28).

Section 4 adjoins a hypothetical assessment how the Union-wide votes that are accumulated by the

Political Groups relate to the Union-wide seats with which the Political Groups finished under the

current Election Act.

Section 5 concludes the study, which has its focus on quantitative aspects, with some remarks of a

more qualitative nature.

References are compiled in Section 6. Acronyms, country codes, party tabs and source links are listed

in an appendix (Section 7).

As a supplement to this study we generated the site

www.uni-augsburg.de/bazi/EP2019Ballots.html

which exhibits facsimiles of ballot sheets, ballot papers, ballot booklets, and ballot interfaces from

the 2019 elections. The variety of designs illustrates the challenge of achieving a broader alignment

of electoral procedures at future EP elections.

For surveys of past elections see Kai-Friederike Oelbermann and Friedrich Pukelsheim (2015): European elections

2014: From voters to representatives, in twenty-eight ways.

Evropská volební studia – European Electoral Studies

10, 91–

124, and Kai-Friederike Oelbermann, Antonio Palomares and Friedrich Pukelsheim (2010): The 2009 European

Parliament elections: From votes to seats in 27 ways.

Evropská volební studia – European Electoral Studies 5,

148–182.

Erratum,

ibidem

6 (2011) 85.

The European Elections of May 2019

2. From votes to seats, and from seats to MEPs

The Treaty on European Union stipulates that the EP shall be composed of representatives of the

Union's citizens and that representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional (Article 14(2)).

The passage from citizens to representatives may be divided into three phases:

−

the allocation of all EP seats between the Member States (Section 2.1),

the apportionment of the seat contingent of a Member State among its

domestic parties (Section 2.2), and

the assignment of the seats of a party to its candidates (Section 2.3).

The phases include many particulars specified by domestic provisions in terms and wordings to

which the particular Member State is accustomed. The following review merges these diverse

formulations into a uniform terminology, in order to prepare for a comparative presentation of the

electoral systems of the Member States in Section 3.

2.1. Allocation of seats between Member States

The composition of the ninth EP – i.e. the allocation of all seats between the Union's Member States

on the basis of population figures – was troubled by two issues.

The first problem originated from primary law's stipulation that the Union's citizens shall be

represented degressively. This very sensitive question had been a recurrent theme on the political

agenda.

Since the composition of the previous eighth EP had failed to achieve degressive repre-

sentation fully, some action was deemed necessary to rectify the deficiency in the ninth EP.

The second question was what to do following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU at

which point in time the seventy-three UK seats would fall vacant.

The negotiated solution was a compromise addressing both issues.

Up until the withdrawal of the

UK from the EU, the ninth EP would carry on with the composition of the previous eighth EP,

notwithstanding its non-degressivity. Upon the UK's withdrawal, twenty-seven of the vacated UK

seats would be employed to achieve full degressivity, by raising the seat contingents of some

Member States and maintaining the status quo for the others.

The Member States whose seat contingents increase are ES and FR (each by five seats), IT and

NL (three), IE (two), and AT, DK, EE, FI, HR, PL, RO, SE and SK (one). The increments are visualised by

explicit plus-signs '+' in Table 2.3.1 and Section 3.

See, e.g., Geoffrey Grimmett, Jean-François Laslier, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Victoriano Ramírez González, Richard Rose,

Wojciech Słomczyński, Martin Zachariasen and Karol Życzkowski (2011): The Allocation Between the EU Member

States of the Seats in the European Parliament – Cambridge Compromise. Note. European Parliament, Directorate-

General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, PE 432.760, and Geoffrey

Grimmett, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Victoriano Ramírez González, Wojciech Słomczyński and Karol Życzkowski (2017):

The Composition of the European Parliament. Workshop 30 January 2017. Compilation: Two briefings and one in-

depth analysis. European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights

and Constitutional Affairs, PE 583.117.

See Friedrich Pukelsheim and Geoffrey Grimmett (2018): Degressive representation of Member States in the European

Parliament 2019–2024.

Representation – Journal of Representative Democracy

54, 147–158.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

2.2. Apportionment of seats among parties

Article 1 of the 2002 Election Act reads as follows: 'In each Member State, members of the European

Parliament shall be elected on the basis of proportional representation, using the list system or the

single transferable vote.' The current section specifies the arithmetical procedures decreed by the

Member States in order to realise the proportional representation imperative. Section 2.3 describes

the list systems and single transferable vote (STV) schemes used in greater detail, together with their

accompanying vote patterns.

Proportional representation systems often set an electoral threshold, i.e. a minimum number of

votes a party must get in order to participate in the seat apportionment process. Eleven Member

States refrain from imposing an electoral threshold (BE, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, IE, LU, MT, PT, UK).

When a threshold is set, it is usually defined as a percentage relative to the total number of valid

votes. Occasionally, the percentage is referred to the total number of votes cast, i.e. the sum of valid

votes plus blank votes (where applicable) plus invalid votes. Article 3 of the 2002 Election Act states

that the threshold may not exceed five per cent of votes cast.

Thirteen Member States define the threshold to be a percentage of valid votes (AT 4%, CY 1.8%,

CZ 5%, EL 3%, FR 5%, HR 5%, HU 5%, IT 4%, PL 5%, RO 5%, SE 4%, SI 4%, SK 5%). Two Member States

refer the percentages to the number of votes cast (LT 5%, LV 5%). Two Member States (NL, BG) set a

quorum threshold. For NL the quorum amounts to 3.8% of votes cast. For BG the quorum reaches

5.9% of votes cast and exceeds the five per cent ceiling of the Election Act.

In this study a party passing the electoral threshold is called an apportionment party. In other words

the apportionment parties are the parties that participate in the seat apportionment process. A valid

vote that is cast for one of the apportionment parties is called an effective vote. Conversely, an

ineffective vote is a vote which, although valid, has no role to play in the apportionment calculations;

ineffective votes are neglected hereinafter.

Apportionment parties and effective votes by Member State are documented in Section 3. Party

names are abbreviated by the party tabs which appear on the internet site

election-results.eu

and

which are reproduced in the appendix (Section 7).

The apportionment of seats among (apportionment) parties proportionally to (effective) votes is

accomplished by procedures called apportionment methods. Their history of more than two

centuries has provided an abundant supply of procedures.

This abundance is reflected not only by

the diversity of methods implemented by the Member States, but also by the diverse descriptions

with which one and the same method is specified in different domestic provisions.

For the purpose of comparability we present the apportionment methods in a unified fashion.

In short, every apportionment method operates in two steps. In the first step a party’s vote count is

scaled down to obtain an interim quotient, by dividing the vote counts of all parties by a common

electoral key. In the second step the interim quotient is turned into the seat number sought, by

rounding the quotient to a neighbouring whole number.

Either step may be instrumental to ensure that the number of seats handed out becomes exactly

equal to the number of seats available. The distinct role played by the two steps is the key to a

classification of apportionment methods into two groups, divisor methods and quota methods.

See, e.g., Friedrich Pukelsheim (2017):

Proportional Representation – Apportionment Methods and Their Applications,

With a foreword by Andrew Duff MEP, Second Edition,

Springer International Publishing AG, Cham (CH).

The European Elections of May 2019

A divisor method applies a fixed rounding rule in the second step and, in order to reach the targeted

seat total, invokes flexible electoral keys in the first step. Jargon refers to a flexible electoral key as a

divisor, which is why the methods are called divisor methods. From the ensemble of all flexible

divisors that reach the targeted seat total we quote in every instance a select divisor which has as

many trailing zeros as possible.

Three divisor methods were used at the 2019 elections and will make an appearance in Section 3:

DivDwn

Divisor method with downward rounding (AT, BE, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, LU, NL,

PL, PT, RO, SI, UK): Every vote count is divided by the select divisor; all interim quotients

are rounded downwards. This procedure is also known as the method of D’Hondt,

Hagenbach-Bischoff or Jefferson.

Divisor method with standard rounding (DE, LV): Every vote count is divided by the

select divisor; an interim quotient is rounded downwards or upwards according to

whether its fractional part is smaller or larger than one half. This procedure is also

known as the method of Sainte-Laguë, Schepers or Webster.

Swedish modification of the divisor method with standard rounding (SE): Every vote

count is divided by the select divisor; an interim quotient smaller than one is rounded

downwards or upwards according to whether it is smaller or larger than 0.6, and every

other quotient is rounded downwards or upwards according to whether its fractional

part is smaller or larger than one half.

DivStd

Div0.6

The second group of apportionment methods are quota methods. A quota method uses a fixed

electoral key in the first, scaling step and, in order to match the given seat total, invokes flexible split-

points in the second, rounding step. Jargon refers to a fixed electoral key as a quota, thereby

justifying the term quota methods. From the ensemble of all split-points that accomplish the fitting

in the rounding step we quote in each case a select split which has as few decimal digits as possible.

Six quota methods were used at the 2019 elections and will make an appearance in Section 3. Five

of them rely on the Hare-quota and its variants. The proper Hare-quota (HaQ) is the ratio of effective

votes relative to seats. When the Hare-quota is rounded downwards its variant-1 (HQ1) is obtained,

when it is rounded upwards, variant-2 (HQ2). Variant-3 (HQ3) is the integer part of the ratio of valid

votes (i.e. effective votes plus ineffective votes) to seats.

HaQgrR

Hare-quota method with fit by greatest remainders (BG, NL, PL): Every vote count is

divided by the Hare-quota; an interim quotient is rounded downwards or upwards

according to whether its fractional part is smaller or larger than the select split. This

procedure is also known as the method of largest remainders, or method of Hare,

Niemeyer, Hamilton.

Hare-quota variant-1 method with fit by greatest remainders (IT): Every vote count is

divided by the Hare-quota variant-1; an interim quotient is rounded downwards or

upwards according to whether its fractional part is smaller or larger than the select split.

Hare-quota variant-2 method with fit by greatest remainders (LT): Every vote count is

divided by the Hare-quota variant-2; an interim quotient is rounded downwards or

upwards according to whether its fractional part is smaller or larger than the select split.

Hare-quota variant-3 method with fit by greatest remainders (CY): Every vote count is

divided by the Hare-quota variant-3; an interim quotient is rounded downwards or

upwards according to whether its fractional part is smaller or larger than the select split.

HQ1grR

HQ2grR

HQ3grR

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

HQ3-EL

DQ3grR

Hare-quota variant-3 method with Greek fit (EL): Every vote count is divided by the

Hare-quota variant-3; the interim quotients are evaluated as in Greece (Section 3.9).

Droop-quota variant-3 method with fit by greatest remainders (SK): Every vote count is

divided by the Droop-quota variant-3; an interim quotient is rounded downwards or

upwards according to whether its remainder is smaller or larger than the select split.

The last method involves a variant of the Droop-quota. The proper Droop-quota is the downward

rounding of (V/(S+1)) + 1, where V is the sum of all effective votes and S is the seat total. Its variant-3

(DQ3) is the standard rounding of V/(S+1). The proper Droop-quota itself is used in STV schemes.

STV schemes ask voters to mark on the ballot sheet their preference order of the candidates. A

candidate whose tally of top preferences (first preferences in the first count, first plus lower-order

preferences in later counts) meets or exceeds the Droop-quota is assigned a seat. Surplus ballots in

excess of the quota as well as ballots of eliminated lower ranked candidates are transferred to the

remaining candidates for second and subsequent counts. Two transfer strategies were employed at

the 2019 elections:

STVran

STVfra

STV scheme with random transfers (IE, MT): Surplus ballots and ballots of eliminated

candidates are selected for transfer through a random mechanism.

STV scheme with fractional transfers (Northern Ireland district of UK): Surplus ballots

and ballots of eliminated candidates are transferred through a fractional mechanism.

When the STV results are lifted from the level of candidates to the level of parties, it transpires that

the schemes equip the parties with seat contingents which conform to the goal of the proportional

representation ideal, see the final paragraphs in Sections 3.15 (IE) and 3.20 (MT).

Terms such as vote totals and seat totals depend on the electoral area where the aggregation into

totals takes place. At the 2019 elections twenty-two Member States treated their territory as a single

electoral constituency.

Three Member States established multiple constituencies and evaluated the electoral results

separately within each of them, i.e. without consideration of state-wide totals. BE established

3 constituencies, IE 3, UK 12. To this end the state-wide seat contingent was allotted to consti-

tuencies well ahead of the May 2019 elections.

Another three Member States subdivided their territory into two or more electoral districts. DE is

subdivided into 16 districts, IT 5, PL 13. These states apportioned their state-wide seats in a two-tier

process. The initial tier, called super-apportionment, is the apportionment of the state-wide seat

contingent among the state’s apportionment parties, without any regard to the district-wise

subdivision. The second tier, called sub-apportionment, comprises, for each party separately, the

apportionment of the party’s overall seats among its various district-lists of candidates.

A two-tier process with super-apportionment and sub-apportionments also evolves in the presence

of list alliances. At the 2019 elections, only DK featured list alliances (4).

The ways in which party votes are determined are contingent on the ballot design and vote pattern

with which voters can express their will. These particulars of a voting system also constitute the core

elements when in the end identifying successful candidates and assigning seats to them.

The European Elections of May 2019

2.3. Assignment of seats to candidates

Article 1 of the 2002 Election Act leaves it to the Member States whether to realise the proportional

representation principle by means of a list system or an STV scheme. Twenty-five Member States

choose a list system, IE and MT implement STV schemes, and the UK makes use of both.

The classification of a voting system as a list system has a generic character calling for further

specification. In a system with closed lists, voters can only vote for a list of candidates of a party,

without the possibility to change the order of candidates on the list. In systems with semi-open lists,

voters vote for a party’s list of candidates and, optionally, may add one or more preference votes to

express their particular support for some of the candidates. In systems with open lists, the lists

simply serve as a menu of names presented in alphabetical order, reverse alphabetical order,

random order, or any other arbitrary order. Voters are free to select the candidate whom they wish

to support. Some systems grant each voter multiple votes with the option to cast the votes for

candidates of different parties (panachage).

A related design allows a vote to be cast for a candidate as a person. Only thereafter, implied by the

candidates’ affiliation with a particular party, the vote is credited towards the vote tally of the

candidate’s party. This design puts a demonstrative emphasis on the personalisation component of

an election. Another option of honouring the personalisation aspect is provided by STV schemes. In

yet other instances candidates are independent and contest the election without affiliation to any

of the domestic parties.

The role of parties in list systems needs to be viewed with care. Strictly speaking votes are cast in

favour of a list of candidates rather than in favour of a party. In many instances lists and parties are

in a one-to-one correspondence, and using the terms list and party synonymously is unambiguous.

In other instances several parties team up and together present a joint list of candidates. In these

cases the term party refers to a coalition of parties and their joint candidate list.

To account for the manifold designs of voting systems we distinguish in the sequel between two

vote patterns, list votes and candidate votes. The term list vote (LV) indicates that the vote is cast in

the first place for a list of candidates, notwithstanding the possibility that the voting system may

grant voters additional preference votes to express their particular support for some of the

candidates. The term candidate vote (CV) is used when voters must vote for a person, the attribution

to a party being implied only through the person’s party affiliation.

Vote pattern LV0 designates a list system with closed lists. Citizens vote for a list of candidates and

are granted no (zero) preference votes. The seats are assigned to the top-ranked candidates on the

lists. This is the preferred pattern in larger Member States (DE, ES, FR, HU, PT, RO, UK).

Vote patterns LV1, LV2 and LVm are used for list systems with semi-open lists. With vote pattern LV1,

citizens not only vote for a list of candidates, but may adjoin up to one preference vote (AT, BG, HR,

NL, SE, SI). With vote pattern LV2, up to two preference votes are permitted (CZ, SK). Vote pattern

LVm allows multiple preference votes, how many is at the discretion of the voters (BE).

For voting systems with semi-open lists domestic provisions include a bypass rule specifying when

a candidate’s preference votes tally lets her or him bypass the preordained rank-order on the official

party-list. There are two types of bypass rules. A percentage bypass rule requires the candidate’s

preference votes to meet or exceed a certain percentage of the party’s vote total (AT 5%, BG 15%,

HR 10%, SE 5%). A quorum bypass rule defines a quorum of one sort or another that preference

votes must reach for a candidate to be placed top (BE, NL, SI). When several candidates succeed to

overcome the bypass hurdle they are ranked by their preference votes tallies in decreasing order.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Vote patterns 1CV, 2CV, 3CV, 4CV, 5CV, 6CV, mCV cover voting systems with open lists. They allow

every voter to cast votes for up to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or more candidates of the same party, with the

implied consequence that this party is considered to be the voter’s party of choice. The seats of a

party are assigned to those candidates who rank top in terms of their preference votes tally. Four

Member States permit just one candidate vote (1CV: DK, EE, FI, PL). Six Member States allow two or

more candidate votes (2CV: CY; 3CV: IT; 4CV: EL; 5CV: LT; mCV: LV). In LU voters can vote for up to six

candidates (6CV) who may belong to different parties.

Vote pattern STV is peculiar to STV schemes. Every voter indicates his or her preference order of the

candidates on the ballot sheet, in terms of first preference, second preference, etc.

Table 2.3.1 provides an overview of essential structural information of the 2019 European elections.

Detailed results per Member State follow in Section 3.

Table 2.3.1: Structural data, 2019 European elections.

Section

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.11

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.15

3.16

3.17

3.18

3.19

3.20

3.21

3.22

3.23

3.24

3.25

3.26

3.27

3.28

Sum

Member State

Austria

Belgium*3

Bulgaria

Cyprus

Czechia

Germany/16

Denmark+4

Estonia

Greece

Spain

Finland

France

Croatia

Hungary

Ireland*3

b,d

Italy/5

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Latvia

Malta

Netherlands

Seat Contingent upon

Withdrawal of the UK

before

after

751

–

Electoral

Threshold

4% of valid votes

none

5.7% of votes

cast

1.8% of valid

votes

5% of valid votes

none

3% of valid votes

none

5% of valid votes

none

4% of valid votes

5% of votes cast

none

5% of votes cast

none

3.8% of votes

cast

5% of valid votes

none

5% of valid votes

4% of valid votes

5% of valid votes

none

Apportionment

Method

DivDwn

HaQgrR

HQ3grR

DivDwn

DivStd

DivDwn

HQ3-EL

DivDwn

STVran

HQ1grR, HQ1grR

HQ2grR

DivDwn

DivStd

STVran

DivDwn

DivDwn, HaQgrR

DivDwn

Div0.6

DivDwn

DQ3grR

DivDwn, STVfra

Vote

Pattern

LV1

LVm

LV1

2CV

LV2

LV0

1CV

4CV

LV0

1CV

LV0

LV1

LV0

STV

3CV

5CV

6CV

mCV

STV

LV1

1CV

LV0

LV1

LV2

LV0, STV

–73

Poland/13

Portugal

Romania

Sweden

Slovenia

Slovakia

United

Kingdom*12

–

705

73+27

) Belgium*3 indicating that Belgium establishes 3 constituencies (similarly: Ireland*3, United Kingdom*12).

) Germany/16 indicating that Germany subdivides its area into 16 districts (similarly: Italy/5, Poland/13).

) Denmark+4 indicating that Denmark features 4 list alliances.

) Italian district sub-apportionments are adjusted so as to match the state-wide super-apportionment.

The European Elections of May 2019

2.4. Political Groups in the new European Parliament

While MEPs are assigned parliamentary seats via home states and domestic parties, of which there

are plenty, parliamentary business in the EP is organised by Political Groups. At the time of writing,

there were seven Political Groups, plus non-attached MEPs who did not join any of the Political

Groups. The latter are referred to as NI (non-attached MEPs, from the French non-inscrits).

Table 2.4.1 shows the Political Groups in the EP that formed at the constitutive session on 2 July

2019. The then house size was 748 seats since three Spanish MEPs were barred from taking their

seats due to pending litigation.

Table 2.4.1: Political Groups in the EP, constitutive session on 2 July 2019.

Acronym

Political Group

EPP

S&D

Renew Europe

Greens/EFA

ECR

GUE/NGL

Sum

Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats)

Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the EP

Renew Europe Group

Group of the Greens / European Free Alliance

Identity and Democracy Group

European Conservatives and Reformists Group

Confederal Group of the European United Left – Nordic Green Left

Non-attached Members

Size

182

154

108

748

Section 3 documents the attachment of MEPs to one of the Political Groups or to NI.

In the majority of cases all MEPs of a domestic party join the same Political Group. In these cases we

add the Political Group to the line showing the party name in the tables 'From votes to seats' (i.e.

the second of the triplet tables devoted to a Member State).

In some instances MEPs of a party become members of different groups (DE, ES, NL, PL, SK). In these

instances we mention the Political Group in the tables 'From seats to MEPs' (i.e. the third of the three

tables).

For every Member State the first table 'Base data' collects some basic information, such as number

of seats to be filled, size of the electorate, number of votes (votes cast, valid votes, effective votes –

as applicable), vote pattern, number of parties contesting the election and number of parties

participating in the seat apportionment process, gender distribution, etc. Since the Member States’

electoral systems are so different we do not enforce an identical template for the base data, but

rather confine the tables to the data pertinent for the particular Member State under review.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3. The 2019 elections, by Member State

3.1. AT – Republic of Austria

Austria has a contingent of eighteen seats, which was raised by one seat after the UK left the EU.

Seven parties campaigned at the election. Parties must submit their list of candidates to the Federal

Election Authority at the latest by 5 p.m. on the forty-fourth day before election day. A party-list

contains a maximum of forty-two candidates.

