Lithuania's main election committee changed the borders of single-mandate constituencies 1 year before the parliamentary elections. It may cost Poles Vilnius 1 mandate out of 3 that they have been able to win in the majority elections so far. The electoral threshold in force for organization lists is simply a reasonably demanding barrier for the Polish organization to get parliamentary seats in a proportionate mode of election.
The legislative authority in Lithuania is the single-cameral parliament with the acquainted name Seimas – Sejm. It consists of 141 Members. Lithuania has a mixed electoral strategy whereby 71 of them are elected from single-mandate electoral districts. 70 Members are, on the another hand, elected in proportional elections from organization national lists. For this election mode, the list is subject to a 5% electoral threshold for a committee created by 1 organization and 7% for a committee created by a coalition of parties. The allocation of mandates shall take place according to the Hare-Niemmeyer system. Unlike in Poland, national minorities cannot number on any relief – only during the first elections to the Sejm in 1992, Lithuania had preferences for participating organizations of national minorities.
The election threshold in the proportional elections operates with the exception that parties and possibly coalitions that have exceeded it fall at least 60% of all the votes cast in the elections. If they have obtained a combined lower proportion of votes, further parties or coalitions are allowed to allocate their seats until this level of support is reached. The second script is unlikely.
Electoral hossa
Poles account for 6 percent of the Lithuanian population. It is clear that no political organization can number on the 100% support of the electorate, whose interests it seeks to represent. This was besides the case with the Polish Electoral Action in Lithuania (in 2016 a associate of the “Union of Christian Families” was added to the name). Although the organization has been in existence since 1994, it was only in 2012 that the AWPL then managed to cross the electoral threshold, with it expanding its representation from the 3 mandates won in the JOW to eight, obtaining 5 mandates from the list in proportional elections. This success was repeated 4 years later. However, in the 2020 election, the Polish organization lost its chance to participate in the award of seats from the proportional elections, gaining 4.97 percent of the vote.
The election of the hossa last decade active not only the cultural mobilisation of the Polish electorate, but besides the effectiveness in attracting ethnically Russian electorate. This was possible by placing candidates posted by the Allies of the Russians – 1 of the 2 largest Russian organizations in Lithuania at the time – and by raising the interests of this community (the position of Russian-speaking education) and making symbolic gestures towards it (participation in the celebration of the triumph Day on 9 May). This was successful not only in parliamentary elections, but besides in local elections, it helped the AWPL-ZChR to increase its strong representation on the council of the city of Vilnius, crucial to the community's life, due to the fact that almost half of all Poles of Lithuania live in it (according to the 2011 census – 44.1% of them, according to the little reliable census methodology of 2021 – 46.5%). Suffice to mention that in 2015 AWPL-ZCHR won over 17% of the vote in the elections to the city council, and Waldemar Tomaszewski almost entered the second circular of the mayor's election. In a way, cooperation with the Russian organization besides allowed Tomaszewski to enter the European Parliament in 3 consecutive elections between 2009 and 2019, even though, in view of the thinness of the pool in this home of Lithuania (11 mandates), the effective threshold for obtaining mandates is higher than the formal electoral threshold.
This phase was closed. The undisputed leader of the party, Waldemar Tomaszewski, for a long time resisted, sometimes unspeakable and fanatical, criticism of his alliance with the organization of Lithuanian Russians, which sounded among the political elite of Lithuania, but besides from certain circles in Poland, most frequently those most active in the intermarine narrative, “Rzeczpospolita many nations”, for which specified phantom identities were the basis for stronger recognition with the anti-Russianized Lithuanian elites than with their own peoples.
After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Polish organization could no longer number on the support of any organized Russian environment, due to the fact that in the atmosphere created in Lithuania in the context of the war, members of the Allied Russian organization placed the organization in a state of self-destruction. The second specified organization – the Union of the Russians of Lithuania – was self-destructed before the war, in 2021. The Russian electorate is more disintegrated and capricious in Lithuania. Lithuanian Russians are eager to vote for Lithuanian parties. The Russian electorate sailed partially from AWPL-ZCHR inactive at the 2019 Vilnius local election, erstwhile the organization lost almost half of the vote and mandates. This is confirmed by the opinion that Lithuanian Russians are more assimilated to Lithuanian society and little inclined to peculiar self-organization and activism than their Latvian countrymen.