On the ballot sheet a voter may mark a party (a list vote), or a party’s candidate (a preference vote),

or both. When marking both, a party and a candidate, the candidate marked must belong to the

party marked, otherwise the ballot is invalid. A preference vote is expressed on the ballot sheet by

writing into a designated box either the candidate’s last name, or the candidate’s reference number

in the party-list.

EP2019AT-1

Table 3.1.1: Austria, base data.

18 + 1

6 416 177

LV1

3 779 764

151 191 (= 4% of valid votes)

3 710 438

DivDwn

5% bypass rule

119 female + 145 male = 264

9 female + 9 male = 18

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective party votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is an electoral threshold of four per cent of the valid votes. Thus a party participates in the seat

apportionment process only when garnering 151 191 votes or more (since four per cent of 3 779 764 equals

151 190.56). Two parties failed the threshold, leaving five apportionment parties.

The apportionment of the contingent of eighteen seats is carried out using the divisor method with downward

rounding (DivDwn). Every 180 000 votes justify roughly

one seat. The values of the interim quotients indicate

that the next, nineteenth seat will be apportioned to GRÜNE (divisor 170 000).

Table 3.1.2: Austria, from votes to seats.

EP2019AT-2

ÖVP

SPÖ

FPÖ

GRÜNE

NEOS

Sum

Votes

1 305 956

903 151

650 114

532 193

319 024

3 710 438

Quotient

[Divisor]

7.3

5.02

3.6

2.96

1.8

[180 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

2 +1

18+1

EPP

S&D

Greens/EFA

Renew Europe

The term 'roughly' is taken to be synonymous for 'up to the final step of rounding', here: of rounding downwards.

The European Elections of May 2019

The seats apportioned to a party are assigned to its candidates following the rank-order on the

party-list, except that a candidate bypasses the order when satisfying a five per cent bypass rule.

The bypass rule demands a candidate’s preference votes tally to meet or exceed five per cent of the

party’s vote total. When the rule is satisfied the candidate advances to the top of the list irrespective

of the initial list place.

In 2019 nine candidates were elected due to their preference vote tallies. Two of them resigned

promptly and did not take their seats. The list places of these candidates were not decisive for the

seat assignment, yet a favourable placement may have been conducive for them to acquire so many

preference votes. In Table 3.1.3 the list places of these candidates are crossed out. The other MEPs

got a seat on the grounds of their rank-place on the party-list, not on the grounds of their preference

votes tallies. This is indicated in Table 3.1.3 by crossing out their preference vote tallies.

Table3.1.3: Austria, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019AT-3

List

Plac

Preferenc

Votes

ÖVP

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 1 305 956 =

65 298)

1. Karoline E

DTSTADLER

115 906

2. Othmar K

ARAS

103 035

3. Angelika W

INZIG

85 031

4. Simone S

CHMIEDTBAUER

64 240

5. Lukas M

ANDL

38 605

6. Barbara T

HALER

38 285

7. Alexander B

ERNHUBER

30 338

SPÖ

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 903 151 =

45 158)

1. Andreas S

CHIEDER

72 863

2. Evelyn R

EGNER

12 089

3. Günther S

IDL

8 421

4. Bettina V

OLLATH

7 738

5. Hannes H

EIDE

12 455

FPÖ

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 650 114 =

32 506)

1. Harald V

ILIMSKY

64 525

2. Petra S

TEGER

3 380

3. Georg M

AYER

2 514

GRÜNE

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 532 193 =

26 610)

Monika V

ANA

6 569

2. Sarah W

IENER

35 741

+3. Thomas W

AITZ

4 742

NEOS

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 319 024 =

15 952)

1. Claudia G

AMON

64 341

) List places 6, 7 and 9, 10 resigning in favour of preference votes ranking.

) Petra S

TEGER

incoming for Heinz-Christian S

TRACHE

(44 751 preference votes, list place 42).

) Monika V

ANA

incoming for Werner K

OGLER

(70 821 preference votes, list place 1).

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.2. BE – Kingdom of Belgium

Belgium is allocated a contingent of twenty-one seats. Candidates had to be nominated by the fifty-

seventh day prior to the election. A total of 316 candidates were named. There were 148 female

candidates and 168 male candidates.

On the ballot sheets voters may mark a party (a list vote), or one candidate or more from the same

party (preference votes), or both. When no party is marked the ballot is attributed to the party to

which the preference candidates belong. When no candidate is marked the ballot is considered to

express support for the party-list as is.

EP2019BE-1

Table 3.2.1: Belgium, base data.

8 122 985

LVm

none

6 732 157

DivDwn

Quorum bypass rule

148 female + 168 male = 316

8 female + 13 male = 21

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective party votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

Domestic provisions establish three constituencies for separate evaluation of electoral results:

1. Dutch Electoral College – 12 seats,

2. French Electoral College – 8 seats,

3. German Language Community – 1 seat.

There is no electoral threshold. Seats are apportioned among parties using the divisor method with

downward rounding (DivDwn), in each constituency separately. In the Dutch Electoral College every

270 000 votes justify roughly one seat, in the French Electoral College, 218 000, and in the German

Language Community, 10 000.

Table 3.2.2: Belgium, from votes to seats.

EP2019BE-2

N-VA

VLAAMS BELANG

Open Vld

CD&V

GROEN

sp.a

2 Others

Sum

ECOLO

PTB

CDH

2 Others

Sum

Votes

Quotient

[Divisor]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

ECR

Renew Europe

EPP

Greens/EFA

S&D

1. Dutch Electoral College

954 048

3.5

811 169

3.004

678 051

2.5

617 651

2.3

525 908

1.9

434 002

1.6

230 776

–

4 251 605 [270 000]

2. French Electoral College

651 157

2.99

485 655

2.2

470 654

2.2

355 883

1.6

218 078

1.004

258 348

–

2 439 775 [218 000]

S&D

Greens/EFA

Renew Europe

GUE/NGL

EPP

The European Elections of May 2019

CSP

6 Others

Sum

3. German Language Community

14.247

1,4

26 530

–

40 777

[10 000]

EPP

The assignment of seats to candidates relies on a quorum bypass rule. The quorum of a party is the

upward rounding of its vote total divided by its seat number plus one (Droop-quota). A candidate

with more preference votes than required by the quorum of her or his party is assigned a seat.

In addition, in order to aid the upper echelons on a list to bridge a remaining gap between their

preference votes tally and the bypass quorum, the system provides what it calls 'devolution votes'.

The number of devolution votes is taken to be half the number of pure list votes, i.e. votes which do

not include a preference vote for any of the titular candidates. Presumably it is thought that every

second of these voters intends not only to support the party, but also to endorse the sequencing of

candidates on the party-list. Devolution votes, one after the other, are dealt out to candidates who

rank high on their party-list until their preference votes tally reaches the bypass quorum or the

devolution pool is exhausted. The main effect of this action is that the list sequence of candidates,

as submitted by party headquarters, is shielded against the ranking by preference vote tallies that

are induced by the voters.

For example, in the Dutch Electoral College, party N-VA has bypass quorum 238 512. Geert

OURGEOIS

, list place 1, garners more preference votes and hence is assigned the first seat. Assita

ANKO

, list place 2, has 85 950 preference votes and fails the quorum. From the devolution pool of

246 206 votes, 152 562 are granted to K

ANKO

. Since the sum of 85 950 and 152 562 is 238 512, she

now meets the quorum and is assigned the second seat. The remaining devolution votes, 246 206 –

152 562 = 93 644, benefit Johan V

VERTVELDT

on list place 3. His updated tally 198 367 still fails

the quorum, but outperforms all subsequent candidates on the list. Hence V

VERTVELDT

assigned the third seat.

Table 3.2.3: Belgium, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019BE-3

List

Place

Preference Votes

+ Devolution Votes

1. Dutch Electoral College

N-VA

(Bypass quorum: 238 512; devolution votes:

246 206)

1. Geert B

OURGEOIS

343 290

2. Assita K

ANKO

85 950 + 152 562 = 238 512

3. Johan V

VERTVELDT

104 723 + 93 644 = 198 367

VLAAMS BELANG

(Bypass quorum: 202 793; devolution votes: 256 429)

1. Gerolf A

NNEMANS

207 054

2. Tom V

ANDENDRIESSCHE

substitute

68 871 + 133922 = 202 793

3. Filip D

58 486 + 105 614 = 164 100

Open Vld

(Bypass quorum: 226 017; devolution votes:

129 188)

1. Guy V

ERHOFSTADT

342 460

2. Hilde V

AUTMANS

63 225 + 129 188 = 192 413

CD&V

(Bypass quorum: 205 884; devolution votes:

126 059)

1. Kris P

EETERS

256 822

2. Cindy F

RANNSEN

50 014 + 126 059 = 176 073

GROEN

(Bypass quorum: 262 954; devolution votes:

145 957)

1. Petra D

UTTER

143 377 + 119 577 = 262 954

sp.a

(Bypass quorum: 217 001; devolution votes:

116 481)

1. Kathleen V

REMPT

127 053 + 89 948 = 217 001

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

140 818)

Marc T

ARABELLA

2. Maria A

RENA

ECOLO

144 273)

1. Philippe L

AMBERTS

2. Saskia B

RICMONT

124 299)

1. Olivier C

HASTEL

2. Frédérique R

IES

PTB

115 826)

1. Marc B

OTENGA

CDH

49 132)

1. Benoît L

UTGEN

2. French Electoral College

(Bypass quorum: 217 053; devolution votes:

substitute

54 154 + 162 889 = 217 053

68 981 + 140 818 = 209 799

(Bypass quorum: 161 885; devolution votes:

115 922 + 45 963 = 161 885

57 261 + 98 310 = 155 571

(Bypass quorum: 156 885; devolution votes:

123 331 + 33 554 = 156 885

111 477 + 45 408 = 156 885

(Bypass quorum: 177 942; devolution votes:

68 033 + 109 909 = 177 942

(Bypass quorum: 109 039; devolution votes:

95 783 + 13 256 = 109 039

3. German Language Community

(Bypass quorum: 7 124; devolution votes:

CSP

2 628)

1. Pascal A

RIMONT

8 992

) Tom V

ANDENDRIESSCHE

, first on list of substitute candidates, incoming for Patsy V

ALET

(51 978 + 150 815 = 202 793).

) Marc T

ARABELLA

, first substitute candidate, incoming for Paul M

AGNETTE

(295 339 preference votes, list place 1).

The European Elections of May 2019

3.3. BG – Republic of Bulgaria

Bulgaria is allocated a contingent of seventeen seats. Twenty-one parties and six independent

candidates were admitted at the election. A party-list may contain no more than seventeen

candidates. The registration of the candidate lists had to be effected not later than 32 days in

advance of polling day. Altogether 318 candidates were admitted to the election.

On the ballot sheets voters mark either a party (a list vote) or an independent candidate. When

casting a list vote, a voter may adjoin a preference vote by ticking a box with a numeral 1, 2, ..., 17,

thereby endorsing the nominee who has this rank on the marked list.

There is a quorum electoral threshold applying to parties as well as to independent candidates. The

threshold is the valid votes-to-seats ratio and equals 118 548 votes (as 2 015 314 / 17 = 118 547.88).

The threshold exceeds five per cent of votes cast (since 118 548 / 2 095 561 = 5.7 per cent), thus

violating Art. 3 of the 2002 Electoral Act. Five parties passed the threshold, but no independent

candidates did.

EP2019BG-1

Table 3.3.1: Bulgaria, base data.

6 838 863

LV1

2 095 561

2 015 314

21, plus 6 independent candidates

118 548 (= 5.7% of votes cast)

4 parties plus 1 coalition

1 667 178

HaQgrR

15% bypass rule

93 female + 225 male = 318

5 female + 12 male = 17

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Votes cast

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective party votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

The seat apportionment is carried out using the Hare-quota method with fit by greatest remainders

(HaQgrR). The Hare-quota is the effective votes-to-seats ratio, 1 667 178 / 17 = 98 069.29. That is,

every 98 069.29 shares of vote justify roughly one seat. Interim quotients with a remainder below

the split .4 are rounded downwards. With a remainder above the split .4 they are rounded upwards.

Table 3.3.2: Bulgaria, from votes to seats.

EP2019BG-2

Coal. GERB

BSP

DPS

VMRO

Demokratichna Bulgaria

Sum

Votes

607 194

474 160

323 510

143 830

118 484

1 667 178

Quotient

[Split]

6.2

4.8

3.3

1.5

1.2

[.4]

Seats

(HaQgrR)

Political

Group

EPP

S&D

Renew Europe

ECR

EPP

The assignment of the seats of a party to its candidates follows the rank-order of the party-list,

except for a fifteen per cent bypass rule to honour preference votes. A candidate advances to the

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

top of the list when his or her preference votes tally meets or exceeds fifteen per cent of the party’s

vote total.

The fifteen per cent bypass rule reinforces the standing of the top-listed candidates of BSP, VMRO

and Demokratichna Bulgaria. It makes no difference to the seat assignment, though it may please

the candidates’ kudos.

Table 3.3.3: Bulgaria, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019BG-3

List

Place

Preference

Votes

GERB

(Bypass hurdle: 15% of 607 194 =

91 080)

Emil R

ADEV

24 168

2. Andrey K

OVATCHEV

9 357

3. Andrey N

OVAKOV

9 218

4. Eva M

AYDELL

7 432

5. Asim A

DEMOV

7 220

6. Alexander A

LEXANDROV

ORDANOV

13 752

BSP

(Bypass hurdle: 15% of 474 160 =

71 124)

1. Elena Y

ONCHEVA

82 009

2. Petar V

ITANOV

3 601

3. Tsvetelina P

ENKOVA

2 670

4. Ivo H

RISTOV

13 958

5. Sergei S

TANISHEV

30 268

DPS

(Bypass hurdle: 15% of 323 510 =

48 527)

Iskra M

IHAYLOVA

3 565

2. Atidzhe A

LIEVA

-V

ELI

2 591

3. Ilhan K

YUCHYUK

4 377

VMRO

(Bypass hurdle: 15% of 143 830 =

21 575)

1. Angel D

ZHAMBAZKI

49 109

2. Andrey S

LABAKOV

9 425

Demokratichna Bulgaria

(Bypass hurdle: 15% of 118 484 =

17 773)

1. Radan K

ANEV

34 735

) Emil R

ADEV

incoming for Мария Ива�½ова Г

АБРИЕЛ

(list place 1, 82 536 preference votes)

and Лиля�½а Павлова П

АВЛОВА

(list place 7, 27 313 preference votes).

) Iskra M

IHAYLOVA

incoming for Мустафа Сали К

АРАДАЙЪ

(list place 1, 12 007 preference votes).

) Atidzhe A

LIEVA

-V

ELI

incoming for Деля�½ Славчев П

ЕЕВСКИ

(list place 2, 6 306 preference votes).

The European Elections of May 2019

3.4. CY – Republic of Cyprus

Cyprus is allocated a contingent of six seats. The date of the nomination must be at least seven days

prior to the election. Thirteen parties and three independent candidates were admitted at the

election. A maximum of six candidates may be listed per party-list.

The ballot sheet format is supportive for voters to cast two candidate votes. Every party occupies a

column displaying the names of its candidates, in alphabetical order. A voter may cast one or two

candidate votes. If voters mark more than two candidates of the same party, their vote is taken to

count towards the party. It is possible to vote just for the party by checking a box that comes last in

the column’s footline.

EP2019CY-1

Table 3.4.1: Cyprus, base data.

641 181

2CV

280 935

13, plus 3 independent candidate

5 057 (= 1.8% of valid votes)

270 323

HQ3grR

18 female + 60 male = 78

0 female + 6 male = 6

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective party votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is an electoral threshold of 1.8 per cent of the valid votes (5 057 votes). Six parties and the

three independent candidates miss the threshold, their 10 612 votes are discarded. The effective

votes (270 323) are cast for seven parties. The seat apportionment uses the Hare-quota variant-3

method with fit by greatest remainders (HQ3grR). The Hare-quota variant-3, the valid votes-to-seats

ratio without fraction, amounts to 46 822 (since 280 935 / 6 = 46 822.5). Every 46 822 votes justify

roughly one seat. Quotients below the split .6 are rounded downwards, above, upwards.

Table 3.4.2: Cyprus, from votes to seats.

EP2019CY-2

DISY

ΑΚΕL

DIKO

EDEK

3 Others

Sum

Votes

81 539

77 241

38 756

29 715

43 072

270 323

Quotient

[Split]

1.7

1.65

0.8

0.63

–

[.6]

Seats

Political

(HQ3grR) Group

EPP

GUE/NGL

S&D

The seats of a party are assigned to candidates in the order of preference vote tallies.

EP2019CY-3

Table 3.4.3: Cyprus, from seats to MEPs.

Votes

43 156

39 616

27 063

2. Niyazi K

IZILYÜREK

DIKO

1. Costas M

AVRIDES

EDEK

1. Demetris P

APADAKIS

11 606

21 155

11 789

DISY

1. Loukas F

OURLAS

2. Lefteris C

HRISTOFOROU

ΑΚΕL

1. Giorgos G

EORGIOU

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.5. CZ – Czech Republic

Czechia is allocated a contingent of twenty-one seats. Parties, movements or coalitions must present

their candidate lists to the Ministry of the Interior no later than sixty-six days prior to election day. A

list may exceed the number of MEPs to be elected by one third, i.e. it may include twenty-eight

names. Altogether there were 841 candidates. Independent candidacies were not allowed.

Every party, movement or coalition has a ballot sheet of its own. Voters receive a full set of ballot

sheets. On the ballot sheet of the party of their choice voters may cast up to two preferential votes

for specific candidates. They insert this sheet into an official envelope to go into the ballot box.

EP2019CZ-1

Table 3.5.1: Czechia, base data.

8 316 737

LV2

2 370 765

118 539 (= 5% of valid votes)

2 007 357

DivDwn

5% bypass rule

191 female + 650 male = 841

7 female + 14 male = 21

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective party votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is an electoral threshold of five per cent of valid votes. With 2 370 765 valid votes the threshold

amounts to 118 539 votes. It is missed by thirty-two parties, leaving seven apportionment parties

and coalitions. The seat apportionment is carried out using the divisor method with downward

rounding (DivDwn). Every 83 000 votes justify roughly one seat.

Table 3.5.2: Czechia, from votes to seats.

EP2019CZ-2

ANO 2011

ODS

Piráti

TOP 09 + STAN

SPD

KDU-ČSL

KSČM

Sum

Votes

502 343

344 885

330 844

276 220

216 718

171 723

164 624

2 007 357

Quotient

[Divisor]

6.1

4.2

3.99

3.3

2.6

2.1

1.98

[83 000]

Seats

(DivDwn)

Political

Group

Renew Europe

ECR

Greens/EFA

EPP

GUE/NGL

The seats of a party are assigned to its list nominees in the order exhibited in the list. However, a

candidate bypasses the rank-order of the list and advances to the top when the number of his or her

preference votes meets or exceeds five per cent of the total of the party’s votes.

The European Elections of May 2019

Table 3.5.3: Czechia, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019CZ-3

List

Place

Preference

Votes

ANO 2011

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 502 343 =

25 118)

1. Dita C

HARANZOVÁ

53 924

2. Martina D

LABAJOVÁ

31 401

3. Martin H

LAVÁČEK

5 948

4. Radka M

AXOVÁ

11 286

5. Ondřej K

NOTEK

3 798

6. Ondřej K

OVAŘÍK

6 867

ODS

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 344 885 =

17 245)

1. Jan Z

AHRADIL

51 381

2. Alexandr V

ONDRA

29 536

3. Evžen T

OŠENOVSKÝ

25 644

4. Veronika V

RECIONOVÁ

8 460

Piráti

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 330 844 =

16 543)

1. Marcel K

OLAJA

15 398

2. Markéta G

REGOROVÁ

14 158

3. Mikuláš P

EKSA

9 594

TOP 09 + STAN

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 276 220 =

13 811)

1. Luděk N

IEDERMAYER

67 430

2. Jiří P

OSPÍŠIL

37 231

3. Stanislav P

OLČÁK

25 352

SPD

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 216 718 =

10 836)

1. Hynek B

LAŠKO

47 505

2. Ivan D

AVID

33 055

KDU-ČSL

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 171 723 =

8 587)

1. Tomáš Z

DECHOVSKÝ

24 823

2. Michaela Š

OJDROVÁ

22 649

KSČM

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 164 624 =

8 232)

1. Kateřina K

ONEČNÁ

38 650

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.6. DE – Federal Republic of Germany

Germany has ninety-six seats to fill. Election proposals must be presented to the Federal Election

Officer by the eighty-third day prior to the election. Independent candidates are not admitted.

Germany divides its area into sixteen electoral districts identical to the sixteen states of the federa-

tion. Parties may register a single federal list, or separate lists by district. All parties with the

exception of CDU and CSU registered a single party-list valid for the whole country. The CSU

registered a list just for the one district in which they campaigned (Bavaria). The CDU chose to

submit separate lists for each of the fifteen districts where the party stood (all districts except

Bavaria). Forty-one parties were admitted at the election, with a total of 1 399 candidates.

Ballot papers vary across the sixteen districts due to distinct district-lists of CDU and CSU. The first

ten (or fewer when enforced by lack of space) names of every list are printed on the ballot sheet.

Every voter has one vote to mark the party of her or his choice. There is no electoral threshold.

EP2019DE-1

Table 3.6.1: Germany, base data.

61 600 263

LV0

none

37 396 889

DivStd, DivStd

483 female + 915 male + 1 divers= 1 399

35 female +61 male =96

Seat contingent

Electorate

Electoral districts

Vote pattern

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective party votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

The apportionment of seats among parties is a two-tier process due to the fifteen CDU district lists.

Both tiers employ the divisor method with standard rounding (DivStd). The super-apportionment

distributes the contingent of ninety-six seats among all forty-one parties; every 374 000 votes justify

roughly one seat. Twenty-seven parties are left with no seat.

Table 3.6.2: Germany, from votes to seats.

EP2019DE-2

Votes

Quotient

[Divisor]

Seats

(DivStd)

Political

Group

Super-apportionment of 96 seats among 41 parties

CDU

8 438 975

22.6

EPP

GRÜNE

7 677 071

20.53

Greens/EFA

SPD

5 916 882

15.8

S&D

AfD

4 104 453

11.0

CSU

2 355 067

6.3

EPP

DIE LINKE

2 056 049

5.497

GUE/NGL

FDP

2 028 594

5.4

Renew Europe

DIE PARTEI

899 079

2.4

(see Table 3.6.3)

FREIE WÄHLER

806 703

2.2

Renew Europe

TIERSCHUTZPARTEI

542 226

1.4

GUE/NGL

ÖDP

369 869

1.0

Greens/EFA

FAMILIE

273 828

0.7

ECR

VOLT

249 098

0.7

Greens/EFA

PIRATEN

243 302

0.7

Greens/EFA

27 Others

1 435 693

–

Sum

37 396 889 [374 000]

The European Elections of May 2019

District

CDU sub-apportionment

1. Schleswig-Holstein

2. Hamburg

3. Niedersachsen

4. Bremen

5. Nordrhein-Westfalen

6. Hessen

7. Rheinland-Pfalz

8. Baden-Württemberg

9. Saarland

10. Berlin

11. Brandenburg

12. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

13. Sachsen

14. Sachsen-Anhalt

15. Thüringen

Sum

Votes

Quotient

[Divisor]

Seats

(DivStd)

of 23 seats among 15 districts

353 020

0.9

140 966

0.4

1 119 352

2.8

64 078

0.2

2 237 590

5.6

657 886

1.6

613 470

1.53

1 499 962

3.7

161 897

0.4

229 352

0.6

215 523

0.54

184 894

0.46

474 730

1.2

226 438

0.6

259 817

0.6

8 438 975 [400 000]

The CDU sub-apportionment allots the overall CDU seats (23) among the fifteen CDU district-lists. In

the CDU sub-apportionment, every 400 000 votes justify roughly one seat.

Germany uses closed list systems. Seats are assigned to candidates in the rigid sequence given by

party-lists. One MEP of DIE PARTEI is unattached, the other joins the Greens/EFA group.

EP2019DE-3

CDU

1.1. Niclas H

ERBST

3.1. David M

LLISTER

3.2. Jens G

IESEKE

3.3. Lena D

ÜPONT

5.1. Peter L

IESE

5.2. Markus P

IEPER

5.3. Sabine V

ERHEYEN

5.4. Axel V

OSS

5.5. Dennis R

ADTKE

5.6. Stefan B

ERGER

6.1. Sven S

IMON

6.2 Michael G

AHLER

7.1. Christine S

CHNEIDER

7.2. Ralf S

EEKATZ

8.1. Rainer W

IELAND

8.2 Daniel C

ASPARY

8.3. Andreas S

CHWAB

8.4. Norbert L

INS

10.1. Hildegard B

ENTELE

11.1. Christian E

HLER

13.1. Peter J

AHR

14.1. Sven S

CHULZE

15.1. Marion W

ALSMANN

GRÜNE

1. Ska K

ELLER

2. Sven G

IEGOLD

Table 3.6.3: Germany, from seats to MEPs.

3. Terry R

EINTKE

4. Reinhard Bütikofer

5. Hannah N

EUMANN

6. Martin H

ÄUSLING

7. Anna C

AVAZZINI

8. Erik M

ARQUARDT

9. Katrin L

ANGENSIEPEN

10. Romeo F

RANZ

11. Jutta P

AULUS

12. Sergey L

AGODINSKY

13. Henrike H

AHN

14. Michael B

LOSS

15. Anna D

EPARNAY

-G

RUNENBERG

16. Rasmus A

NDRESEN

17. Alexandra G

EESE

18. Niklas N

IENASS

19. Viola

VON

RAMON

-T

AUBADEL

20. Daniel F

REUND

21. Pierrette H

ERZBERGER

-F

OFANA

SPD

1. Katarina B

ARLEY

2. Udo B

ULLMANN

3. Maria N

OICHL

4. Jens G

EIER

5. Delara B

URKHARDT

6. Bernd L

ANGE

7. Birgit S

IPPEL

8. Dietmar K

ÖSTER

9. Gabriele B

ISCHOFF

10. Ismail E

RTUG

11. Constanze K

REHL

12. Tiemo W

ÖLKEN

13. Petra K

AMMEREVERT

14. Norbert N

EUSER

15. Evelyne G

EBHARDT

16. Joachim S

CHUSTER

AfD

1. Jörg M

EUTHEN

2. Guido R

EIL

3. Maximilian K

RAH

4. Lars Patrick B

ERG

5. Bernhard Z

IMNIOK

6. Nicolaus F

EST

7. Markus B

UCHHEIT

8. Christine A

NDERSON

9. Sylvia L

IMMER

10. Gunnar B

ECK

11. Joachim K

UHS

CSU

1. Manfred W

EBER

2. Angelika N

IEBLER

3. Markus F

ERBER

4. Monika H

OHLMEIER

5. Christian D

OLESCHAL

6. Marlene M

ORTLER

DIE LINKE

1. Martin S

CHIRDEWAN

2. Özlem D

EMIREL

3. Cornelia E

RNST

4. Helmut S

CHOLZ

5. Martina M

ICHELS

FDP

1. Nicola B

EER

2. Svenja H

AHN

3. Andreas G

LÜCK

4. Moritz K

ÖRNER

5. Jan-Christoph O

ETJEN

DIE PARTEI

1. Martin S

ONNEBORN

2. Nico S

EMSROTT

Greens/EFA

FREIE WÄHLER

1. Ulrike M

ÜLLER

2. Engin E

ROGLU

TIERSCHUTZPARTEI

1. Martin B

USCHMANN

ÖDP

1. Klaus B

UCHNER

FAMILIE

1. Helmut G

EUKING

VOLT

1. Damian B

OESELAGER

PIRATEN

1. Patrick B

REYER

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.7. DK – Kingdom of Denmark

Denmark has a contingent of thirteen seats which was raised by one seat after the UK left the EU.

Faroe Islands and Greenland, although part of the kingdom, are not part of the EU, hence they are

not included in the electorate. Lists of candidates must be submitted to the Minister for Economic

Affairs and the Interior by noon four weeks prior to election day. A list has a maximum limit of twenty

candidates. A total of ten parties with 135 candidates were admitted to the elections.

Just one party stood at the election on its own. The other nine parties registered four list alliances,

also referred to as election coalitions. List alliances are not in any way indicated on the ballot paper.

Voters have one vote with which they may mark a candidate (personal vote) or a party (list vote).

There is no access for independent candidates to stand at the election.

EP2019DK-1

Table 3.7.1: Denmark, base data.

13 + 1

4 237 550

1CV

none

2 758 855

DivDwn, DivDwn

50 female + 85 male = 135

6 female + 7 male = 13

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

List alliances

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

It is Danish customs that a party is designated by a letter with which it appears on the ballot paper.

There are four alliances: Alliance-1 = A + F, Alliance-2 = B + Å, Alliance-3 = V + C + I, and Alliance-4 =

Ø + N. Parties allying at the election may fork when looking for congenial Political Groups. In

Alliance-1 the MEPs of A joined the S&D group, those of F joined the Greens/EFA group. In Alliance-

3 the MEPs of V are in the Renew Europe group, while the C-MEP joins EPP.

The apportionment method used is the divisor method with downward rounding (DivDwn), both in

the super-apportionment among party and alliances, as well as in the ensuing four sub-

apportionments among the partners of an alliance. In the super-apportionment every 180 000 votes

justify roughly one seat. The values of the interim quotients indicate that the next, additional seat

will be apportioned to Alliance-3 (divisor 170 000) and, within Alliance-3, to party V (divisor 150 000).

Table 3.7.2: Denmark, from votes to seats.

EP2019DK-2

Alliance-1

Alliance-3

Alliance-2

Alliance-4

Sum

Votes

957 540

879 440

370 893

296 978

254 004

2 758 855

Quotient

[Divisor]

5.3

4.9

2.1

1.6

1.4

[180 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

4 +1

13+1

The European Elections of May 2019

Party

Sum

Votes

Quotient

[Divisor]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

S&D

Greens/EFA

Alliance-1 sub-apportionment

592 645

3.5

364 895

2.1

957 540 [180 000]

Alliance-2 sub-apportionment

277 929

2.8

92 964

0.9

370 893 [100 000]

Alliance-3 sub-apportionment

648 203

3.8

3 +1

170 544

1.003

60 693

0.4

879 440 [170 000]

4+1

Alliance-4 sub-apportionment

151 903

1.2

102 101

0.8

254 004 [130 000]

Renew Europe

–

Renew Europe

EPP

–

GUE/NGL

–

The presence of alliances causes a discordant seat apportionment. Party O garners twenty-thousand

votes more than party B (296 978 versus 277 929), but is apportioned fewer seats (one versus two).

Without alliances, B would have lost a seat to V.

The seats of a party are assigned to its candidates on the basis of their personal votes.

EP2019DK-3

Table 3.7.3: Denmark, from seats to MEPs.

Votes

2. Kira Marie P

ETER

-H

ANSEN

15 765

O (Dansk Folkeparti)

1. Peter K

OFOD

119 408

B (Radikale Venstre)

1. Morten P

ETERSEN

97 667

2. Karen M

ELCHIOR

17 292

C (Konservativt Folkeparti)

1. Pernille W

EISS

80 140

Ø (Enhedslisten – De Rød-Grønne)

1. Nikolaj V

ILLUMSEN

50 567

V (Venstre, Danmarks Liberale Parti)

1. Morten L

ØKKEGAARD

207 558

2. Søren G

ADE

201 696

3. Asger C

HRISTENSEN

31 347

+4. Linea S

ØGAARD

-L

IDELL

24 153

A (Socialdemokratiet)

Marianne V

IND

27 396

2. Christel S

CHALDEMOSE

65 179

3. Niels F

UGLSANG

29 444

F (SF – Socialistisk Folkeparti)

1. Margrete A

UKEN

199 522

) Marianne V

IND

incoming for Jeppe K

OFOD

(188 757 personal votes).

) Kira Marie P

ETER

-H

ANSEN

incoming for Karsten H

ØNGE

(19 687 personal votes).

At the 2019 election the practiced vote pattern was 1CV. However, legal provisions allow a party to

votes would need to satisfy a quorum bypass rule, with the Droop-quota as the quorum, to be

placed ahead of the list. Otherwise, the list ranking would be decisive.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.8. EE – Republic of Estonia

Estonia has a contingent of six seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by one seat. The

nomination of candidates ends on the fiftieth day before election day at 6 p.m. Nine parties and five

independent candidates contested the election. The total number of candidates was sixty-six.

Voters cast a vote for a specific candidate by writing the serial number of this candidate on the ballot

sheet or by typing it into an electronic device. Sixty-one candidates are affiliated with one of the

nine parties, their candidate votes are aggregated per party. Five candidates remain unattached

and, in the end, are unsuccessful.

EP2019EE-1

Table 3.8.1: Estonia, base data.

6+1

885 417

1CV

none

9, plus 5 independent candidates

332 104

DivDwn

21 female + 25

male =

2 female + 4 male = 6

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

The seats are apportioned between parties and independent candidates using the divisor method

with downward rounding (DivDwn). With six seats, 36 000 votes justify roughly one seat. When

contemplating the interim quotients’ values it becomes visible that the next, seventh seat will be

apportioned to the political party Isamaa Erakond (with divisor 30 000). Four parties gain parlia-

mentary seats, five after the UK left the EU.

Table 3.8.2: Estonia: from votes to seats.

EP2019EE-2

Eesti Reformierakond

Sotsiaaldemokraatlik Erakond

Eesti Keskerakond

Eesti Konservatiivne Rahvaerakond

Isamaa Erakond

9 Others (4 parties, 5 indep.)

Sum

Votes

87 160

77 375

47 799

42 265

34 188

43 317

332 104

Quotient

[Divisor]

2.4

2.1

1.3

1.2

0.9

–

[36 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

0 +1

6+1

Renew Europe

S&D

Renew Europe

EPP

The seats of a party are assigned to its candidates in the sequence of candidates' vote tallies.

EP2019EE-3

Table 3.8.3: Estonia, from seats to MEPs.

Votes

Eesti Keskerakond

1. Yana T

OOM

26 990

Eesti Konservatiivne Rahvaerakond

1. Jaak M

ADISON

22 819

Isamaa Erakond

+1. Riho T

ERRAS

21 477

Eesti Reformierakond

1. Andrus A

NSIP

41 017

2. Urmas P

AET

30 014

Sotsiaaldemokraatlik Erakond

1. Marina K

ALJURAND

65 549

2. Sven M

IKSER

2 886

The European Elections of May 2019

3.9. EL – Hellenic Republic

Greece is allocated a contingent of twenty-one seats. Registration of parties ends on the fiftieth day

before election day. Forty parties registered at the election, altogether nominating 1 209 candidates.

Every party or coalition has its own ballot paper. Voters select the ballot paper of the party of their

choice and may express their preferences for up to four of the listed candidates. There is an electoral

threshold of three per cent of the valid votes, setting aside thirty-four parties and leaving six

apportionment parties.

EP2019EL-1

Table 3.9.1: Greece, base data.

10 088 325

4CV

5 656 119

169 684 (= 3% of valid votes)

4 468 142

HQ3-EL

513 female + 696 male = 1 209

5 female + 16 male = 21

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

The apportionment of seats among parties is one-of-a-kind, by including the sum of the votes of the

forty non-apportionment parties, 1 187 977, to concoct a peculiar fitting process. It is in two phases.

Phase-1 relies on the Hare-quota variant-3, the integer part of the valid vote total divided by the seat

total, 5 656 119 / 21 = 269 339. A party’s vote total is divided by the quota, and the integer part of

the resulting quotient (Quot.-1) signifies the number of seats to be apportioned in Phase-1. Every

269 339 votes justify roughly one seat. Phase-1 deals out thirteen seats, leaving eight to be looked

after in Phase-2.

Phase-2 refers to the unused voting power (UVP) of the parties. For example, the six Phase-1 seats

for ND use 6 x 269 339 = 1 616 034 votes, leaving 1 873 137 – 1 616 034 = 257 103 unused votes. The

unused voting powers, including the ineffective votes, total 2 154 712. This total is divided by the

number of residual seats (8) plus one. The integer part of the resulting quotient is 239 412 (DQ5,

Droop-quota variant-5), it enters into Phase-2. For every party, its unused voting power is divided

by 239 412 to obtain the second quotients Quot.-2. A party’s Phase-1 seat number is augmented by

the integer part of the second quotient (ND: 6 + 1 = 7, SYRIZA: 4 + 1 = 5). This leaves 8 – 2 = 6 residual

seats to finalise the process. They are apportioned by greatest Quot.-2 remainders, first among the

parties who so far did not receive any Phase-2 seats (EL, KINAL, KKE, XA), and then among the others

(SYRIZA, ND).

The same apportionment emerges when using the divisor method with upward rounding (with divisor 250 000).

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Table 3.9.2: Greece, from votes to seats.

EP2019EL-2

SYRIZA

KINAL

KKE

Ineffective

votes

Sum

Votes

1 873 137

1 343 595

436 726

302 603

275 734

236 347

1 187 977

5 656 119

Quot.-1

[HQ3]

6.96

4.99

1.6

1.1

1.02

0.9

–

[269 339]

Phase-

–

UVP

257 103

266 239

167 387

33 264

6 395

236 347

1 187 977

2 154 712

Quot.-2

[DQ5]

1.074

1.112

0.699

0.139

0.027

0.987

–

[239 412]

Phase-

7 +1

5 +1

1 +1

0 +1

–

15+6

Seats

(HQ3-

EL)

–

Political

Group

EPP

GUE/NGL

S&D

ECR

Within a party, the seats are assigned to the candidates who performed best in terms of their

preference vote tallies.

EP2019EL-3

Table 3.9.3: Greece, from seats to MEPs.

Votes

198 436

162 974

140 404

180 822

145 650

55 956

34 457

130 488

50 360

27 665

votes).

4. Stelios K

OULOGLOU

5. Alexis G

EORGOULIS

1. Stelios K

YMPOUROPOULOS

577 114 6. Petros K

OKKALIS

2. Vangelis M

EIMARAKIS

496 600 KINAL

3. Maria S

PYRAKI

319 237 1. Nikos A

NDROULAKIS

4. Elissavet V

OZEMPERGK

-V

RIONIDI

288 427 2. Eva K

AILI

5. Emmanouil K

EFALOGIANNIS

257 819 KKE

6. Anna-Michelle A

SIMAKOPOULOU

225 211 1. Konstantinos P

APADAKIS

7. Georgios K

YRTSOS

196 929 2.

Lefteris N

IKOLAOU

-A

LAVANOS

8. Theodoros Z

AGORAKIS

195 264 XA

SYRIZA

1. Ioannis L

AGOS

1. Dimitrios P

APADIMOULIS

272 835 2. Athanasios K

ONSTANTINOU

2. Elena K

OUNTOURA

236 961 EL

3. Konstantinos A

RVANITIS

220 816 1.

Emmanouil F

RAGKOS

) Lefteris N

IKOLAOU

-A

LAVANOS

incoming for Asimina D

IGENI

(36 170 candidate

) Emmanouil F

RAGKOS

incoming for Kyriakos V

ELOPOULOS

(159 319 candidate

The European Elections of May 2019

3.10. ES – Kingdom of Spain

Spain has a contingent of fifty-four seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by five seats.

Candidate lists had to be submitted to the electoral authority at the latest ten days after the Royal

Decree announcing the European elections and were published in the Official Journal on 30 April

2019. Thirty-two parties and coalitions contested the election, with a total of 1 917 candidates. Every

party had its own ballot paper. Voters select the ballot sheet of the party of their choice, put it into

an apposite envelope, and cast the envelope into the ballot box.

EP2019ES-1

Table 3.10.1: Spain, base data.

54 + 5

37 248 888

LV0

none

22 209 330

DivDwn

901 female + 1016 male = 1 917

24 female + 27 male = 51

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

The whole country is treated as a single constituency. There is no electoral threshold. The

apportionment of seats among parties is carried out using the divisor method with downward

rounding. Every 360 000 votes justify roughly one seat. Eight parties and coalitions obtain

parliamentary seats, twenty-four parties are left empty-handed. With five added seats, because of

the UK withdrawal from the EU, the electoral key drops to 337 000 votes. Of the additional seats, one

each goes to PSOE, PP, Cs, Vox, and Junts.

Table 3.10.2: Spain, from votes to seats.

EP2019ES-2

PSOE

Podemos-IU

Vox

Ahora Repúblicas

Junts

CEUS

24 Others

Sum

Votes

7 369 789

4 519 205

2 731 825

2 258 857

1 393 684

1 252 139

1 018 435

633 090

1 032 306

22 209 330

Quotient

[Divisor]

20.5

12.6

7.6

6.3

3.9

3.5

2.8

1.8

–

[360 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

20 +1

12 +1

7 +1

3 +1

2 +1

54+5

S&D

EPP

Renew Europe

(see Table 3.10.3)

ECR

(see Table 3.10.3)

Renew Europe

Spain uses a closed list system. Seats are assigned to candidates in the sequence of the printed party-

lists.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

EP2019ES-3

PSOE

21.

Estrella D

URÁ

ERRANDIS

2. Iratxe G

ARCÍA

ÉREZ

3. Lina G

ÁLVEZ

UÑOZ

4. Javi L

ÓPEZ

5. Inma R

ODRÍGUEZ

-P

IÑERO

Table 3.10.3: Spain, from seats to MEPs.

1. Dolors M

ONTSERRAT

2. Esteban G

ONZÁLEZ

ONS

3. Antonio L

ÓPEZ

-I

STÚRIZ

HITE

4. Juan Ignacio Z

OIDO

LVAREZ

5. Pilardel C

ASTILLO

ERA

6. Javier Z

ARZALEJOS

7. José Manuel G

ARCÍA

-M

ARGALLO

8. Francisco José M

ILLÁN

9. Rosa E

STARÀS

ERRAGUT

10. Isabel B

ENJUMEA

11. Pablo A

RIAS

CHEVERRÍA

12. Leopoldo L

ÓPEZ

+13. Gabriel M

ATO

DROVER

1. Luis G

ARICANO

2. Maite P

AGAZAURTUNDÚA

3. María Soraya R

ODRÍGUEZ

AMOS

4. Javier N

ART

5. José Ramón B

AUZÁ

ÍAZ

Podemos-IU

1. Eugenia R

ODRÍGUEZ

ALOP

GUE/NGL

2. Sira R

EGO

GUE/NGL

3. Ernest U

RTASUN

Greens/EFA

4. Idoia V

ILLANUEVA

UIZ

GUE/NGL

5. Miguel U

RBÁN

RESPO

GUE/NGL

6. Manu P

INEDA

GUE/NGL

Vox

1. Jorge B

UXADÉ

ILLALBA

2. Mazaly A

GUILAR

3. Hermann T

ERTSCH

+4. Margarita

DE LA

ISA

ARRIÓN

HORA

EPÚBLICAS

Oriol J

UNQUERAS I

IES

–

2. Pernando B

ARRENA

RZA

GUE/NGL

3. Diana R

IBA I

INER

Greens/EFA

Junts

Carles P

UIGDEMONT

ASAMAJ

–

Antoni C

OMÍN

LIVERES

–

+3. Clara P

ONSATÍ I

BIOLS

CEUS

1. Izaskun B

ILBAO

ARANDICA

6. Ibán G

ARCÍA DEL

LANCO

7. Eider G

ARDIAZABAL

UBIAL

8. Nicolás G

ONZÁLEZ

ASARES

9. Cristina M

AESTRE

ARTÍN DE

LMAGRO

10. César L

UENA

11. Clara A

GUILERA

12. Nacho S

ÁNCHEZ

MOR

13. Mónica Silvana G

ONZÁLEZ

14. Juan Fernando L

ÓPEZ

GUILAR

15. Adriana M

ALDONADO

ÓPEZ

16. Jonás F

ERNÁNDEZ

17. Alicia H

OMS

INEL

18. Javier M

ORENO

ÁNCHEZ

19. Isabel G

ARCÍA

UÑOZ

6. Jordi C

AÑAS

20. Domènec R

UIZ

EVESA

7. Susana S

OLÍS

ÉREZ

+22. Marcos R

EMPERE

+8. Adrián V

ÁZQUEZ

ÁZARA

) Estrella D

URÁ

ERRANDES

incoming for Josep B

ORRELL

ONTELLES

(list place 1).