Redrawing JOW
The electoral strategy in Lithuania is not linked to administrative, i.e. the borders of single-mandate electoral districts do not correspond to local government units. but for 1 of the districts designated for the diaspora, JOWs are determined in accordance with the criterion of equal representation, even though the main Electoral Commission establishing them should theoretically consider administrative division. This criterion assumes the JOW model, which is the average calculated from the number of eligible and the number of districts, with an acceptable deviation of 10% both ways. Over the years, thus, single-mandate districts were designated in an even more relaxed relation with historical and cultural conditions. The Vilnius territory was divided between different districts.
The Lithuanian electoral code states that in order to get a mandate, a candidate must win at least half of the votes in specified a territory at least 40% of the eligible. If the turnout is lower, the candidate can win in the first round, gaining a majority of the votes cast, representing at least 1 5th of all eligible. And erstwhile no of these conditions is fulfilled, a second circular is organised after 2 weeks, in which 2 candidates are measured with the highest number of votes.
In 1996 – 1 mandate, 2000 – 2 mandates, 2004 – 2 mandates, 2008 – 3 mandates, 2012 – 3 mandates, 2016 – 3 mandates, 2020 – 3 mandates.
Its representatives have for years pointed out that the JOW in practice does not number for either historical-cultural or administrative considerations. In 2016, the Main Electoral Commission changed the JOW network in a way that obtained a affirmative political assessment of representatives of the Polish minority, as bringing together Polish compact population in 3 districts: No. 55 (German district), No. 56 (Solon-Vilenian district), No. 57 (Vile region). However, the Commission's movement was mainly due to a advanced overshoot of the model value by 3 sub-wilenian JOWs, at 117–119 percent. akin conditions pushed the GKW to make another change.
30 November 2023. The main Electoral Commission made a major change in the electoral districts in Vilnius. territory No. 55, alleged Niemenczyński, changed its form – 8 basic voting circuits in the Vilnius region were cut out of it, many of which were inhabited by Poles. These are the basic circuits: Suzans, Werus, Skirlans, Bujwidze, 2 circuits of the city Niemenczyn (German city and Wilia), and 2 of the 3 agrarian circuits adjacent to Niemenczyn (Kabiški and Kryvolovza). From the dissolved Malacko-Shirwincki territory to territory 55, a basic voting circuit was added in the Podbrzezi territory inhabited by Poles.
Without a single mandate
To illustrate the possible impact of specified a change, mention must be made to the results of AWPL-ZCHR candidate in erstwhile parliamentary elections (2020) in that territory no. 55. The overall consequence is 38.9% of votes in the first circular and 54.5% in the second. erstwhile to check more accurately, Rita Tamašunienė received in the above-mentioned basic voting circuits in the first circular of erstwhile elections respectively, according to the order: 77, 69, 61, 81, 55, 58, 69, 35 percent of the vote. In the second circular it was 89, 88, 85, 92, 74, 74, 91 and 57 percent of the votes respectively. The circuit was so cut off from the district, in which, with the exception of one, AWPL-ZCHR candidate had already obtained an absolute majority in the first round.
After subtracting the election consequence in these Tamašunienė circuits, she would have gained 3,231 votes little in the second round, finishing at 7119. Her rival against the Union of Homeland-Lithuanian Christian Democrats (TS-LKD) in these basic voting circuits received only 799 votes. Without them, he would have won the second circular of elections with a consequence of 7831 votes. In this fresh territory of Rzeszow, AWPL-ZChR will have a problem with the victory. The simulation is not strict due to the fact that in Podbrzez, which was attached to this district, the AWPL candidate for MP from Malacko-Shirwincki territory obtained 278 out of 599 valid votes, or 46 percent of support in the circuit. This is simply a consequence only from the first round, due to the fact that to the second in this Lithuanian-dominated JOW candidate AWPL-ZCHR had no chance to pass. However, even with the mechanical addition of the Bujnicki consequence to the Tamašunienė result, this sum is lower than the consequence of its rival from the second round, without the circuit of Podbrzezia.
The Suzans, Werus, Skirlans, Bujwidze, Niemenczyn, Wilia, Kabiszki and Kryvolovza discussed here consisted of a completely fresh Niemenczyński territory No. 57, as glued from part of the erstwhile pelvic district. It is simply a territory with a greater proportion of the Polish population than analysed above. In erstwhile elections, MP AWPL-ZChR Czesław Olszewski received 52 percent of the vote here, winning already in the first round.
Dilution of Polish electorate
On the another hand, territory 57 was deprived of 2 main voting circuits – Black Boru and Volczun, where candidate AWPL-ZChR received 62 and 55 percent of the votes respectively. These circuits will scope the fresh urban territory of Vilnius-South No. 11, where the Polish electorate will be dissolved in a predominantly ethnically Lithuanian population.