) Oriol J

UNQUERAS I

IES

, Carles P

UIGDEMONT

ASAMAJ

, Antoni C

OMÍN

LIVERES

barred from taking their seats due to pending litigation.

The European Elections of May 2019

3.11. FI – Republic of Finland

Finland has a contingent of thirteen seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by one seat.

Candidate lists had to be submitted by Thursday 18 April 2019. There are 269 candidates, listed

alphabetically within their parties and identified by a serial number. Voters cast a vote for the

candidate of their choice by writing his or her serial number onto the ballot sheet. The ballot sheet

is frugal, just offering a circle where to jot down the candidate's number.

EP2019FI-1

Table 3.11.1: Finland, base data.

13 + 1

4 504 480

1CV

none

1 830 045

DivDwn

106 female + 163 male = 269

7 female + 6 male = 13

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

Finland is a single constituency. The votes for the candidates who are affiliated with the same party

are aggregated. There is no electoral threshold. The seat apportionment uses the divisor method

with downward rounding (DivDwn). Every 100 000 votes justify roughly one seat. After the UK leaves

the EU, with fourteen seats, the electoral key drops to 96 000 votes. The fourteenth seat was

apportioned to VIHR. Of the eighteen participating parties, eleven finish with no seat.

Table 3.11.2: Finland, from votes to seats.

EP2019FI-2

KOK

VIHR

SDP

KESK

SFP

11 Others

Sum

Votes

380 460

292 892

267 603

253 176

247 477

126 063

115 962

146 412

1 830 045

Quotient

[Divisor]

3.8

2.9

2.7

2.5

1.3

1.2

–

[100 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

2+1

13+1

EPP

Greens/EFA

S&D

Renew Europe

GUE/NGL

Renew Europe

The assignment of seats to candidates is solely based on their personal vote tallies.

EP2019FI-3

Table 3.11.3: Finland, from seats to MEPs.

Votes

77 588

70 687

64 560

111 714

89 769

13 687

128 234

2. Miapetra K

UMPULA

-N

ATRI

1. Laura H

UHTASAARI

2. Teuvo H

AKKARAINEN

KESK

1. Mauri P

EKKARINEN

2. Elsi K

ATAINEN

1. Silvia M

ODIG

SFP

1. Nils T

ORVALDS

68 542

92 760

29 083

68 487

54 627

51 844

46 473

KOK

1. Sirpa P

IETIKÄINEN

2. Henna V

IRKKUNEN

3. Petri S

ARVAMAA

VIHR

1. Ville N

IINISTÖ

2. Heidi H

AUTALA

+3. Alviina A

LAMETSÄ

SDP

1. Eero H

EINÄLUOMA

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.12. FR – French Republic

France has a contingent of seventy-four seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by five seats.

Thirty-four parties contested the election, nominating a total of 2 618 candidates. Candidacies had

to be declared to the Electoral Bureau of the Ministry of the Interior between Monday 23 April, and

Friday 3 May, during opening hours. By law every list must alternate between female and male

candidates. This secures gender parity among elected MEPs since France uses fixed lists (vote

pattern LV0). Indeed, of the seventy-four MEPs thirty-seven are female and thirty-seven are male.

EP2019FR-1

Table 3.12.1: France, base data.

74 + 5

47 345 328

LV0

22 655 174

1 132 759 (= 5% of valid votes)

18 173 102

DivDwn

1 297 female + 1 321 male = 2 618

37 female + 37 male = 74

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

Previously France established eight constituencies for separate evaluation of the election results. At

the 2019 election France is taken to be a single constituency. There is an electoral threshold of five

per cent of valid votes. With 22 655 174 valid votes, the threshold amounts to 1 132 759 votes.

Twenty-eight parties stay below the threshold. Their votes accumulate to a remarkable share of

twenty per cent of the valid votes (4 482 072 / 22 655 174 = 19.8%). That is, of five votes, just four

become effective, and one is discarded as ineffective.

The divisor method with downward rounding determines the apportionment of seats among

parties. Every 237 000 votes justify roughly one seat. With seventy-nine seats after the UK leaves the

EU, the divisor becomes 220 600. The five additional seats will be handed out to RN (1), LREM (2), Les

Verts (1), and PS (1).

Table 3.12.2: France, from votes to seats.

EP2019FR-2

Rassemblement national

LREM, MoDem et al.

EE Les Verts et al.

Les Républicains et al.

La France insoumise et al.

Parti socialiste et al.

Sum

Votes

5 286 939

5 079 015

3 055 023

1 920 407

1 428 548

1 403 170

18 173 102

Quotient

[Divisor]

22.3

21.4

12.9

8.1

6.03

5.9

[237 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

22 +1

21 +2

12 +1

5 +1

74+5

Renew Europe

Greens/EFA

EPP

GUE/NGL

S&D

The assignment of seats to candidates strictly follows the sequencing how candidates are listed in

the registered party-lists.

The European Elections of May 2019

EP2019FR-3

Table 3.12.3: France, from seats to MEPs.

4. Jérémy D

ECERLE

5. Catherine C

HABAUD

6. Stéphane S

ÉJOURNÉ

7. Fabienne K

ELLER

8. Bernard G

UETTA

9. Irène T

OLLERET

10. Stéphane B

IJOUX

11. Sylvie B

RUNET

12. Gilles B

OYER

13. Stéphanie Y

-C

OURTIN

14. Pierre K

ARLESKIND

15. Laurence F

ARRENG

16. Dominique R

IQUET

17. Véronique T

RILLET

-L

ENOIR

18. Pascal D

URAND

19. Valérie H

AYER

20. Christophe G

RUDLER

21. Chrysoula Z

ACHAROPOULOU

+22. Sandro G

OZI

+23. Ilana C

ICUREL

EE Les Verts

1. Yannick J

ADOT

2. Michèle R

IVASI

3. Damien C

ARÊME

4. Marie T

OUSSAINT

5. David C

ORMAND

6. Karima D

ELLI

7. Mounir S

ATOURI

8. Caroline R

OOSE

9. François A

LFONSI

10. Salima Y

ENBOU

11. Benoît B

ITEAU

12. Gwendoline D

ELBOS

-C

ORFIELD

+13. Claude G

RUFFAT

Les Républicains

1. François-Xavier B

ELLAMI

2. Agnès E

VREN

3. Arnaud D

ANJEAN

4. Nadine M

ORANO

5. Brice H

ORTEFEUX

6. Nathalie C

OLIN

-O

ESTERLÉ

7. Geoffroy D

IDIER

8. Anne S

ANDER

La France insoumise

1. Manon A

UBRY

2. Manuel B

OMPARD

3. Leïla C

HAIBI

4. Younous O

MARJEE

5. Anne-Sophie P

ELLETIER

6. Emmanuel M

AUREL

Parti socialist

1. Raphaël G

LUCKSMANN

2. Sylvie G

UILLAUME

3. Éric A

NDRIEU

4. Aurore L

ALUCQ

5. Pierre L

ARROUTUROU

+6. Nora M

EBAREK

Rassemblement national

1. Jordan B

ARDELLA

2. Hélène L

APORTE

3. Thierry M

ARIANI

4. Dominique B

ILDE

5. Hervé J

UVIN

6. Joëlle M

ELIN

7. Nicolas B

8. Virginie J

ORON

9. Jean-Paul G

ARRAUD

10. Catherine G

RISET

11. Gilles L

EBRETON

12. Maxette P

IRBAKAS

-G

RISONI

13. Jean-François J

ALKH

14. Aurélia B

EIGNEUX

15. Gilbert C

OLLARD

16. Julie L

ECHANTEUX

17. Philippe O

LIVIER

18. Annika B

RUNA

19. Jérôme R

IVIÈRE

20. France J

AMET

21. André R

OUGÉ

22. Mathilde A

NDROUËT

+23. Jean-Lin L

ACAPELLE

LREM, MoDem

1. Nathalie L

OISEAU

2. Pascal C

ANFIN

3. Marie-Pierre V

EDRENNE

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.13. HR – Republic of Croatia

Croatia has a contingent of eleven seats which, after the UK leaves the EU, will be raised by one seat.

List proposals must be received by the State Electoral Commission at the latest within fourteen days

of the day of calling the election. Domestic law requires the lists to contain at least forty per cent

female candidates. Thirty-three parties contested the election, with a total of 404 candidates. On the

ballot sheets voters mark a party (a list vote) and, optionally, a candidate (a preference vote). A pure

preference vote is attributed to the candidate's party.

EP2019HR

-1

Table 3.13.1: Croatia, base data.

11 + 1

3 696 907

LV1

1 073 954

53 698 (= 5% of valid votes)

738 039

DivDwn

10% bypass rule

162 female + 242 male = 404

4 female+ 7 male = 11

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is an electoral threshold of five per cent of the valid votes total, 53 698. Twenty-seven parties

miss the threshold, turning their aggregate 335 915 votes ineffective (which is almost a third of all

valid votes). The divisor method with downward rounding is used. Every 53 000 votes justify roughly

one seat. After the UK leaves the EU the key will be 50 000 votes, the twelfth seat being apportioned

to SDP.

Table 3.13.2: Croatia, from votes to seats.

EP2019HR-2

HDZ

SDP

HKS

�½Z

Sum

Votes

244 076

200 976

91 546

84 765

60 847

55 829

738 039

Quotient

[Divisor]

4.6

3.8

1.7

1.6

1.1

[53 000]

Seats

(DivDwn)

3 +1

11+1

Political

Group

EPP

S&D

ECR

Renew Europe

The seat assignment to candidates takes account of the preference votes by means of a ten per cent

bypass rule. That is candidates whose preference votes meet or exceed ten per cent of their party’s

vote total jump to the top of the party-list, in decreasing order of their preference vote tallies.

The European Elections of May 2019

Table 3.13.3: Croatia, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019HR-3

HDZ

24 408)

1. Karlo R

ESSLER

52 859

2. Dubravka Š

UICA

31 791

3. Tomislav S

OKOL

4 573

4. �½eljana Z

OVKO

9 861

SDP

(Bypass hurdle: 10% of 200 976 =

20 098)

1. Biljana B

ORZAN

64 736

2. Tonino P

ICULA

50 921

3. Predrag Fred M

ATIĆ

13 371

+4. Romana J

ERKOVIĆ

1 368

HKS

(Bypass hurdle: 10% of 91 546 =

9 155)

1. Ruža T

OMAŠIĆ

69 989

(Bypass hurdle: 10% of 84 765 =

8 477)

1. Mislav K

OLAKUŠIĆ

68 883

�½Z

(Bypass hurdle: 10% of 60 847 =

6 085)

1. Ivan Vilibor S

INČIĆ

18 314

(Bypass hurdle: 10% of 55 829 =

5 583)

1. Valter F

LEGO

21 228

List

Preference

Place

Votes

(Bypass hurdle: 10% of 244 076 =

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.14. HU – Hungary

Hungary is allocated a contingent of twenty-one seats. Party list nomination lasted from 19 April

2019 to 23 April 2019. 20 000 valid voter recommendations were needed for putting forward a party

list. Nine parties and coalitions contested the election, with a total of 292 candidates. On the ballot

sheets voters mark a party-list showing the first five nominees.

EP2019HU-1

Table 3.14.1: Hungary, base data.

38 008 353

LV0

3 470 566

173 528 (= 5% of valid votes)

3 175 548

DivDwn

61 female + 231 male = 292

8 female + 13 male = 21

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is an electoral threshold of five per cent of valid votes which, quite unusually, is rounded

downwards (173 528). Four parties miss the threshold, leaving five apportionment parties. The seat

apportionment uses the divisor method with downward rounding (DivDwn). Every 135 000 votes

justify roughly one seat.

Table 3.14.2: Hungary, from votes to seats.

EP2019HU-2

Fidesz–KDNP

Momentum

MSZP–P

JobbikK

Sum

Votes

1 824 220

557 081

344 512

229 551

220 184

3 175 548

Quotient

[Divisor]

13.5

4.1

2.6

1.7

1.6

[135 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

EPP

S&D

Renew Europe

S&D

Hungary employs the fixed list system. Seats are assigned to candidates in the sequence presented

on the party-list.

EP2019HU-3

Fidesz–KDNP

1. László T

RÓCSÁNYI

2. József S

ZÁJER

3. Lívia J

ÁRÓKA

4. Tamás D

EUTSCH

Table 3.14.3: Hungary, from seats to MEPs.

5. András G

YÜRK

11. Andor D

ELI

3. Sándor R

ÓNAI

6. Kinga G

ÁL

12. Balázs H

IDVÉGHI

4. Attila A

-K

OVÁCS

7. György H

ÖLVÉNYI

13. Edina T

ÓTH

Momentum

8. Enikő G

YŐRI

1. Katalin C

SEH

9. Ádám K

ÓSA

1. Klára D

OBREV

2. Anna Júlia D

ONÁTH

10. Andrea B

OCSKOR

2. Csaba M

OLNÁR

) István U

JHELYI

incoming for Bertalan T

ÓTH

(list place 1).

MSZP–P

István U

JHELYI

Jobbik

1. Márton G

YÖNGYÖSI

The European Elections of May 2019

3.15. IE – Ireland

Ireland has a contingent of eleven seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by two seats. The

period for the nomination of candidates is set at constituency level, starts about six weeks before

polling day and lasts one or two weeks, depending on the nationality of the candidate. Fifty-nine

candidates contested the election, of whom twenty-six figured as non-party candidates, i.e. they

were not affiliated with one of the twelve contesting parties.

On the ballot sheet voters mark their preferences by writing 1 next to the candidate of their first

choice, 2 next to the candidate of their second choice, and so on.

EP2019IE-1

Table 3.15.1: Ireland, base data.

11 + 2

3 526 023

STV

1 678 003

12 + 26 independent candidates

STVran

24 female + 35 male = 59

5 female + 6 male = 11

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

Domestic provisions establish three constituencies for separate evaluation:

1. Constituency of Dublin – 3 seats which, after the UK leaves the EU, will be raised to 4,

2. Constituency of Midlands–North-West – 4 seats,

3. Constituency of South – 4 seats which, after the UK leaves the EU, will be raised to 5.

Within each constituency ballots are evaluated using the single transferable vote scheme with

random transfers (STVran). The applicable electoral key is the Droop-quota which, up to rounding,

is the quotient of vote total and seat total plus one. However, in the constituencies of Dublin and

South the seat totals differ for the periods before and after the UK leaves the EU, whence the induced

Droop-quotas would differ too.

Unfortunately, STV schemes may fall victim to an awkward instance of opposing calculations, in that

one or more of the MEPs elected under the supposition that a constituency commands three seats

might fail to be among the MEPs elected under the supposition that the seat contingent is raised to

four. In other words, the departure of the UK from the EU might entail the disruptive effect that an

MEP from before would have to vacate his or her seat, for somebody else to take this seat

afterwards.

Therefore domestic provisions decreed the use of just a single calculation and to base

this calculation on the seat contingents after the UK has left the EU. Furthermore it was provided

that the last candidate elected in the Dublin constituency and the last candidate elected in the South

constituency would take up their seats only after the UK left the EU.

In the Dublin constituency the Droop-quota amounts to 363 947 / (4+1) = 72 790. Hence every

72 790 votes justify one seat. The count of first preferences reveals that no candidate reaches the

quota. In a second count, the weakest candidate is eliminated and the ballots on which he is marked

This behavior is called an Alabama paradox, see, e.g., Pukelsheim (2017):

Proportional Representation

(op. cit.),

Section 9.12. In 1881, the reapportionment of the US Congress was considered. The application of the current system

at the time would have resulted in the state of Alabama having 8 representatives in a House of 299 members but 7

representatives in a House of 300 Members.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

first preference are transferred to the candidates marked second preference. The elimination

process continues until the thirteenth count by which time Ciarán C

UFFE

has accumulated 73 028

votes of first and lower-order preferences and is assigned the first seat. In the fourteenth count

Frances F

ITZGERALD

passes the quota and is assigned the second seat. The sixteenth and last count

finishes with four candidates, the previous two, Clare D

ALY

with 87 770 accumulated votes, and Barry

NDREWS

(68 952 votes). Hence Clare D

ALY

is assigned the third seat, and Barry A

NDREWS

must wait to

take the fourth seat until the UK leaves the EU.

In the Midlands–North-West constituency the Droop-quota equals 118 986. That is, every 118 986

votes justify one seat. Hence Mairead M

UINNESS

, with 134 630 first preference votes, is assigned

the first seat. In the second count 15 644 surplus votes of Mairead McGuinness are transferred by

second preferences to the other candidates. Thereafter the system starts eliminating lower ranked

candidates. Nobody reaches the quota until the thirteenth count, though, when the process finishes

with the four MEPs shown in Table 3.15.2.

In the South constituency the Droop-quota requires 119 855 votes. Hence every 119 855 votes

justify one seat. In the ninth and seventeenth counts the first and second seats are assigned, and in

the twentieth and last count the remaining three, in the order as exhibited in Table 3.15.2.

Table 3.15.2: Ireland, from votes to MEPs.

EP2019IE-2

Party

1st Preference Political

Votes (STVran) Group

1. Constituency of Dublin

1. Ciarán C

UFFE

G.P.

63 849 Greens/EFA

2. Frances F

ITZGERALD

F.G.

59 067 EPP

3. Clare D

ALY

I.4.C.

42 305 GUE/NGL

+4. Barry A

NDREWS

F.F.

51 420 Renew Europe

Lynn B

OYLAN

S.F.

39 387

Gary G

ANNON

S.D.

20 331

Alex W

HITE

Lab.

18 293

Mark D

URKAN

F.G.

16 473

Gillian B

RIEN

S.P.B.P.

10 864

Rita H

ARROLD

S.P.B.P.

4 967

Éllis R

YAN

W.P.

3 701

8 further candidates

Non-P.

33 290

Sum

363 947

2. Constituency of Midlands–North-West

1. Mairead M

UINNESS

F.G.

134 630 EPP

2. Luke Ming F

LANAGHAN

Non-P.

85 034 GUE/NGL

3. Maria W

ALSH

F.G.

64 500 EPP

4. Matt C

ARTHY

S.F.

77 619 GUE/NGL

Peter C

ASEY

Non-P.

56 650

Saoirse M

UGH

G.P.

51 019

Brendan

MITH

F.F.

42 814

Anne R

ABBITTE

F.F.

30 220

Dominic H

ANNIGAN

Lab.

12 378

Cyril B

RENNAN

S.P.B.P

8 130

Michael O’D

OWD

R.I.

6 897

Patrick G

REENE

D.D.I.

1 352

5 further candidates

Non-P.

23 684

Sum

594 927

The European Elections of May 2019

3. Constituency of South

1. Seán K

ELLY

F.G.

118 446

2. Billy K

ELLEHER

F.F.

84 084

3. Mick W

ALLACE

I.4.C.

81 780

4. Grace O’S

ULLIVAN

G.P.

75 887

+5. Deirdre C

LUNE

F.G.

64 605

Liadh N

IADA

S.F.

78 995

Malcolm B

YRNE

F.F.

69 167

Andrew D

OYLE

F.G.

38 738

Sheila N

UNAN

Lab.

22 082

Adrienne W

ALLACE

S.P.B.P.

14 810

Peter O’L

OUGHLIN

I.I.

3 685

Jan V

AN DE

D.D.I.

1 421

11 further candidates

Non-P.

65 429

Sum

719 129

EPP

Renew Europe

GUE/NGL

Greens/EFA

EPP

STV schemes generally qualify as proportional representation systems. The argument relies on the

hypothetical assumption that we would be allowed to reinterpret first preference votes in terms of

a 1CV vote pattern, i.e. a voter casts one vote (namely the first preference vote) for the candidate of

her or his choice, and then all candidate votes are aggregated by party. The apportionment of

thirteen seats among parties, using the divisor method with standard rounding (divisor 120 000),

would result in four seats (now five) for Fine Gael (F.G.), two seats (as is) for Fianna Fáil (F.F.), two

seats (now one) for non-party candidates, two seats (now one) for Sinn Féin (S.F.), two seats (as is)

for Green Party/Comhaontas Glas (G.P.), and one seat (now two) for Independents 4 Change (I.4.C.).

The agreement of results is persuasive, even though the argument needs to be viewed with care.

For example, pooling all non-party candidates into a fictitious Non-P.-party is unlikely to be a reliable

predictor of how voters really behave if the vote pattern were 1CV.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.16. IT – Italian Republic

Italy has a seat contingent of seventy-three seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by three

seats. Parties and candidates must register by the thirty-ninth day prior to election day. Lists of

nominees have to be balanced by gender, also the first two candidates must be of different gender.

Domestic provisions subdivide Italy into five districts and allocate the seventy-six seats after the UK

leaves the EU between the districts by population figure:

Italia nord-occidentale – 20 seats,

Italia nord-orientale – 15 seats,

Italia centrale – 15 seats,

Italia meridionale – 18 seats,

Italia insulare – 8 seats.

Parties of linguistic minorities may establish an alliance with a party campaigning in all five districts.

In Italia nord-occidentale, the Autonomie per l'Europa party (ApE) of the French speaking minority

in the Aosta Valley is allied with the Partito Democratico (PD). In Italia nord-orientale, the Südtiroler

Volkspartei (SVP) of the German-speaking minority in South Tyrol is allied with Forza Italia (FD).

Parties present lists of candidates separately by district. A candidate may be nominated on several

lists. Ballot papers in different districts have different colours (grey, brown, red, orange, pink). Voters

stamp a mark next to the symbol of the party of their choice. They may add up to three preference

votes by writing the candidates’ names next to the party symbol. In case of three preferences at least

one has to be male and one female, in the absence of gender diversity the second and third

preferences are deemed null and void.

EP2019IT-1

Table 3.16.1: Italy, base data.

73 + 3

50 952 719

3CV

26 783 732

per district: 16, 17, 15, 15, 15

1 071 350 (= 4% of valid votes)

24 071 889

HQ1grR, HQ1grR

none

468 female + 497 male = 965

30 female+ 43 male = 73

Seat contingent

Electorate

Electoral districts

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Lists admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is an electoral threshold of four per cent of the valid votes (1 071 350 votes). The threshold

eliminates eleven parties. The seat apportionment calculations use the Hare-quota variant-1

method with fit by greatest remainders (HQ1grR). Variant-1 of the Hare-quota is the integer part of

the ratio of effective votes to available seats. For the state-wide super-apportionment the quota

Legge 22 aprile 2014, n. 65. – The dossier of the Italian Ministry of Interior includes calculations for the 76 seats after

the UK leaves the EU, but it is silent on the handling of the seats before this event , see Elezioni dei Membri del

Parlamento Europeo Spettanti all'Italia 26 maggio 2019, Il Dossier. Dipartimento per gli Affari Interni e Territoriali,

Ministero dell'Interno. Maggio 2019 rev.1.1, 259 pages [www.interno.gov.it].

The European Elections of May 2019

amounts to 316 735. That is, every 316 735 votes justify roughly one seat. For the sub-appor-

tionments in the five districts the electoral key is, respectively, 353 461, 345 575, 330 054, 276 045,

and 237 424 votes.

The super-apportionment produces state-wide seat numbers for the parties. Domestic provisions

decree that these state-wide results take precedence. This enforcement of the state-wide view

distinguishes electoral systems with a subdivision into several districts (DE, IT, PL) from systems that

establish several constituencies (BE, IE, UK).

Generally, since candidates are nominated at the district level, the law provides for a break-down of

state-wide party seats to districts. The break-down is in two steps. The first step apportions,

separately within every district, the preordained district seats among parties. This step is self-

sufficient; it entirely disregards the available super-apportionment. The second step aggregates, for

every party, the district results of the first step and only then checks for discrepancies with the super-

apportionment. If a discrepancy is encountered, the party's district results are adjusted until the

discrepancy vanishes, in order to achieve conformity with the super-apportionment.

Specifically, Lega, Salvini Premier and PD+ApE finish with district results that are in agreement with

the super-apportionment, no further action is needed. In contrast, Movimento 5 Stelle (M5S) is

apportioned two seats too much. The party has four quotients whose remainders are rounded

upwards (.47, .73, .67, .81 in districts 1, 2, 3, 4). In order to adjust M5S to its state-wide due the two

smallest of these four remainders are rounded downwards (.47, .67 in districts 1, 3). This adjustment

reduces the party’s seat number in Italia nord-occidentale from three to two, and also in Italia

centrale. To restore the balance in these districts, the seat numbers of FI+SVP and Fratelli d’Italia,

whose discrepancies oppose the discrepancy of M5S, are increased appropriately. The process has

a somewhat makeshift character; it works out fine with the 2019 data.

Table 3.16.2: Italy, from votes to seats.

EP2019IT-2

Lega

PD+ApE

M5S

FI+SVP

FdI

Sum

Votes

Quotient

[Split]

Seats

Political

(HQ1grR) Group

S&D

EPP

ECR

Super-apportionment

9 175 208

28.97

6 107 545

19.38

4 569 089

14.43

2 493 858

7.87

1 726 189

5.45

24 071 889

[.44]

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Party

Lega

PD+ApE

M5S

FdI

Sum

Lega

M5S

FdI

Sum

Votes

Quotient

[Split]

Seats

(HQ1grR

)

3–1=2

1+1=2

Party

Lega

M5S

FI+SVP

FdI

Sum

Lega

M5S

FdI

Sum

Aggregation

Votes

Quotient

[Split]

Seats

(HQ1grR)

1. Italia nord-occidentale

3 193 908

9.04

1 866 777

5.28

873 749

2.47

691 037

1.96

443 763

1.26

7 069 23

[.4]

3. Italia centrale

1 848 005

5.60

1 488 260

4.51

882 802

2.67

345 788

1.05

385 962

1.17

4 950 81

[.55]

5. Italia insulare

460 194

379 511

610 040

301 343

148 307

1 899 39

1.94

1.60

2.57

1.27

0.63

[.58]

2. Italia nord-orientale

2 381 555

6.89

1 388 378

4.02

599 106

1.73

481 201

1.39

333 390

0.96

5 183 630

[.5]

4. Italia meridionale

1 291 546

4.68

984 619

3.57

1 603 392

5.81

674 489

2.44

414 767

1.50

4 968 813

[.53]

Super-app.

Addition

3-1=2

1+1=2

Discrepanc

–2

±2

Lega

M5S

FdI

Sum

Lega

PD+ApE

M5S

FI+SVP

FdI

Sum

The assignment of seats to candidates is based on the personal votes for the candidates. A candidate

who is elected in several districts may choose where to accept the mandate.

The European Elections of May 2019

EP2019IT-3

Lega

1.10.

Marco

AMPOMENOSI

1.2. Angelo C

IOCCA

1.3. Silvia S

ARDONE

1.4. Isabella T

OVAGLIERI

1.5. Danilo Oscar L

ANCINI

1.6. Gianna G

ANCIA

1.7. Stefania Z

AMBELLI

1.8. Alessandro P

ANZA

1.9. Marco Z

ANNI

2.8.

Rosanna C

ONTE

2.2. Mara B

IZZOTTO

2.3. Gianantonio D

2.4. Paolo B

ORCHIA

2.5. Alessandra B

ASSO

2.6. Elena L

IZZI

2.7. Marco D

REOSTO

3.7.

Matteo A

DINOLFI

3.2. Susanna C

ECCARDI

3.3. Antonio Maria

INALDI

3.4. Anna B

ONFRISCO

3.5. Simona B

ALDASSARRE

3.6. Luisa R

EGIMENTI

4.5.

Valentino G

RANT

4.2. Massimo C

ASANOVA

4.3. Andrea C

AROPPO

4.4. Lucia V

UOLO

Votes

17 768

89 767

44 971

32 395

21 957

19 194

18 803

18 207

18 019

19 411

94 812

43 418

37 406

25 377

25 295

23 179

32 578

48 294

48 178

39 336

Table 3.16.3: Italy, from seats to MEPs.

+4.6. Vincenzo S

OFO

5.3.

Francesca D

ONATO

5.2. Annalisa T

ARDINO

1.1. Giuliano P

ISAPIA

1.2. Irene T

INAGLI

1.3. Pierfrancesco

AJORINO

1.4. Patrizia T

OIA

1.5. Brando B

ENIFEI

2.1. Carlo C

ALENDA

2.2. Elisabetta G

UALMINI

2.3. Paolo D

ASTRO

2.4. Alessandra M

ORETTI

3.1. Simona B

ONAFÈ

3.6.

Nicola D

ANTI

3.3. David Maria S

ASSOLI

3.4. Massimiliano

MERIGLIO

4.1. Franco R

OBERTI

4.2. Giuseppe F

ERRANDINO

4.3. Andrea C

OZZOLINO

4.4. Pina P

ICIERNO

5.1. Pietro B

ARTOLO

32 095

28 071

32 884

3.1. Fabio Massimo C

ASTALDO

3.2. Daniela R

ONDINELLI

4.1. Chiara G

EMMA

4.2. Laura F

ERRARA

4.3. Piernicola P

EDICINI

4.4. Rosa D'A

MATO

4.5. Isabella A

DINOLFI

4.6. Mario F

URORE

5.1. Dino G

IARRUSSO

5.1. Ignazio C

ORRAO

1.1. Silvio B

ERLUSCONI

1.2. Massimiliano S

ALINI

3.1. Antonio T

AJANI

+3.2. Salvatore D

4.3.

Fulvio M

ARTUSCIELLO

4.2. Aldo P

ATRICIELLO

5.2.

Giuseppe M

ILAZZO

FdI

1.3.

Pietro F

IOCCHI

1.2. Carlo F

IDANZA

+2.2.

Sergio Antonio

ERLATO

3.2.

Nicola P

ROCACCINI

4.2.

Raffaele F

ITTO

5.2.

Raffaele S

TANCANELLI

SVP

2.1. Herbert D

ORFMANN

43 601

41 200

86 417

78 265

58 901

38 621

37 838

32 046

117 211

115 820

187 601

37 231

69 009

22 813

47 528

83 532

74 727

9 335

10 919

19 494

45 312

87 743

30 299

100 441

269 657

106 710

93 538

79 795

51 730

276 413

77 577

52 254

51 234

169 408

53 286

128 533

73 059

149 553

83 321

81 328

79 248

135 907

35 380 5.2. Caterina C

HINNICI

113 248

34 962 M5S

36 803 1.1. Eleonora E

17 067

65 262 1.2. Tiziana B

EGHIN

15 039

50 671 2.1. Marco Z

ULLO

16 046

41 715 2.2. Sabrina P

IGNEDOLI

13 768

) Marco C

AMPOMENOSI

incoming for 1.1 Matteo S

ALVINI

(696 027 votes).

) Rosanna C

ONTE

incoming for 2.1 Matteo S

ALVINI

(551 315 votes).

) Matteo A

DINOLFI

incoming for 3.1 Matteo S

ALVINI

(517 966 votes).

) Valentino G

RANT

incoming for 4.1 Matteo S

ALVINI

(357 444 votes).

) Francesca D

ONATO

incoming for 5.1 Matteo S

ALVINI

(241 632 votes).

) Nicola D

ANTI

incoming for 3.5 Roberto G

UALTIERI

(67 389 votes)

who had been incoming for 3.2 Pietro B

ARTOLO

(140 000 votes).

) Fulvio M

ARTUSCIELLO

incoming for 4.1 Silvio B

ERLUSCONI

(187 856 votes).

) Giuseppe M

ILAZZO

incoming for 5.1 Silvio B

ERLUSCONI

(90 770 votes).

) Pietro F

IOCCHI

incoming for 1.1 Giorgia M

ELONI

(92 857 votes).

) Sergio Antonio B

ERLATO

incoming for 2.1 Giorgia M

ELONI

(74 976 votes).

) Nicola P

ROCACCINI

incoming for 3.1 Giorgia M

ELONI

(130 143 votes).

) Raffaele F

ITTO

incoming for 4.1 Giorgia M

ELONI

(128 616 votes).

) Raffaele S

TANCANELLI

incoming for 5.1 Giorgia M

ELONI

(63 564 votes).

The three candidates who assumed office after the UK left the EU are Vincenzo S

OFO

(Italia

meridionale, Lega), Salvatore D

(Italia centrale, Forza Italia) and Sergio Antonio B

ERLATO

(Italia

orientale, Fratelli d'Italia).

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.17. LT – Republic of Lithuania

Lithuania is allocated a contingent of eleven seats. The Central Electoral Commission accepts

application documents 85 days before elections. Registration ends 65 days prior to the elections.

Sixteen parties and coalitions and 302 candidates contested the election. The ballot sheet shows the

names of all parties and of all candidates. Voters mark a party and may add up to five candidate

votes by writing the serial numbers of their preferred candidates into designated boxes.

There is an electoral threshold of five per cent of votes cast. With a total of 1 332 020 ballots, the

threshold requires 66 601 votes. Seven parties pass the threshold and their 954 709 votes become

effective. If fewer than sixty per cent of votes cast (799 212) had become effective, the threshold

would have had to be lowered. This is not the case, whence the five per cent threshold persists.

EP2019LT-1

Table 3.17.1: Lithuania, base data.

2 490 542

5CV

1 332 020

66 601 (= 5% of votes cast)

954 709

HQ2grR

101 female + 201 male = 302

3 female + 8 male = 11

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Votes cast

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

The apportionment of seats among parties uses the Hare-quota variant-2 method with fit by

greatest remainders (HQ2grR). To obtain variant-2 of the Hare-quota, the ratio of effective votes to

seats is rounded upwards to yield 86 792. That is, every 86 792 votes justify roughly one seat.

Table 3.17.2: Lithuania, from votes to seats.

EP2019LT-2

TS-LKD

LSDP

LV�½S

LRLS

VKM-AMT

KKŠS

Sum

Votes

248 736

200 105

158 190

113 243

83 083

82 005

69 347

954 709

Quotient

[Split]

2.9

2.3

1.8

1.3

1.0

0.9

0.8

[.5]

Seats

Political

(HQ2grR) Group

EPP

S&D

Greens/EFA

Renew Europe

EPP

ECR

The assignment of seats to candidates is based solely on the candidates’ preference votes.

EP2019LT-3

Table 3.17.3: Lithuania, from seats to MEPs.

Votes

2. Juozas O

LEKAS

LV�½S

1. Bronis R

OPĖ

Stasys J

AKELIŪNAS

1. Viktor U

SPASKICH

62 418

LRLS

1. Petras A

UŠTREVIČIUS

VKM-AMT

1. Aušra M

ALDEIKIENĖ

KKŠS

1. Valdemar T

OMAŠEVSKI

TS-LKD

46 815

1. Andrius K

UBILIUS

112 375

56 649

2. Liudas M

A�½YLIS

111 100

30 760

47 714

3. Rasa J

UKNEVIČIENĖ

100 994

LSDP

37 676

29 142

1. Vilija B

LINKEVIČIŪTĖ

104 501

) Stasys J

AKELIŪNAS

incoming for Raimondas Šarūnas M

ARČIULIONIS

(33 377 candidate votes).

The European Elections of May 2019

3.18. LU – Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Luxembourg is allocated a contingent of six seats. Candidate lists are definitively adopted 72 days

before election day. Every party nominates a list of six candidates. Voters have up to six votes which

they may allocate to candidates of different lists (panachage), with at most two votes per candidate

(cumulation). Alternatively a voter may mark a party; then the mark is expanded into six votes, one

for each of the party’s six candidates. The number of valid votes is 1 256 624, originating from a total

of 218 177 valid ballots. Thus a ballot features 1 256 624 / 218 177 = 5.8 votes on average.

EP2019LU-1

Table 3.18.1: Luxembourg, base data.

285 435

6CV

none

1 256 624

DivDwn

30 female + 36 male = 66

3 female + 3 male = 6

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

The apportionment of seats among the ten parties is proportional to the sum of the votes for the

parties’ candidates. There is no electoral threshold. The divisor method with downward rounding

(DivDwn) is applied. Every 130 000 votes justify roughly one seat.

Table 3.18.2: Luxembourg, from votes to seats.

EP2019LU-2

CSV

Déi gréng

LSAP

6 Others

Sum

Votes

269 259

265 105

237 615

153 396

331 349

1 256 624

Quotient

[Divisor]

2.1

2.04

1.8

1.2

–

[130 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

Renew Europe

EPP

Greens/EFA

S&D

The assignment of the seats of a party to its candidates follows the ranking by the candidates’ vote

tallies.

Table 3.18.3: Luxembourg, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019LU-3

Votes

97 548

50 954

62 732

49 582

55 465

39 152

1. Charles G

OERENS

2. Monica S

EMEDO

CSV

1. Christophe H

ANSEN

2. Isabel W

ISELER

-L

IMA

Déi gréng

1. Tilly M

ETZ

LSAP

1. Nicolas S

CHMIT

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.19. LV – Republic of Latvia

Latvia is allocated a contingent of eight seats. The last day for the submission of lists of candidates

is the sixty-fifth day before election day. The election was contested by 255 candidates from sixteen

parties. Every party or coalition has its own ballot paper. Voters cast one party vote. For every

candidate of the party of their choice, voters may express a preference (a 'plus') if they wish to

endorse the candidate, or a non-preference (a 'crossing-out') if they object to the candidate.

Altogether voters dealt out 7 736 112 pluses and crossings-out.

EP2019LV-1

Table 3.19.1: Latvia, base data.

1 414 712

mCV

473 260

23 663 (= 5% of votes cast)

397 949

DivStd

74 female + 181 male = 255

4 female + 4 male = 8

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Votes cast

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is a five per cent threshold relative to votes cast, 22 663, which is passed by six parties. The

seat apportionment among the six parties is carried out using the divisor method with standard

rounding (DivStd). Every 51 000 votes justify roughly one seat.

Table 3.19.2: Latvia, from votes to seats.

EP2019LV-2

New Unity

Harmony

National Alliance

Development+For!

Latvian Russion Union

Union of Greens and Farmers

Sum

Votes

124 193

82 604

77 591

58 763

29 546

25 252

397 949

Quotient

[Divisor]

2.4

1.6

1.52

1.2

0.6

0.495

[51 000]

Seats

Political

(DivStd) Group

EPP

S&D

ECR

Renew Europe

Greens/EFA

The assignment of seats within a party follows the candidates’ ranking that is induced by their vote

balances. The vote balance of a candidate is the number of votes of the candidate’s party plus the

number of the candidate’s pluses minus the number of the candidate’s crossings-out.

EP2019LV-3

Table 3.19.3: Latvia, from seats to MEPs.

Vote Balance

National Alliance

New Unity

1. Roberts Z

ĪLE

130 604

Inese V

AIDERE

33 817 2. Dace M

ELBĀRDE

85 364

2. Sandra K

ALNIETE

177 538 Development+For!

Harmony

1. Ivars I

JABS

90 716

1. Nils U

ŠAKOVS

149 931 Latvian Russion Union

2. Andris A

MERIKS

98 022 1. Tatjana �½

DANOKA

46 905

) Inese V

AIDERE

incoming for Valdis D

OMBROVSKIS

(vote balance 210 582).

The European Elections of May 2019

3.20. MT – Republic of Malta

Malta is allocated a contingent of six seats. The nomination dates for the 2019 elections were 16, 17,

18, 20 and 22 April 2019. Of the forty-one candidates, thirty-six were affiliated with the eight

contesting parties, and five stood as independent candidates.

EP2019MT-1

Table 3.20.1: Malta, base data.

371 643

STV

260 212

8, plus 5 independent candidate

STVran

10 female + 31 male = 41

3 female + 3 male = 6

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

On the ballot sheet voters mark their preferences by writing 1 next to the candidate of their first

choice, 2 next to the candidate of their second choice, and so on. The ballots are evaluated using

the single transferable vote scheme with random transfers (STVran). The electoral key is given by

the Droop-quota which, up to rounding, is the quotient of vote total and seat total plus one, 37 174.

That is, every 37 174 votes justify one seat.

Two candidates win more first preferences than the quota demands, whence they are assigned the

first two seats. Their surplus votes are transferred to the remaining field and then lower ranked

candidates are eliminated, one by one. On counts 14 and 38 the next two candidates reach the quota

and are declared elected, on count 39 the last two. Four MEPs belong to the Partit Laburista (PL),

and the other two to Partit Nazzjonalista (PN).

Table 3.20.2: Malta, from votes to MEPs.

EP2019MT-2

1. Miriam D

ALLI

2. Roberta M

ETSOLA

3. Alfred S

ANT

4. David C

ASA

5. Alex A

GIUS

ALIBA

6. Josianne C

UTAJAR

35 further candidates

Sum

Party

1st Preference

Votes (STVran)

63 438

38 206

26 592

20 493

18 808

15 603

77 072

260 212

Political

Group

S&D

EPP

S&D

EPP

S&D

As in Section 3.15 proportionality may be appraised by assuming that a first preference vote for a

candidate can be taken to be a vote for the candidate’s party. The first preferences for all candidates

of PL sum to 141 267, the corresponding sum for PN is 98 611. The proportional share of six seats

justifies four seats for PL and two seats for PN, just as is. If seats had been assigned to candidates

according to the rank-order that results from their first preference tallies, the same six candidates

would have been elected.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.21. NL – Kingdom of the Netherlands

The Netherlands have twenty-six seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by three seats.

Nominations of candidates must be filed by the forty-third day before polling day. Sixteen parties

contested the election, with a total of 316 candidates. The ballot sheet shows all parties with all of

their candidates. Every voter marks one candidate of the party of his or her choice. Other than in

2009 and 2014, the 2019 election did not feature any list alliances.