10 subsequent circuits of the erstwhile pelvic territory were added to the Solenc-Vilenian territory No. 56. This district, composed mostly of the Soloncznica region with a section of the Vilnius region glued to the north, had the top proportion of Poles among voters. Suffice to mention that AWPL-ZChR candidate Beata Pietkiewicz received 62 percent of the vote here, winning already in the first circular of elections.
From the fresh territory of Niemenczyński (formerly pelvic) to the solon-Vileński, basic voting circuits were transferred – Mariampol, Porudamino, Rakance, Royal Miedniki, Rukojnie, Stara Wieś, Saviczuna, Kowalczuki, Pakenia and Szumsk. AWPL-ZChR candidate was 51.72, 65, 75, 71, 61, 75, 57, 78, 69 percent of the crucial votes cast.
The simulation for the fresh Nimenczyński district, formed on the main body of the pelvic district, can be carried out on the basis of a comparison of the result of the first circular of the 2020 election in the primary voting circuits that have submitted for the territory (citizens could vote on Czesław Olszewski and Rita Tamašunienė), with the full number of crucial votes in the area. A full of 14 557 crucial votes were cast in the circuit. The AWPL-ZChR candidates were 7768. The theoretical candidate AWPL-ZCHR 4 years ago in the first circular would have obtained in specified a complex territory a score of 53.3 percent, which is 1 percent point higher than Olszewski actually obtained in the old district.
In summary, the changes made by the Main Election Commission, from a single-mandate constituency with a strong proportion of the AWPL-ZChR electorate, were extracted from the basic circuits with a very strong representation of this electorate and joined the full district, having a very advanced proportion of voters to the Polish party. There is no change at first glance in this case. However, this can be seen as more delayed at the time of weakening the chances of a candidate referring to the cultural interests of the Polish electorate in the fresh German territory no. 57. In the Solonsk-Vilensk district, basic voting circuits were transferred from Vilnius, while Niemenczyn was added – a town located on national road 102, leading towards Latvia, an area of settlement force of Lithuanian citizens from another parts of it and from another nationalities.
Counterproposal
In turn, 4 voting circuits were cut out from Solon-Vilenian territory No. 56: Pogira, White Waka, Sorok Tatar, small Lygojnie. They were added to the mentioned urban JOW No. 11, where Poles are in minority. In these basic circuits, AWPL-ZCHR candidate Beata Pietkiewicz received 23, 32, 50, 61 percent of crucial votes in 2020, respectively, against the overall consequence of 62%, which does not propose that the chances of a candidate of the Polish organization in this territory would be diminished, unlike the 2 previously discussed.
The Commission plans were criticised from the beginning by AWPL-ZCHR and the Union of Poles in Lithuania. It was not non-constructive criticism, due to the fact that the Polish organization appeared with its thought of changing the boundaries of districts in order to accomplish a model number of people entitled to vote in each of them. The organization of Poles suggested the preservation of existing districts covering Vilnius: the Niemenczyński region and the pelvic region in little modified form. She proposed in an authoritative paper addressed to the GKW dated October 9, to include from this first territory to the city's JOW basic circuits in Avianze, Payenishki, Orders and Bukizki. On the another hand, the inclusion of the Niemenczyński JOW of the Podbrzeza region, separated from it only in 2020 and inhabited by Poles, was supported.
In order to reduce the size of the pelvic district, it was proposed to decision from it to the territory of Niemenczyń basic voting circuits of Bezdana and Musiuszko, short circuit inhabited by Poles.
The intent of the AWPL-ZCHR proposal is, of course, to consolidate the compact Polish electorate in 3 single-mandate constituency elections. However, it points out that the proposal of the Polish organization requires much little bureaucratic trouble, and assumes a importantly smaller number of transfers of basic voting circuits between districts. However, the fact that the Main Electoral Commission decided to bother more, and the changes were so complicated that the authors of the institutions were mistaken in their time, preparing their visualization, suggests that its members were powerfully motivated to make the changes as they were made.
Representative Party
One can ask at this point whether it is right to perceive and measure the opportunities of the Polish community in Lithuania for political expression of its identity and interests by Waldemar Tomaszewski's party. Many of his opponents in Lithuania and Poland effort to question this point of view. So let us effort to measure the representativeness of AWPL-ZCHR on the basis of electoral data. The overall consequence or on the scale of full administrative units, specified as Vilnius or the area, can be questioned, suggesting that any part of the party's candidates were the work of the Russians or citizens of another nationalities. Let's dig deeper.