EP2019NL-1

Table 3.21.1: Netherlands, base data.

26 + 3

13 164 688

LV1

5 497 813

(= 5% of votes cast)

4 923 208

DivDwn

Quorum bypass rule

122 female + 194 male = 316

13 female + 13 male = 26

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

An electoral threshold is looming in the depth of the provisions. For a party to be awarded at least

one seat, its vote count must exceed a number which the provisions refer to as the electoral divisor.

The electoral divisor is the quotient of valid votes and seats: 5 497 813 / 26 = 211 455. Relative to the

5 519 776 votes cast the threshold amounts to 211 455 / 5 519 776 = 3.8 per cent and stays below

the five per cent ceiling. Nine parties pass the threshold and enter the apportionment stage, as far

as the 26 seats are concerned before the UK leaves the EU. The divisor method with downward

rounding is used (DivDwn). Every 164 000 votes justify roughly one seat.

Table 3.21.2: Netherlands, from votes to seats.

EP2019NL-2

P.v.d.A.

VVD

CDA

Forum voor Democratie

GroenLinks

D66

ChristenUnie – SGP

Partij voor de Dieren

50Plus

PVV

Sum

Votes

1 045 274

805 100

669 555

602 507

599 283

389 692

375 660

220 938

215 199

194 178

4 923 208

Quotient

[Divisor]

6.4

4.9

4.1

3.7

2.4

2.3

1.3

–

[164 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

4 +1

3 +1

0 +1

26+3

S&D

Renew Europe

EPP

ECR

Greens/EFA

Renew Europe

(see Table 3.21.3)

GUE/NGL

EPP

With 29 seats after the UK left the EU, the threshold drops to 5 497 813 / 29 = 189 580. A tenth party

would be admitted into the seat apportionment calculations (PVV). Every 150 000 votes would

justify roughly one seat. The three added seats benefit PVV, VVD, and FvD.

However, the official Proces-verbaal of final results was restricted to the apportionment of the 26

seats while the UK was a member of the EU. If the apportionment of the 29 seats after resignation of

the UK were limited to the initial nine parties, the PVV seat would be allotted to GroenLinks.

The European Elections of May 2019

The assignment of seats to candidates makes use of a quorum bypass rule. A candidate whose

preference votes tally meets or exceeds one tenth of the electoral divisor is exempt from the

preordained rank-order on the submitted list and moves to the top. Hence all candidates are subject

to the uniform bypass hurdle 21 146, no matter whether their party is stronger or weaker.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Table 3.21.3: Netherlands, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019NL-3

List

Place

Candidate

Votes

P.v.d.A.

1. Lara W

OLTERS

2. Agnes J

ONGERIUS

3. Kati P

IRI

4. Paul T

ANG

5. Vera T

6. Mohammed C

HAHIM

VVD

(Bypass hurdle:

21 146)

4 888

109 987

29 475

8 497

12 760

2 825

(Bypass hurdle:

1. Malik A

ZMANI

365 155

2. Caroline N

AGTEGAAL

163 279

3. Jan H

UITEMA

115 738

4. Liesje S

CHREINEMACHER

37 519

+5. Bart G

ROOTHUIS

21 353

CDA

(Bypass hurdle:

21 146)

1. Esther de L

ANGE

402 975

2. Annie S

CHREIJER

-P

IERIK

113 914

3. Jeroen L

ENAERS

50 121

4. Tom B

ERENDSEN

28 579

Forum voor Democratie

(Bypass hurdle:

21 146)

1. Derk Jan E

PPINK

339 988

2. Rob R

OOKEN

10 143

3. Robert R

OOS

41 323

+4. Dorien R

OOKMAKER

15 403

GroenLinks

(Bypass hurdle:

21 146)

1. Bas E

ICKHOUT

263 034

2. Tineke S

TRIK

149 628

3. Kim

VAN

PARRENTAK

32 505

D66

(Bypass hurdle:

21 146)

1. Sophie in 't V

ELD

248 383

2. Samira R

AFAELA

32 510

ChristenUnie-SGP

(Bypass hurdle:

21 146)

1. Peter van D

ALEN

EPP

240 459

2. Bert-Jan R

UISSEN

ECR

44 416

Partij voor de Dieren

(Bypass hurdle:

21 146)

1. Anja H

AZEKAMP

136 224

50Plus

(Bypass hurdle:

21 146)

1. Antonius M

ANDERS

127 228

Partij voor de Vrijheid

(Bypass hurdle:

21 146)

+1. Geert W

ILDERS

83 448

) Lara W

OLTERS

incoming for Frans T

IMMERMANNS

(839 240 candidate votes).

) Rob R

OOKEN

incoming for Thierry B

AUDET

(164 711 candidate votes).

The European Elections of May 2019

3.22. PL – Republic of Poland

Poland has a contingent of fifty-one seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by one seat.

Candidate lists in a given region had to be submitted to the constituency electoral commission no

later than 16 April 2019. Nine parties contested the election, with a total of 868 candidates. Thirty-

five per cent of the candidates of a party must be female. Every party has its own ballot paper

exhibiting all nominees. The ballot papers are collated into a booklet, one within each of the thirteen

electoral districts into which the country is subdivided. Voters have a single vote to mark a candidate

of the party of their choice. The votes of a party are obtained by aggregating the votes for the party’s

candidates.

EP2019PL-1

Table 3.22.1: Poland, base data.

51 + 1

30 118 852

1CV

13 647 311

682 366 (= 5% of valid votes)

12 269 690

DivDwn, HaQgrR

406 female + 462 male = 868

18 female + 33 male = 51

Seat contingent

Electorate

Electoral districts

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is an electoral threshold of five per cent of the valid votes (682 366). It leaves but three lists.

We refer to the state-wide apportionment of seats among parties as the super-apportionment. The

super-apportionment uses the divisor method with downward rounding (DivDwn). Every 230 000

votes justify roughly one seat. After the UK leaves the EU the key drops to 229 000 votes, with the

additional seat going to PiS.

Since parties nominate their candidates separately by district, the overall seats of a party must be

sub-apportioned among the thirteen districts. This calls for three sub-apportionment calculations,

one for each party. They are carried out using the Hare-quota method with fit by greatest remainders

(HaQgrR).

Repeated applications of the method may exhibit strange effects. When more seats become

available, such as when the overall seats of PiS grow from 26 to 27, possibly some seats are

retracted.

To avoid this problem the method is applied just once during the PiS sub-

apportionment, to the 27 seats after the UK leaves the EU. Of these 27 MEPs the one with the fewest

candidate votes had to wait for the UK to leave the EU before assuming office.

The apportionment method HaQgrR is unbiased, i.e. on average no participant is favored nor disadvantaged. Unbias-

ed methods (HaQgrR, DivStd) are preferred for the apportionment of seats among several district-lists of a party. The

method DivDwn is biased, in that on average it favors stronger participants at the expense of weaker participants.

This direction of bias is attractive to many experts as far as the apportionment of seats among political parties is

concerned. For more on the concept of bias see Pukelsheim (2017):

Proportional Representation

(op.cit.), Chap. 7.

These effects are paraphrased to be an instance of the Alabama paradox. Quota methods are susceptible to the

paradox, divisor methods are immune against it. See also the note in Section 3.15.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Table 3.22.2: Poland, from votes to seats.

EP2019PL-2

PiS

Coal. KE

Wiosna

Sum

District

1. Gdańsk

2. Bydgoszcz

3. Olsztyn

4. Warszawa 1

5. Warszawa 2

6. Łódź

7. Poznań

8. Lublin

9. Rzeszów

10. Kraków

11. Katowice

12. Wrocław

13. Gorzów

Wielkopolskim

Sum

Votes

6 192 780

5 249 935

826 975

12 269 690

Quotient

[Divisor]

26.9

22.8

3.6

[230 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

26 +1

51+1

ECR

(see Table 3.22.3.)

S&D

Quotient

Seats

Quotient

Seats

Quotient

Seats

Votes

[Split]

(HaQgrR)

[Split]

(HaQgrR)

[Split] (HaQgrR)

PiS sub-apportionment

Coal. KE sub-apportionment

Wiosna sub-apportionment

285 740

1.25

419 182

1.8

50 862

0.2

260 408

1.1

305 362

1.3

39 412

0.1

375 001

1.6

293 677

1.2

45 424

0.2

447 770

1.95

625 719

2.6

142 443

0.5

512 158

2.2

227 106

1.0

33 302

0.1

426 046

1.9

347 620

1.46

50 696

0.2

460 432

2.007

518 706

2.2

93 504

0.34

436 139

1.9

208 392

0.9

22 692

0.1

485 779

2.1

160 988

0.7

22 881

0.1

980 816

4.28

505 400

2.1

78 568

0.3

691 641

3.02

643 567

2.7

93 120

0.34

506 921

2.2

574 397

2.4

88 515

0.32

323 929

6 192 780

1.4

[.3]

419 819

5 249 935

1.8

[.5]

65 556

826 975

0.2

[.33]

The European Elections of May 2019

Within a party and district, the assignment of seats follows the candidates' vote tallies.

EP2019PL-3

PiS

1.1. Anna F

OTYGA

2.1. Kosma Z

ŁOTOWSK

3.1. Karol K

ARSKI

3.2. Krzysztof J

URGIEL

4.1. Jacek S

ARYUSZ

-W

OLSKI

4.2. Ryszard C

ZARNECKI

5.1. Adam B

IELAN

5.2. Zbigniew K

UŹMIUK

6.1. Witold Jan W

ASZCZYKOWSKI

6.2. Joanna K

OPCIŃSKA

7.1. Zdzisław K

RASNODĘBSKI

7.2. Andżelika Anna M

OŻDŻANOWSKA

8.1. Beata M

AZUREK

8.2. Elżbieta K

RUK

9.1. Tomasz Piotr P

ORĘBA

9.2. Bogdan R

ZOŃCA

10.1. Beata S

ZYDŁO

10.2. Patryk J

AKI

10.3. Ryszard Antoni L

EGUTKO

+10.4. Dominik T

ARCZYŃSKI

11.1. Jadwiga W

IŚNIEWSKA

11.2. Izabela-Helena K

LOC

11.3. Grzegorz T

OBISZOWSKI

12.1. Beata K

EMPA

12.2. Anna Z

ALEWSKA

13.1. Joachim Stanisław B

RUDZIŃSKI

Table 3.22.3: Poland, from seats to MEPs.

Votes

160 51

107 11

184 05

104 59

186 85

134 62

207 84

134 40

168 02

130 35

164 03

76 953

204 69

164 10

276 01

64 113

525 81

258 36

65 710

41 912

409 37

78 352

65 007

209 30

168 33

185 16

13.2. Elżbieta R

AFALSKA

Coalition KE

1.1. Magdalena A

DAMOWICZ

EPP

1.2. Janusz L

EWANDOWSKI

2.1. Radosław S

IKORSKI

3.1. Tomasz F

RANKOWSKI

4.1. Włodzimierz C

IMOSZEWICZ

4.2. Danuta Maria H

ÜBNER

4.3. Andrzej H

ALICKI

EPP

5.1. Jarosław K

ALINOWSKI

6.1. Marek B

ELKA

7.1. Ewa K

OPACZ

EPP

7.2. Leszek M

ILLER

S&D

8.1. Krzysztof H

ETMAN

9.1. Elżbieta Katarzyna Ł

UKACIJEWSKA

10.1. Róża T

HUN UND

OHENSTEIN

10.2. Adam J

ARUBAS

EPP

11.1. Jerzy B

UZEK

EPP

11.2. Jan O

LBRYCHT

EPP

11.3. Marek Paweł B

ALT

S&D

12.1. Janina O

CHOJSKA

EPP

12.2. Jarosław D

UDA

EPP

13.1. Bartosz A

RŁUKOWICZ

13.2. Bogusław L

IBERADZKI

Wiosna

4.1. Robert B

IEDROŃ

7.1. Sylwia S

PUREK

11.1. Łukasz K

OHUT

70 916

199 591

EPP

S&D

EPP

120 990

129 339

125 845

219 677

146 746

87 422

EPP

S&D

104 216

182 517

252 032

79 380

EPP

105 908

40 737

221 279

138 854

422 445

69 009

45 043

307 227

77 611

EPP

S&D

239 893

99 897

96 388

55 306

48 783

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.23. PT – Portuguese Republic

Portugal is allocated a contingent of twenty-one seats. Political parties had to register their lists of

nominees with the Constitutional Court until 41 days before election day. Voters cast a single vote

for a closed list of a party. Ballot sheets impress by their heavy party emphasis. For every party they

give the full name, plus the party acronym, plus the party emblem. Names of candidates do not

appear on the ballot sheet.

EP2019PT-1

Table 3.23.1: Portugal, base data.

10 757 192

LV0

none

3 078 901

DivDwn

218 female + 272 male = 490

10 female + 11 male = 21

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is no electoral threshold. The apportionment of seats among parties uses the divisor method

with downward rounding (DivDwn). Every 112 000 votes justify roughly one seat. Of the seventeen

parties eleven fail to win a seat.

Table 3.23.2: Portugal, from votes to seats.

EP2019PT-2

PSD

B.E.

CDU (PCP + PEV)

CDS-PP

PAN

11 Others

Sum

Votes

1 104 694

725 399

325 093

228 045

204 792

168 015

322 863

3 078 901

Quotient

[Divisor]

9.9

6.5

2.9

2.04

1.8

1.5

–

[112 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

S&D

EPP

GUE/NGL

EPP

Greens/EFA

The assignment of seats to candidates follows the list order, as is characteristic of closed list systems.

EP2019PT-3

Table 3.23.3: Portugal, from seats to MEPs.

6. Sara C

ERDAS

3. José Manuel F

ERNANDES

CDU (PCP + PEV)

1. João F

ERREIRA

2. Sandra P

EREIRA

CDS-PP

1. Nuno M

ELO

PAN

1. Francisco G

UERREIRO

7. Carlos Z

ORRINHO

4. Maria Da Graça C

ARVALHO

8. Isabel S

ANTOS

5. Álvaro A

MARO

9. Manuel P

IZARRO

6. Cláudia M

ONTEIRO DE

GUIAR

PSD

B.E.

1. Paulo R

ANGEL

1. Marisa M

ATIAS

2. Lidia P

EREIRA

2. José G

USMÃO

ARVALHAIS

incoming for André B

RADFORD

(list place 5).

1. Pedro M

ARQUES

2. Maria Manuel L

EITÃO

ARQUES

3. Pedro S

ILVA

EREIRA

4. Margarida M

ARQUES

10.

Isabel C

ARVALHAIS

) Isabel

The European Elections of May 2019

3.24. RO – Romania

Romania has a seat contingent of thirty-two seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by one

seat. The law stipulates that no list of nominees of a party may consist of male candidates only.

Candidates' proposals had to be submitted to the constituency offices at the latest 40 days before

the election date. Every voter receives a stamp and a ballot booklet with the lists of candidates of all

parties. Voters print the stamp next to the party of their choice.

EP2019RO-1

Table 3.24.1: Romania, base data.

32 + 1

18 267 256

LV0

9 352 472

13, plus 3 independent candidates

467 624 (= 5% of valid votes for parties only)

8 100 866

DivDwn

150 female + 334 male = 484

7 female + 25 male = 32

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

For parties there is a threshold of five per cent of the valid votes: 5% of 9 352 472 = 467 624. For

independent candidates the threshold is equal to the ratio of valid votes to seats: 9 352 472 / 32 =

292 265. Seven parties and all independent candidates fail their threshold. This leaves six parties to

participate in the seat apportionment process. The divisor method with downward rounding is used

(DivDwn). After the UK left the EU the thirty-third seat is allotted to PSD (divisor 226 000).

Table 3.24.2: Romania, from votes to seats.

EP2019RO-2

PNL

PSD

2020 USR Plus

PPR

PMP

UDMR

Sum

Votes

2 449 068

2 040 765

2 028 236

583 916

522 104

476 777

8 100 866

Quotient

[Divisor]

10.6

8.9

8.8

2.5

2.3

2.1

[230 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

8+1

32+1

EPP

S&D

Renew Europe

S&D

EPP

The assignment of seats to candidates follows the prespecified rank-order of the party-lists.

EP2019RO-3

Table 3.24.3: Romania, from seats to MEPs.

8. Ramona S

TRUGARIU

PPR

Mihai T

UDOSE

2. Corina C

REȚU

PMP

1. Traian B

ĂSESCU

2. Eugen T

OMAC

UDMR

1. Iuliu W

INKLER

2. Loránt V

INCZE

9. Cristian-Silviu B

UŞOI

8. Adrian-Dragoș B

ENEA

PNL

10. Marian-Jean M

ARINESCU

+9. Victor N

EGRESCU

1. Ioan-Rareș B

OGDAN

PSD

2020 USR PLUS

2. Mircea-Gheorghe H

AVA

1. Rovana P

LUMB

1. Dacian C

IOLOȘ

3. Siegfried M

UREŞAN

2. Carmen A

VRAM

2. Cristian G

HINEA

4. Vasile B

LAGA

3. Claudiu M

ANDA

3. Dragoş P

ÎSLARU

5. Adina-Loana V

ĂLEAN

4. Cristian T

ERHEŞ

4. Clotilde A

RMAND

6. Daniel B

UDA

5. Dan N

ICA

5. Dragoş T

UDORACHE

7. Dan-Ştefan M

OTREANU

6. Maria G

RAPINI

6. Nicolae Ş

TEFĂNUŢĂ

8. Gheorghe F

ALCĂ

7. Tudor C

IUHODARU

7. Vlad-Marius B

OTOS

) Mihai T

UDOSE

incoming for Victor P

ONTA

(list place 1).

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.25. SE – Kingdom of Sweden

Sweden has a seat contingent of twenty seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by one seat.

The Election Authority must have received parties’ notification no later than 30 days before election

day. Eleven parties contested the election, with a total of 574 candidates. Every party has its own

ballot paper. Voters cast a party vote, and may adjoin one preference vote for one of the party’s

candidate.

EP2019SE-1

Table 3.25.1: Sweden, base data.

20 + 1

7 576 917

LV1

4 151 470

166 059 (= 4% of valid votes)

4 047 710

Div0.6

5% bypass rule

237 female + 337 male = 574

11 female + 9 male = 20

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

The electoral threshold is four per cent of the valid votes (166 059), it was passed by eight parties.

The apportionment of seats among parties uses Div0.6, the Swedish modification of the divisor

method with standard rounding (DivStd). The modification differs from DivStd for a quotient smaller

than one, by rounding it upwards only when larger than 0.6 (not just larger than 0.5 as with DivStd).

With the 2019 data the party with the fewest votes has quotient 0.9, which is rounded upwards by

both methods, Div0.6 and DivStd. Every 195 000 votes justify roughly one seat. After the UK leaves

the EU, with key 190 000, the additional seat is allotted to MP.

Table 3.25.2: Sweden, from votes to seats.

EP2019SE-2

L(FP)

Sum

Votes

974 589

698 770

636 877

478 258

447 641

357 856

282 300

171 419

4 047 710

Quotient

[Divisor]

5.0

3.6

3.3

2.45

2.3

1.8

1.4

0.9

[195 000]

Seats Political

(Div0.6) Group

2 +1

20+1

S&D

EPP

ECR

Greens/EFA

Renew Europe

EPP

GUE/NGL

Renew Europe

Preference votes are incorporated through a five per cent bypass rule. That is, when the preference

vote tally of a candidate meets or exceeds five per cent of the number of votes for his or her party,

the candidate takes precedence in the seat assignment stage. These candidates are elected in order

of their personal vote tallies, while their list places are ignored.

For candidates below the bypass hurdle, preference votes are ignored; they are elected in the rank-

order of their list places.

With the data at hand candidates who overcome the bypass hurdle finish

Domestic provisions assign seats to candidates below the bypass hurdle in a more elaborate way, see, e.g., Svante

Janson (2016): Phragmén's and Thiele's election methods,

arxiv.org/abs/1611.08826,

or Rosa Camps, Xavier Mora and

The European Elections of May 2019

in a sequence identical to their list places. Hence, retrospectively, incorporation of preference votes

is concordant with the preordained rank-order of the party-lists; party-lists prevail as is.

Table 3.25.3: Sweden, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019SE-3

List

Plac

Preferenc

Votes

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 974 589 =

48 730)

1. Heléne F

RITZON

73 929

2. Johan D

ANIELSSON

40 136

3. Jytte G

UTELAND

42 617

4. Erik B

ERGKVIST

17 117

5. Evin I

NCIR

9 479

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 698 770 =

34 939)

1. Tomas T

OBÉ

150 726

2. Jessica P

OLFJÄRD

17 945

3. Jörgen W

ARBORN

13 503

4. Arba K

OKALARI

10 284

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 636 877 =

31 844)

1. Peter L

UNDGREN

87 384

2. Jessica S

TEGRUD

41 202

3. Charlie W

EIMERS

30 668

MP (Bypass hurdle: 5% of 478 258 =

23 913)

1. Alice Bah K

UHNKE

141 106

2. Pär H

OLMGREN

73 120

+3. Jakop D

ALUNDE

12 098

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 447 641 =

22 383)

1. Fredrick F

EDERLEY

108 240

2. Abir A

-S

AHLANI

6 352

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 357 856 =

17 893)

1. Sara S

KYTTEDAL

74 325

2. David L

EGA

27 862

(Bypass hurdle: 5% of 282 300 =

14 115)

1. Malin B

JÖRK

63 264

L(FP) (Bypass hurdle: 5% of 171 419 =

8 571)

1. Karin K

ARLSBRO

15 826

Laia Saumell (2019): The method of Eneström and Phragmén for parliamentary elections by means of approval voting,

arxiv.org/abs/1907.10590.

For the present data the results agree with the rank-orders of the party-lists.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.26. SI – Republic of Slovenia

Slovenia is allocated a contingent of eight seats. Lists of candidates had to be submitted to the

National Electoral Commission no later than thirty days before election day. Fourteen parties

contested the election, with a total of 103 candidates. Every party-list is obliged to include at least

forty per cent female candidates. There is a single ballot paper showing all parties and all candidates.

Voters circle a party’s serial number, and may add one preference vote for a specific candidate. In

2019 the ballot paper had grown to A2 size.

EP2019SI-1

Table 3.26.1: Slovenia, base data.

1 704 866

LV1

482 075

19 283 (= 4% of valid votes)

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Valid votes

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

441 550

DivDwn

Quorum bypass rule

51 female + 52 male = 103

4 female + 4 male = 8

There is an electoral threshold of four per cent of valid votes, 19 283. The threshold removes six

parties, leaving eight apportionment parties. The apportionment of seats among parties uses the

divisor method with downward rounding (DivDwn). Every 34 000 votes justify roughly one seat.

Table 3.26.2: Slovenia, from votes to seats.

EP2019SI-2

SDS+SLS

LMŠ

NSi

4 Others

Sum

Votes

126 534

89 936

74 431

53 621

97 028

441 550

Quotient

[Divisor]

3.7

2.6

2.2

1.6

–

[34 000]

Seats

Political

(DivDwn) Group

EPP

S&D

Renew Europe

EPP

For assigning seats to candidates, preference votes may overrule the rank-order of the

corresponding party-list by way of a quorum bypass rule. The quorum is one half of the quotient of

the party’s vote count and the number of its list candidates. All four parties that are apportioned one

or more seats nominate eight candidates. Hence the quorum requires one half of one eighth of the

party’s vote count, 1/16 = 6.25%, which constitutes a rather low hurdle. Indeed, all MEPs are elected

through their preference vote tallies.

The European Elections of May 2019

Table 3.26.3: Slovenia, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019SI-3

List

Place

Preference

Votes

SDS+SLS

(Bypass hurdle: �½·126 534/8 = 7 908)

1. Romana T

OMC

40 668

2. Milan Z

VER

26 674

3. Franc B

OGOVIČ

13 743

(Bypass hurdle: �½·89 936/8 =

5 621)

1. Tanja F

AJON

54 651

2. Milan B

RGLEZ

7 152

LMŠ

(Bypass hurdle: �½·74 431/8 =

4 652)

1. Irena J

OVEVA

42 190

2. Klemen G

ROŠELJ

6 494

NSi

(Bypass hurdle: �½·53 621/8 =

3 351)

1. Ljudmila N

OVAK

19 558

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.27. SK – Slovak Republic

Slovakia has a seat contingent of thirteen seats which, after the UK left the EU, was raised by one

seat. Candidates must register not later than 45 days before polling day. Every party has its own

ballot paper. Voters cast a list vote for a party, and may circle the serial number of up to two

candidates to express their preferences for specific candidates.

EP2019SK-1

Table 3.27.1: Slovakia, base data.

13 + 1

4 429 801

LV2

1 006 351

50 318 (= 5% of valid cast)

714 507

DQ3grR

Quorum bypass rule

74 female + 275 male = 349

2 female + 11 male = 13

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Votes cast

Parties admitted

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Preference vote hurdle

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

There is an electoral threshold of five per cent of the valid votes (50 318). Six parties pass the

threshold, with a total of 714 507 effective votes. The apportionment of the fourteen seats after the

UK leaves the EU uses the Droop-quota variant-3 method with fit by greatest remainders. Variant-3

of the Droop-quota is the standard rounding of the quotient of effective votes and seat total plus

one, 714 507 / 15 = 47 634. That is, every 47 634 votes justify roughly one seat.

Table 3.27.2: Slovakia, from votes to seats.

EP2019SK-2

Coal. PS + SPOLU

SMER-SD

SNS

KDH

SaS

OL'ANO

Sum

Votes

198 255

154 996

118 995

95 588

94 839

51 834

714 507

Quotient

[Split]

4.2

3.3

2.498

2.007

1.991

1.1

[.5]

Seats

Political

(DQ3grR) Group

(see Table 3.27.3)

S&D

EPP

ECR

EPP

The assignment of seats to candidates is dominated by preference votes. A quorum bypass rule is

employed, where the quorum is three per cent of the party’s vote total.

The European Elections of May 2019

Table 3.27.3: Slovakia, from seats to MEPs.

EP2019SK-3

Coal. PS + SPOLU

1. Michal Š

IMEČKA

2. Michal W

IEZIK

EPP

3. Martin H

OJSÍK

4. Vladimír B

ILČÍK

EPP

SMER-SD

List

Plac

Candidat

Votes

(Bypas hurdle: 3% of 198 255 =

5 948)

Renew Europe

81 735

Renew Europe

29 998

27 549

26 202

(Bypas hurdle: 3% of 154 996 =

4 650)

1. Monika B

EŇOVÁ

89 472

2. Miroslav Č

Í�½

51 362

3. Robert H

AJŠEL

13 773

SNS

(Bypas hurdle: 3% of 118 995 =

3 570)

1. Milan U

HRÍK

42 779

2. Miroslav R

ADAČOVSKÝ

42 276

KDH

(Bypas hurdle: 3% of 95 588 =

2 868)

1. Ivan Š

TEFANEC

33 128

+2. Miriam L

EXMANN

27 833

SaS

(Bypas hurdle: 3% of 94 839 =

2 846)

1. Lucia Ď

URIŠ

ICHOLSONOVÁ

52 331

2. Eugen J

URZYCA

33 540

OL'ANO

(Bypas hurdle: 3% of 51 834 =

1 556)

1. Peter P

OLLÁK

23 815

According to domestic provisions the party whose quotient has the smallest remainder (KDH, with

remainder .007) had to wait until after the UK left the EU before seating its last candidate (Miriam

Lexmann).

The provision caused a discordant apportionment of the thirteen seats while the UK was in the EU.

KDH attracts more votes than SaS (95 588 versus 94 839), but is allotted fewer seats (one versus two).

The discordance would have been avoided if the domestic provisions had targeted the party with

the smallest remainder not of

all

quotients, but only of those that are rounded upwards (SaS, with

remainder .991).

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

3.28. UK – United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The United Kingdom was allocated a contingent of seventy-three seats which, after the UK left the

EU, were vacated. Registration of parties and candidates had to be submitted by the nineteenth

working day before election day.

EP2019UK-1

Table 3.28.1: United Kingdom, base data.

46 534 897

LV0, STV

none

23, plus 24 independent candidates

17 190 12

DivDwn, STVfra

239 + 364 = 603

34 female, 39 male = 73

Seat contingent

Electorate

Constituencies

Vote pattern

Electoral threshold

Apportionment parties

Effective votes

Apportionment method

Candidates admitted

MEPs gender

Domestic provisions establish twelve constituencies to which the seats are passed on as follows:

10.

11.

12.

East Midlands – 5 seats,

East of England – 7 seats,

London – 8 seats,

North East England – 3 seats,

North West England – 8 seats,

South East England – 10 seats,

South West England and Gibraltar – 6 seats,

West Midlands – 7 seats,

Yorkshire and the Humber – 6 seats,

Wales – 4 seats,

Scotland – 6 seats,

Northern Ireland – 3 seats.

In all constituencies except the last, Northern Ireland, parties register closed lists, and voters cast a

single list vote. The results are evaluated using the divisor method with downward rounding

(DivDwn), separately in every constituency. Therefore the electoral key varies from constituency to

constituency. In Constituency 3, London, every 200 000 votes justify roughly one seat, in

Constituency 4, North East England, it is every 110 000 votes.

The Northern Ireland constituency employs a single transferable vote scheme with fractional vote

transfers (STVfra). Voters express their preferences by writing 1 next to the candidate of their first

choice, 2 next to the candidate of their second choice, and so on. The quorum that is needed to be

assigned a seat is the Droop-quota, 572 447 / 4 = 143 112 votes. No candidate reaches the quorum

with their first preferences. Hence lower ranked candidates are successively eliminated and their

votes are transferred to the remaining candidates. In count 3, Diane D

ODDS

is first to be assigned a

seat, followed in count 5 by Naomi L

ONG

and Martina A

NDERSON

The European Elections of May 2019

EP2019UK-2

Brexit

LibDem

Labour

Green

Conservative

4 Others

Sum

Quotien Seats

Votes

(DivDwn

[Divisor]

)

Table 3.28.2: United Kingdom, from votes to seats.

Votes

Brexit

LibDem

Labour

Green

Conservative

4 Others

Sum

Quotient

[Divisor]

Seats

(DivDwn

)

1. East Midlands

452 321

3.2

203 989

1.5

164 682

1.2

124 630

0.9

126 138

0.9

111 467

–

1 183 227 [140 000]

3. London

Brexit

400 257

2.001

LibDem

608 725

3.04

Labour

536 810

2.7

Green

278 957

1.4

Conservative

177 964

0.9

11 Others

238 968

–

Sum

2 241 681 [200 000]

5. North West England

Brexit

541 843

3.9

LibDem

297 507

2.1

Labour

380 193

2.7

Green

216 581

1.5

Conservative

131 002

0.9

9 Others

167 781

–

Sum

1 734 907 [140 000]

7. South West England and Gibraltar

Brexit

611 742

3.6

LibDem

385 095

2.3

Labour

108 100

0.6

Green

302 364

1.8

Conservative

144 674

0.9

6 Others

114 654

–

Sum

1 666 629 [170 000]

9. Yorkshire and the Humber

Brexit

470 351

3.4

LibDem

200 180

1.4

Labour

210 516

1.5

Green

166 980

1.2

Conservative

92 863

0.7

4 Others

148 387

–

Sum

Brexit

LibDem

Labour

SNP

Conservative

Scottish Grn

4 Others

Sum

1 289 277 [140 000]

11. Scotland

233 006

1.4

218 285

1.3

146 724

0.9

594 553

3.5

182 476

1.1

129 603

0.8

66 599

1 571 246 [170 000]

2. East of England

604 715

3.8

361 563

2.3

139 490

0.9

202 460

1.3

163 830

1.02

116 808

–

1 588 866 [160 000]

4. North East England

Brexit

240 056

2.2

LibDem

104 330

0.9

Labour

119 931

1.1

Green

49 905

0.5

Conservative

42 395

0.4

2 Others

63 237

–

Sum

619 854 [110 000]

6. South East England

Brexit

915 686

4.98

LibDem

653 743

3.6

Labour

184 678

1.004

Green

343 249

1.9

Conservative

260 277

1.4

7 Others

181 312

–

Sum

2 538 945 [184 000]

8: West Midlands

Brexit

507 152

3.9

LibDem

219 982

1.7

Labour

228 298

1.8

Green

143 520

1.1

Conservative

135 279

1.04

2 Others

112 607

–

Sum

1 346 838 [130 000]

10. Wales

Brexit

271 404

2.3

LibDem

113 885

0.9

Labour

127 833

1.1

Green

52 660

0.4

Conservative

54 587

0.5

Plaid Cymru

163 928

1.4

2 Others

51 898

–

Sum

836 195 [120 000]

12. Northern Ireland (1st preference votes, STVfra)

1. Diane D

ODDS

DUP

124 991

APNI

105 928

2. Naomi L

ONG

3. Martina A

NDERSON

126 951

SDLP

78 589

Colum E

ASTWOOD

Jim A

LLISTER

TUV

62 021

Danny K

ENNEDY

UUP

53 052

5 Others

20 915

Sum

572 447

All in all, the Brexit Party (Political Group NI) finishes with twenty-nine seats, the Liberal Democrats

(Renew Europe) with sixteen, the Labour Party (S&D) with ten, the Green Party of England and Wales

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

(Greens/EFA) with seven, the Conservative Party (ECR) with four, the Scottish National Party

(Greens/EFA) with three, and Plaid Cymru (Greens/EFA), Sinn Féin (GUE/NGL), the Democratic

Unionist Party (NI) and the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (Renew Europe) with one seat each.

Seats are assigned to candidates in the rank-order of the party-lists of their constituencies, with the

exception of Northern Ireland where seats are assigned according to the STV scheme.

EP2019UK-3

Table 3.28.3: United Kingdom, from seats to MEPs.

7.3. Christina J

ORDAN

8.1. Rupert L

OWE

8.2. Martin D

AUBNEY

8.3. Andrew E

NGLAND

ERR

9.1. John L

ONGWORTH

9.2. Lucy H

ARRIS

9.3. Jake P

UGH

10.1. Nathan G

ILL

10.2. James W

ELLS

12.1. Louis S

TEDMAN

-B

RYCE

LibDem

1.1. Bill N

EWTON

UNN

2.1. Barbara G

IBSON

2.2. Lucy N

ETHSINGHA

3.1. Irina V

IESE

3.2. Dinesh D

HAMIJA

3.3. Luisa P

ORRITT

5.1. Chris D

AVIES

5.2. Jane B

ROPHY

6.1. Catherine B

EARDER

6.2. Antony H

OOK

6.3. Judith B

UNTING

7.1. Caroline V

OADEN

7.2. Martin H

ORWOOD

8.1. Phil B

ENNION

9.1. Shaffaq M

OHAMMED

12.1. Sheila R

ITCHIE

Labour

1.1. Rory P

ALMER

3.1. Claude M

ORAES

3.2. Seb D

ANCE

4.1. Jude K

IRTON

-D

ARLING

5.1. Theresa G

RIFFIN

5.2. Julie W

ARD

6.1. John H

OWARTH

8.1. Neena G

ILL

9.1. Richard C

ORBETT

10.1. Jackie J

ONES

Greens

2.1. Catherine R

OWETT

3.1. Scott A

INSLIE

5.1. Gina D

OWDING

6.1. Alexandra P

HILLIPS

7.1. Molly S

COTT

ATO

8.1. Ellie C

HOWNS

9.1. Magid M

AGID

Conservative

2.1. Geoffrey V

RDEN

6.1. Daniel H

ANNAN

8.1. Anthea M

NTYRE

12.1. Nosheena M

OBARIK

SNP

11.1. Alyn S

MITH

11.2. Christian A

LLARD

11.3. Aileen M

EOD

Plaid Cymru

10.1. Jill E

VANS

Sinn Féin

12. Martina A

NDERSON

DUP

12. Diane D

ODDS

APNI

12. Naomi L

ONG

Brexit Party

1.1. Annunziata R

EES

-M

OGG

1.2. Jonathan B

ULLOCK

1.3. Matthew P

ATTEN

2.1. Richard T

ICE

2.2. Michael H

EAVER

2.3. June Alison M

UMMERY

3.1. Ben H

ABIB

3.2. Lance F

ORMAN

4.1. Brian M

ONTEITH

4.2. John T

ENNANT

5.1. Claire F

5.2. Henrik N

IELSEN

5.3. David B

ULL

6.1. Nigel F

ARAGE

6.2. Alexandra P

HILLIPS

6.3. Robert R

OWLAND

6.4. Belinda D

UCY

7.1. Ann W

IDDECOMBE

7.2. James G

LANCY

The European Elections of May 2019

4. Citizens and representatives from a Union-wide viewpoint

Ever since its inception the EP has expressed its intention to unify the procedures which the Member

States employ at EP elections. The present paper focusses on counting ballots, evaluating vote

counts, and assigning seats to candidates. Electoral systems comprise more than these procedural

rules. They determine who stands at the election, how they register, if they are given access to the

media, whether they are reimbursed for their expenses, which ballot design is submitted to the

voters and much more. Yet, even when the view is narrowed down to how votes are translated into

seats, the electoral provisions in the twenty-eight Member States constitute a perplexing multitude.

The 2019 European elections are not readily amenable to a Union-wide re-evaluation. The reason is

the lack of visibility of political parties at the European level. European parties which are visibly

functioning at the Union level would give rise to a political system in which the many domestic

parties would be able to find their place. Such a scenario does not apply to the 2019 elections.

Even so, it is tempting to view the European elections 2019 from a unified standpoint. To this end

we replace the almost invisible European parties by the visible Political Groups in the EP. In DE, ES,

NL, PL and SI some parties split their seats between several Political Groups; we split their votes

accordingly. In IE, MT, and the Northern Ireland region of the UK, where STV schemes are used, we

aggregate only first preferences. Domestic parties not affiliated to a Political Group nor obtaining a

seat, labelled in our tables as 'Others', are omitted. By adding the vote counts for the domestic

parties who joined a Political Group 'hypothetical votes' are generated. The hypothetical votes

provide the basis to apportion the 748 EP seats among the Political Groups. Every 236 000 votes

justify roughly one seat, see Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Political Groups in the EP, actual size versus hypothetical seats.

Political Group

EPP

S&D

RenewEurope

Greens/EFA

ECR

GUE/NGL

Sum

Actual

Size

182

154

108

748

Hypothetical

Votes

39 665 362

36 585 197

23 466 081

19 804 837

20 837 020

14 537 613

10 134 340

11 455 280

17 6485 730

Quotient

[Divisor]

168.1

155.0

99.4

83.9

88.3

61.6

42.9

48.54

[236 000]

Hypothetical

Discrepancy

Seats (DivStd)

168

155

748

–1

–10

–15

–2

While a single Union-wide apportionment would faithfully reflect the political division of the Union’s

electorate, it would miss out on the geographical dimension of the Union being composed of 28

Member States. Therefore, it is important to realise that divisor methods allow a double proportional

variant that honours both dimensions simultaneously: the geographical distribution of the Union’s

citizens across Member States, and the political division of the electorate as expressed by their votes

for parties and candidates. Double proportionality is a powerful concept that would allow the EP to

improve the design of the European elections according to the political objectives set by parliament,

e.g. by maintaining degressive representation of Member States, or by introducing transnational

lists, or by incorporating other desirable features.

Friedrich Pukelsheim (2018): Compositional proportionality among European political parties at European Parliament

elections,

Středoevropské politické studie – Central European Political Studies Review

20,1–15.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

5. Conclusion

The normative link between a common electoral system in all Member States and the democratic

legitimacy of the EU was made from the early days of European integration. Both from a legal and a

political perspective, alignment between national electoral laws, or their replacement through

common provisions based on EU law, was seen as a prerequisite for making the ECSC, the EEC, the

EC and then the EU a political community directly involving their citizens. In fact, the Electoral Act

of 1976 was seen by contemporaries as a transitional arrangement to organise the first direct

elections.

Electoral law is notoriously difficult to amend, at all levels of governance. The 1976 Act has been

modified only once, in 2002. A second amendment introducing an electoral threshold at the

European level, adopted in July 2018, will enter into force once the approval of all Member States

according to their constitutional requirements has been notified to the Council Secretariat. As of 16

October 2019, Germany, Spain and Cyprus still had to notify their agreement.

This study demonstrates yet again, for the 2019 European elections, that the variations between the

28 national laws governing the European elections are important: we observe the existence of

electoral thresholds in some Member States but not in others; if they are applied the percentages

also differ; we observe nine different apportionment methods to transform votes into seats; we also

observe different rules concerning candidates’ gender balance, the deadlines for party or candidate

registration, and the options for preference votes.

Such variations may seem innocuous. The differences of outcome of the different apportionment

methods, for instance, may appear negligible to non-specialists of electoral procedure. However,

electoral thresholds or different list systems have profound effects on the number of effective votes

and the success rate for individual candidates in a given Member State. Moreover, one reason for

introducing direct elections to the EP was to enable a proportional Europe-wide reflection of

different political ideologies and to allow citizens to have an impact on the basic direction the EU

(or its predecessors) should take. Academic literature on the Europeanisation of EP elections has

been growing for a long time and there is also an important body of case law rendered by different

constitutional courts. Both are generally rather sceptical of the democratic weight of the EP,

particularly in comparison to national parliaments. Academics have provided numerous analyses of

the second-order nature of European elections, concluding that their objective is only partially to

determine EU-wide policies or to hold EU leaders to account. They are often an interim assessment

of the performance of the national government of the day, thus weakening the link between citizens

and the institutions of the EU, and in particular, the link between voters and the EP.

Some courts, particularly the German Federal Constitutional Court, have on several occasions

critically analysed weaknesses of the European electoral system and arrived at the general appraisal

that the EP has little chance ever to provide democratic legitimation at the same level as domestic

chambers. Hence the importance of a close look at the current state of affairs, including the technical

aspects of the European electoral system. On a positive note, one could consider the different

approaches that can be observed in the 28 countries as an opportunity for mutual learning and

See Sergio Alonso de León (2017): Four decades of the European Electoral Act: a look back and a look ahead to an

unfulfilled ambition,

European Law Review

42, 353–368.

Council Decision (EU, Euratom) 2018/994 of 13 July 2018 amending the Act concerning the election of the members

of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage, annexed to Council Decision 76/787/ECSC, EEC, Euratom of

20 September 1976,

Official Journal of the European Union

L 178 (16.7.2018) 1–3.

The European Elections of May 2019

emulation. It is interesting, for instance, that the majority of Member States, to varying degrees, offer

their citizens the possibility to personalise their voting preferences. Providing this option should

increase the average citizen’s interest in the European elections. Perhaps even more importantly,

personalisation of the vote could contribute to a reduction of the overweening influence of national

political parties on the selection of candidates, both when they are initially elected to the EP and

when they wish to stand for re-election. It is an obstacle to creating common political awareness at

the EU level if electoral campaigns, from posters to TV debates or party manifestos, are dominated

by the preferences and calculations of national political leaderships. Having 28 (or 27) national

electoral systems, with only some important guidelines being determined at the EU level, also

contributes to maintaining among voters narrow national views on EU policies and EU leaders’

actions, for instance by minimising the visibility of European party families.