The analysis of the fresh local elections (from 2023) in the Vilnius region clearly shows how the proportion of support for the AWPL-ZChR changed with the proportion of Poles in a given primary election circuit. For example, in Vilnius-based Royal Miedniks and Bujwidzki, the list of AWPL-ZCHR to the regional council gathered at the polling stations of 84.7% and 78.5% of the votes – the proportion of Poles in the old days, where these basic voting circuits are located, amounts to 74 and 79 percent of Poles respectively. Meanwhile, in the Podwileńskie Awizych, in which the Poles constituted 24.4% of the population according to the 2011 census, only little than 23.9% were in favour. In the Reich, where 30.4% of Poles were shown, AWPL-ZChR received 11.6 percent of the votes.
This is not a one-time thing. The results were akin in the individual basic circuits of the vote for the 2019 local elections and the then process of accumulation of votes: in Miedniki and Bujwidzki respectively 71.5 and 88.2 percent of support, in Avizje and the Reich 20.8 and 37.4%, and in Zujuny, in which old age Poles constituted 32.5 percent, respectively, 36.75% of votes were cast to the Polish party.
Even more clearly, the trend was in the local government unit, where Poles are distributed very unevenly. In Magunach, they account for 81 percent of the population, while 61.83 percent of the votes were cast. In the 50 km north of Magun Łabonara, inhabited by very fewer Poles, only 3.18% of the votes were given on the AWPL-ZChR. In Podbrodzi where Poles constituted 44.73 percent of residents in 2011, the list of AWPL-ZChR received 33.81 percent of the votes. Even in Wisagini, located outside Vilnius, where the Polish community is inflowing, the organization received 10.9% of the vote, a proportion akin to the proportion of Poles among residents.
The results of subsequent elections, broken down into basic electoral circuits, correspond much more to the change in the proportion of the Polish population than the Russian population. More indirect clues besides pointed to the departure of the Russian electorate from the AWPL-ZChR as early as 2019: a mediocre consequence of specified a prominent typical of the Allied Russians as Rafael Muksinov in the Vilnius council election, and at the same time a good consequence in them of the Labour organization (DP), founded by a businessman of Russian origin Viktor Uspaski and according to Lithuanian commentators enjoying large sympathy for the Russians.
Indifference over Vistula
All data indicate that Waldemar Tomaszewski's organization collects electorate mainly among Poles. The numbers may indicate that they receive votes from most politically active members of this community. In the last parliamentary elections (2020), the voting rights were 85 percent of the Lithuanian population. erstwhile this percent is applied to the number of Poles, it corresponds to about 157 1000 of them. If we consider the turnout of 47.81 percent as part of the model, we will get about 75,000. Since attendance was higher than the average national, as the results from the Niemenczyński territory and part of Vilnius districts indicate, this number can be rounded to 80 thousand. Even in specified a case, 56,3 1000 votes cast on AWPL-ZCHR give more than 2 thirds of the number of politically active Poles, which results from simulation.
Manipulations designed to reduce the election chances of their representation meet with indifference in Poland. This case was not raised over the Vistula River by 1 politician, not a journalist, a publicist or an authoritative with the support of Poles abroad in his duties. This is the case, despite the fact that Polish media in Lithuania informed about the case, the ZPL discussed it at a conference on number rights in the Lithuanian Sejm, and the AWPL-ZCHR provided information on this subject to the Polish Embassy in Vilnius, as well as the Organisation for safety and Cooperation in Europe and the Intergroup on conventional Minorities of the National and Language Parliament. The second responded by writing to the President, the Prime Minister, the president of the Lithuanian Parliament and the Main Electoral Commission, recognising the change of the JOW's borders as "unacceptable", as well as expressing "solidarity" with the Polish number and calling on the GKW to retreat from the November decision.
Both the AWPL-ZCHR and the Intergroup considered the decisions of the Lithuania Main Election Commission to be contrary to the reports of the Bureau of Democratic Institutions and OSCE Human Rights on the parliamentary elections in Lithuania and the advice of the advanced Commissioner of the OSCE of 1999, which states that electoral districts should be constituted in specified a way as to enable indigenous national minorities to choice their political representatives and their changes consulted with typical number representatives. Meanwhile, the right to nominate candidates to the Main Election Commission has parties that have exceeded the electoral threshold. The wheel is closing. AWPL-ZCHR challenged the Commission's decision to court.
Lithuanian JOW before changes
Lithuanian JOW after changes
photo: wikipedia.commons