But some political leaders and constitutional scholars are convinced that a higher degree of

harmonisation or Europeanisation of the EP elections is a crucial element to improve EU governance

and to create political allegiance of European voters to the EU institutions. In earlier

pronouncements – for example, in its Maastricht decision of 1993 – the German Federal Constitu-

tional Court had indicated that a common electoral law in all Member States could strengthen the

democratic credibility of the EP.

The Conference on the Future of Europe that is currently being

prepared will, on the one hand, deal with a host of policy-related issues, such as migration manage-

ment, future budgetary resources and the fight against global climate change. However, questions

such as electoral reform or more effective European political parties are also likely to be prominent

on the agenda.

This study aims to provide an informative contribution to these debates, which

should come to a preliminary conclusion in 2021, if they are to be considered for application in the

2024 elections.

BVerfGE 89, 155 (185)

Maastricht.

For critical comments of the Court´s more recent assessment of the European

Parliament´s democratic legitimacy see, among many others, Martin Selmayr (2009): Endstation Lissabon? Zehn

Thesen zum “Niemals”-Urteil des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 30. Juni 2009,

Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien

12, 647–656.

See, e.g., Andrew Duff (2019): The European Union makes a new push for democracy, Discussion paper, European

Politics and Institutions Programme, European Policy Centre, 28 November 2019.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

6. References

Alonso de León, Sergio (2017): Four decades of the European Electoral Act: a look back and a look

ahead to an unfulfilled ambition.

European Law Review

42, 353–368.

Bardi, Luciano and Lorenzo Cicchi (2015): Electoral rules and electoral participation in the European

elections: the ballot format and structure. Study for the AFCO Committee, European Parlia-

ment, PE 536.464.

Camps, Rosa, Xavier Mora and Laia Saumell (2019): The method of Eneström and Phragmén for

parliamentary elections by means of approval voting.

arxiv.org/abs/1907.10590.

Costa, Olivier (2016): The history of European electoral reform and the Electoral Act 1976, Issues of

democratisation and political legitimacy. Study, European Parliamentary Research Service

Historical Archive Unit, PE 563.516.

Duff, Andrew (2011): Report (A7-0176/2011, 28.7.2011) on a Proposal for a Modification of the Act

Concerning the Election of the Members of the European Parliament by Direct Universal

Suffrage of 20 September 1976 (2009/2134(INI)). Committee on Constitutional Affairs of the

European Parliament, PE 440.210v04-00.

Duff, Andrew (2019): The European Union makes a new push for democracy. Discussion paper,

European Politics and Institutions Programme, European Policy Centre, 28 November 2019.

Grimmett, Geoffrey, Jean-François Laslier, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Victoriano Ramírez González,

Richard Rose, Wojciech Słomczyński, Martin Zachariasen and Karol Życzkowski (2011): The

Allocation Between the EU Member States of the Seats in the European Parliament – Cam-

bridge Compromise. Note, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies,

Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs, PE 432.760.

Grimmett, Geoffrey, Friedrich Pukelsheim, Victoriano Ramírez González, Wojciech Słomczyński and

Karol Życzkowski (2017): The Composition of the European Parliament. Workshop 30 January

2017. Compilation: Two briefings and one in-depth analysis. European Parliament,

Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitu-

tional Affairs, PE 583.117.

Hrbek, Rudolf (2019): Europawahl 2019: neue politische Konstellationen für die Wahlperiode 2019–

2024.

Integration – Vierteljahreszeitschrift des Instituts für Europäische Politik in Zusammenarbeit

mit dem Arbeitskreis Europäische Integration

42, 167–186.

Janson, Svante (2016): Phragmén's and Thiele's election methods.

arxiv.org/abs/1611.08826.

Kotanidis, Silvia (2019): European Union electoral law. Current situation and historical background.

European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 642.250.

Lehmann, Wilhelm (2014): The European elections: EU legislation, national provisions and civic

participation. Study for the AFCO Committee, Revised edition, European Parliament,

PE 493.047.

Oelbermann, Kai-Friederike, Antonio Palomares and Friedrich Pukelsheim (2010): The 2009

European Parliament elections: From votes to seats in 27 ways.

Evropská volební studia –

European Electoral Studies

5, 148–182. Erratum,

ibidem

6 (2011) 85.

The European Elections of May 2019

Oelbermann, Kai-Friederike and Friedrich Pukelsheim (2015): European elections 2014: From voters

to representatives, in twenty-eight ways.

Evropská volební studia – European Electoral Studies

10, 91–124.

Pukelsheim, Friedrich (2017):

Proportional Representation – Apportionment Methods and Their

Applications, With a Foreword by Andrew Duff MEP, Second Edition.

Springer International

Publishing AG, Cham (CH).

Pukelsheim, Friedrich (2018): Compositional proportionality among European political parties at

European Parliament elections.

Středoevropské politické studie – Central European Political

Studies Review

20, 1–15.

Pukelsheim, Friedrich and Geoffrey Grimmett (2018): Degressive representation of Member States

in the European Parliament 2019–2024.

Representation – Journal of Representative Democracy

54, 147–158.

Sabbati, Giulio, Gianluca Sgueo and Alina Dobreva (2019): 2019 European elections: National rules.

At a Glance Infographic. European Parliamentary Research Service, PE 623.556.

Selmayr, Martin (2009): Endstation Lissabon? Zehn Thesen zum “Niemals”-Urteil des Bundesver-

fassungsgerichts vom 30. Juni 2009.

Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien

12, 637–679.

Viola, Donatella M. (Editor) (2016):

Routledge Handbook of European Elections, With a foreword by

J.H.H. Weiler.

Routledge, London.

Whitfield, Edward (2015): 40

Anniversary of the 1976 Act on Direct Elections to the European

Parliament. European Parliamentary Research Service Historical Archive Unit, PE 563.513.

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

7. Appendix: Acronyms, country codes, party tabs, links

Acronym Expansion

European Parliament

Political Groups in the EP, see Table 2.4.1

MEP

Member of the European Parliament

ECSC

European Community of Steal and Coal

EEC

European Economic Community

European Community

European Union

LVx

List vote with one or more ('x') preference votes

xCV

One or more ('x') candidate votes

STV

Vote pattern of single transferable vote schemes

STVfra

Single transferable vote scheme with fractional transfers

STVran

Single transferable vote scheme with random transfers

UVP

Unused voting power

DivStd

Divisor method with standard rounding

Div0.6

Swedish modification of the divisor method with standard rounding

DivDwn

Divisor method with downward rounding

HaQgrR

Hare-quota method with fit by greatest remainders

HQ3-EL

Hare-quota variant-3 method with Greek fit

HQxgrR

Hare-quota variant-'x' method with fit by greatest remainders

DQxgrR

Droop-quota variant-'x' method with fit by greatest remainders

Page

Country Code

Short Name

Official Name

Austria

Republic of Austria

Belgium

Kingdom of Belgium

Bulgaria

Republic of Bulgaria

Cyprus

Republic of Cyprus

Czechia

Czech Republic

Germany

Federal Republic of Germany

Denmark

Kingdom of Denmark

Estonia

Republic of Estonia

Greece

Hellenic Republic

Spain

Kingdom of Spain

Finland

Republic of Finland

France

French Republic

Croatia

Republic of Croatia

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Italian Republic

Lithuania

Republic of Lithuania

Luxembourg

Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Latvia

Republic of Latvia

Malta

Republic of Malta

Netherlands

Kingdom of the Netherlands

Poland

Republic of Poland

Portugal

Portuguese Republic

Romania

Sweden

Kingdom of Sweden

Slovenia

Republic of Slovenia

Slovakia

Slovak Republic

United Kingdom United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Source:

http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370100.htm

(Interinstitutional Style Guide)

The European Elections of May 2019

Party Tab

ÖVP

SPÖ

FPÖ

GRÜNE

NEOS

N-VA

Vl.Belang

Open VLD

CD&V

Groen

sp.a

ECOLO

PTB-PVDA

PVDA-PTB

cdH

CSP

GERB

BSP

DPS

VMRO

Demokratichna Bulgaria

DISY

ΑΚΕL

DIKO

EDEK

ANO 2011

ODS

Piráti

TOP 09 + STAN

SPD

KDU-ČSL

KSČM

CDU

GRÜNE

SPD

AfD

CSU

DIE LINKE

FDP

Die PARTEI

FREIE WÄHLER

Tierschutzpartei

ÖDP

FAMILIE

VOLT

PIRATEN

Party Name

Österreichische Volkspartei

Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreich

Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs

Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative

NEOS – Das neue Österreich

Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie

Vlaams Belang

Open Vlaamse Liberalen en Democraten

Christen-Democratisch & Vlaams

Groen

Socialistische Partij – Anders

Parti Socialiste

Ecologistes Confédérés pour l'Organisation de Luttes Originales

Mouvement Réformateur

Parti du Travail de Belgique

Partij van de Arbeid van België

Centre Démocrate Humaniste

Christlich Soziale Partei

Coalition Grazhdani za evropeysko razvitie na Balgariya

+ Sayuz na demokratichnite sili

Bulgarska sotsialisticheska partiya

Dvizhenie za prava i svobodi

VMRO – Bulgarsko Natsionalno Dvizhenie

Demokratichna Bulgaria

Democratic Rally

Progressive Party of Working People

Democratic Party

Movement for Social Democrats EDEK

ANO 2011

Občanská demokratická strana

Česká pirátská strana

STAROSTOVÉ (STAN) s regionálními partnery a TOP 09

Svoboda a přímá demokracie

Křesťanská a demokratická unie – Československá strana lidová

Komunistická strana Čech a Moravy

Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands

Bündnis 90/Die Grünen

Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands

Alternative für Deutschland

Christlich-Soziale Union in Bayern e.V.

DIE LINKE

Freie Demokratische Partei

Partei für Arbeit, Rechtsstaat, Tierschutz, Elitenförderung und basisdemokratische

Initiative

FREIE WÄHLER

PARTEI MENSCH UMWELT TIERSCHUTZ

Ökologisch-Demokratische Partei

Familien-Partei Deutschlands

VOLT

Piratenpartei Deutschland

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

SDE

EKRE

Isamaa

N.D.

SY.RΙ.ΖΑ.

Coal. KINAL

KKE

X.A.

PSOE/PSC

C's

Podemos-IU

VOX

Ahora Repúblicas

JUNTS

CEUS

KOK

VIHR

SDP

KESK

VAS

SFP (RKP)

Coal. Renaissance

EELV

Coal. EEES

V – Venstre, DanmarksLiberaleParti

S – Socialdemokratiet

SF – Socialistisk Folkeparti

DF – Dansk Folkeparti

RV – Det Radikale Venstre

KF – Det Konservative Folkeparti

EL – 'Enhedslisten, deRød – Grønne'

Folkebevægelsen mod EU

Alternativet

LA – Liberal Alliance

Eesti Reformierakond

Sotsiaaldemokraatlik Erakond

Eesti Keskerakond

Eesti Konservatiivne Rahvaerakond

Isamaa Erakond

New Democracy

Coalition of the Radical Left

Coalition Movement for Change (Panhellenic Socialist Movement

+ Democratic Alignment + Movement of Democratic Socialists)

Communist Party of Greece

Golden Dawn

Greek Solution

Partido Socialista Obrero Español + Partido de los Socialistas de Cataluña

Partido Popular

Ciudadanos – Partido de la Ciudadanía

Coalition Unidas Podemos Cambiar Europa (Unidas Podemos + Izquierda Unida

+ Catalunya en Comú + Barcelona en Comú)

VOX

Coalition Ahora Repúblicas (Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya

+ Euskal Herria Bildu + El Bloque Nacionalista Galego)

Coalition LLIURES PER EUROPA (Partit Demòcrata Europeu Català

+ Junts per Catalunya)

Coalition por una Europa Solidaria (Partido Nacionalista Vasco

+ Coalición Canaria + Compromiso por Galicia + Atarrabia Taldea

+ Proposta per les Illes Balears y Demòcrates Valencians)

Kansallinen Kokoomus

Vihreä liitto

Finlands Socialdemokratiska Parti

Perussuomalaiset

Suomen Keskusta

Vasemmistoliitto

Svenska folkpartiet (Ruotsalainen kansanpuolue)

Rassemblement national

La Republique En marche! + MoDem + Agir + Mouvement radical, social et libéral

Europe écologie – Les verts

Les Républicains – Union de la droite et du centre

France insoumise

Coalition Envie d'Europe écologique et sociale (Parti Socialiste

+ Radicaux de Gauche + Place publique + Nouvelle Donne)

The European Elections of May 2019

HDZ

SDP

Coal. Hrv. Suverenisti

Mislav Kolakušić

�½IVI ZID

Coal. AMS

FIDESZ + KDNP

Momentum

MSZP-P

JOBBIK

I4C

M5S

FDI

TS-LKD

LSDP

LV�½S

LRLS

VKM-AMT

KKŠS

DP/PD

CSV/PCS

Déi Gréng/Les Verts

LSAP/POSL

Saskaņa SDP

Coal. NA

Coal. AP!

LKS

Coal. ZZS

PL/MLP

PN/NP

PvdA

VVD

CDA

FvD

GroenLinks

D66

Coal. CU + SGP

PvdD

50+

PVV

Hrvatska demokratska zajednica

Socijaldemokratska partija Hrvatske

Coalition Hrvatski suverenisti (HRAST – Pokret za uspješnu Hrvatsku

+ Hrvatska konzervativna stranka – HKS

+ Hrvatska stranka prava de Ante Starrčević – HSP AS

+ Ujedinjeni hrvatski domoljubi – UHD)

Independent Mislav Kolakušić

�½ivi zid

Coalition Amsterdamska koalicija (Hrvatski laburisti + Primorsko goranski savez

+ Hrvatska stranka umirovljenika + Istarski demokratski sabor

+ Hrvatska seljačka stranka + Građansko-liberalni savez + Demokrati)

Coalition (FIDESZ – Magyar Polgári Szövetség + Kereszténydemokrata Néppárt)

Demokratikus Koalíció

Momentum Mozgalom

Coalition (Magyar Szocialista Párt + Párbeszéd Magyarországért)

Jobbik Magyarországért Mozgalom

Fine Gael Party

Fianna Fáil Party

Sinn Féin

Green Party

Independents 4 Change

Lega Salvini Premier

Partito Democratico (con Siamo Europei)

Movimento Cinque Stelle

Forza Italia

Fratelli d'Italia

Homeland Union – Lithuanian Christian Democrats

Lithuanian Social Democratic Party

Lithuanian Peasant Popular Union

Labour Party

Liberals Movement of the Republic of Lithuania

Visuomeninis rinkimų komitetas 'Aušros Maldeikienės traukinys'

'Valdemaro Tomaševskio blokas' Christian Families Union and Russians Alliance

Coalition

Demokratesch Partei/Parti démocratique

Chrëschtlech-Sozial Vollekspartei/Parti populaire chrétien-social

Déi Gréng/Les Verts

Lëtzebuerger Sozialistesch Aarbechterpartei/Parti ouvrier socialiste luxembourgeois

Jaunā Vienotība

Saskaņa Sociāldemokrātiskā partija

Coalition Nacionālā apvienība (Tēvzemei un Brīvībai/LNNK + Visu Latvijai!)

Coalition AP! (Latvijas attīstībai + Kustība Par!)

Latvijas Krievu savienībā

Coalition Zaļo un Zemnieku Savienība (Latvijas Zemnieku Savienība

+ Latvijas Zaļā Partija)

Partit Laburista/Malta Labour Party

Partit Nazzjonalista/Nationalist Party

Partij van de Arbeid

Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie

Christen-Democratisch Appèl

Forum voor Democratie

GroenLinks

Democraten 66

ChristenUnie + Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij

Partij voor de Dieren

50Plus

Partij voor de Vrijheid

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

Prawo i Sprawiedliwość

Coalition Koalicja Europejska (Platforma Obywatelska

Coal. KE

+ Polskie Stronnictwo Ludowe + Sojusz Lewicy Demokratycznej

+ Nowoczesna + Partia Zieloni)

Wiosna

Wiosna Roberta Biedronia

Partido Socialista

PSD

Partido Social Democrata

B.E.

Bloco de Esquerda

Coligação Democrática Unitária (Partido Comunista Português

CDU (PCP + PEV)

+ Partido Ecologista os Verdes)

CDS-PP

CDS + Partido Popular

PAN

Pessoas–Animais–Natureza

PNL

Partidul Naţional Liberal

PSD

Partidul Social Democrat

Coalition 2020 USR + PLUS Alliance (Uniunea Salvați România

Coal. Alliance 2020

+ Partidul Libertății, Unității și Solidarității)

Pro Romania

Partidul Pro Romania

PMP

Partidul Mișcarea Populară

UDMR

Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség/Uniunea Democrată Maghiară din România

Socialdemokraterna

Moderaterna

Sverigedemokraterna

Miljöpartiet de Gröna

Centerpartiet

Kristdemokraterna

Vänsterpartiet

Liberalerna

Coal. SDS + SLS

Coalition (Slovenska demokratska stranka + Slovenska ljudska stranka)

Socialni demokrati

LMŠ

Lista Marjana Šarca

N.Si

Nova Slovenija

Coal. PS + SPOLU

Coalition (Progresívne Slovensko + SPOLU – občianska demokracia)

SMER-SD

SMER – Sociálna demokracia

�½SNS

Kotleba – �½udová strana Naše Slovensko

KDH

Kresťanskodemokratické hnutie

SaS

Sloboda a Solidarita

Coal. OL'aNO + NOVA

Coalition (Obyčajní �½udia a nezávislé osobnosti + Nová väčšina – Dohoda)

Brexit Party

LibDem

Liberal Democrats

Lab.

Labour Party

Green Party

Cons.

Conservative and Unionist Party

SNP

Scottish National Party

PL-PW

Plaid Cymru – Party of Wales

Sinn Féin

DUP

Democratic Unionist Party

APNI

Alliance Party

Source:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/election-results-2019/en

PiS

The European Elections of May 2019

Link to Electoral Authority of the Member States (as of June 2020)

https://www.bmi.gv.at/412/Europawahlen/Europawahl_2019/start.aspx

https://wahlen2019.belgium.be/en/election?el=EU

https://results.cik.bg/ep2019/rezultati/index.html

http://live.elections.moi.gov.cy/English/EUROPEAN_ELECTIONS_2019/Islandwide

https://volby.cz/pls/ep2019/ep?xjazyk=EN

https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/europawahlen/2019/ergebnisse/bund-99.html

https://elections.sim.dk/ep-elections/results-of-the-european-parliament-elections-in-denmark-in-2019/

https://ep2019.valimised.ee/en/voting-result/index.html

https://ekloges.ypes.gr/current/e/home/

http://www.juntaelectoralcentral.es/cs/jec/elecciones/Europeas-mayo2019

https://eleccioneslocaleseuropeas19.es/calendario-electoral.html

https://tulospalvelu.vaalit.fi/EPV-2019/en/index.html

https://www.interieur.gouv.fr/Elections/Les-resultats/Europeennes/elecresult__europeennes-2019/

https://www.izbori.hr/site/izbori-referendumi/izbori-clanova-u-europski-parlament-iz-republike-hrvatske/izbori-

clanova-u-europski-parlament-iz-republike-hrvatske -2019-1759/1759

https://www.valasztas.hu/ep2019

https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/a4_european_results_2019_0.pdf

https://dait.interno.gov.it/elezioni/speciale-europee

https://www.vrk.lt/en/2019-europos-parlamento/rezultatai

https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/5153/file/Lithuania_law_elections_european_parliament_2012_en.p

https://elections.public.lu/dam-assets/fr/elections-europeennes/2019/RECENSEMENT-GENERAL-2019.pdf

https://epv2019.cvk.lv/pub/en/election-results

https://www.cvk.lv/en/elections/ep-elections/elections-to-the-european-parliament-2019

https://electoral.gov.mt/ElectionResults/MEP?year=245&v=null

https://www.kiesraad.nl/verkiezingen/europees-parlement

https://pe2019.pkw.gov.pl/pe2019/en

http://www.cne.pt/sites/default/files/dl/2019_pe_mapa_resultados.pdf

http://europarlamentare2019.bec.ro/rezultate/

http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocumentAfis/90301

https://www.val.se/valresultat/europaparlamentet/2019/valresultat.html

https://www.volitve.gov.si/ep2019/en/index.html#/rezultati

http://volby.statistics.sk/ep/ep2019/en/

https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/7767/file/Slovakia_Act_European_Parliamentary_Elections_2003_a

m2008_en.pdf

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8600/CBP-8600.pdf

https://www.eoni.org.uk/Elections/

QA-04-20-445-EN-N

This EPRS study provides an overview of the electoral

systems and outcomes in the May 2019 elections to the

European Parliament. It analyses the procedural details

of how parties and candidates register their

participation, how votes are cast, how valid votes are

converted into seats, and how seats are assigned to

candidates. For each Member State the paper describes

the ballot structure and vote pattern used, the

apportionment of seats among the Member State’s

domestic parties, and the assignment of the seats of a

party to its candidates. It highlights aspects that are

common to all Member States and captures

peculiarities that are specific to some domestic

provisions.

This is a publication of the Members' Research Service

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service

This document is prepared for, and addressed to, the Members and staff of the European

Parliament as background material to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of

the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should

not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament.

PE 652.037

ISBN 978-92-846-6956-1

doi:10.2861/129510