-
- Art. 5a FC
- Art. 6 FC
- Art. 10 FC
- Art. 16 FC
- Art. 17 FC
- Art. 20 FC
- Art. 22 FC
- Art. 29a FC
- Art. 30 FC
- Art. 32 FC
- Art. 42 FC
- Art. 43 FC
- Art. 43a FC
- Art. 55 FC
- Art. 56 FC
- Art. 60 FC
- Art. 68 FC
- Art. 75b FC
- Art. 77 FC
- Art. 96 para. 2 lit. a FC
- Art. 110 FC
- Art. 117a FC
- Art. 118 FC
- Art. 123b FC
- Art. 136 FC
- Art. 166 FC
-
- Art. 11 CO
- Art. 12 CO
- Art. 50 CO
- Art. 51 CO
- Art. 84 CO
- Art. 143 CO
- Art. 144 CO
- Art. 145 CO
- Art. 146 CO
- Art. 147 CO
- Art. 148 CO
- Art. 149 CO
- Art. 150 CO
- Art. 701 CO
- Art. 715 CO
- Art. 715a CO
- Art. 734f CO
- Art. 785 CO
- Art. 786 CO
- Art. 787 CO
- Art. 788 CO
- Transitional provisions to the revision of the Stock Corporation Act of June 19, 2020
- Art. 808c CO
-
- Art. 2 PRA
- Art. 3 PRA
- Art. 4 PRA
- Art. 6 PRA
- Art. 10 PRA
- Art. 10a PRA
- Art. 11 PRA
- Art. 12 PRA
- Art. 13 PRA
- Art. 14 PRA
- Art. 15 PRA
- Art. 16 PRA
- Art. 17 PRA
- Art. 19 PRA
- Art. 20 PRA
- Art. 21 PRA
- Art. 22 PRA
- Art. 23 PRA
- Art. 24 PRA
- Art. 25 PRA
- Art. 26 PRA
- Art. 27 PRA
- Art. 29 PRA
- Art. 30 PRA
- Art. 31 PRA
- Art. 32 PRA
- Art. 32a PRA
- Art. 33 PRA
- Art. 34 PRA
- Art. 35 PRA
- Art. 36 PRA
- Art. 37 PRA
- Art. 38 PRA
- Art. 39 PRA
- Art. 40 PRA
- Art. 41 PRA
- Art. 42 PRA
- Art. 43 PRA
- Art. 44 PRA
- Art. 45 PRA
- Art. 46 PRA
- Art. 47 PRA
- Art. 48 PRA
- Art. 49 PRA
- Art. 50 PRA
- Art. 51 PRA
- Art. 52 PRA
- Art. 53 PRA
- Art. 54 PRA
- Art. 55 PRA
- Art. 56 PRA
- Art. 57 PRA
- Art. 58 PRA
- Art. 59a PRA
- Art. 59b PRA
- Art. 59c PRA
- Art. 62 PRA
- Art. 63 PRA
- Art. 67 PRA
- Art. 67a PRA
- Art. 67b PRA
- Art. 75 PRA
- Art. 75a PRA
- Art. 76 PRA
- Art. 76a PRA
- Art. 90 PRA
-
- Vorb. zu Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 2 FADP
- Art. 3 FADP
- Art. 5 lit. f und g FADP
- Art. 6 Abs. 6 and 7 FADP
- Art. 7 FADP
- Art. 10 FADP
- Art. 11 FADP
- Art. 12 FADP
- Art. 14 FADP
- Art. 15 FADP
- Art. 19 FADP
- Art. 20 FADP
- Art. 22 FADP
- Art. 23 FADP
- Art. 25 FADP
- Art. 26 FADP
- Art. 27 FADP
- Art. 31 para. 2 lit. e FADP
- Art. 33 FADP
- Art. 34 FADP
- Art. 35 FADP
- Art. 38 FADP
- Art. 39 FADP
- Art. 40 FADP
- Art. 41 FADP
- Art. 42 FADP
- Art. 43 FADP
- Art. 44 FADP
- Art. 44a FADP
- Art. 45 FADP
- Art. 46 FADP
- Art. 47 FADP
- Art. 47a FADP
- Art. 48 FADP
- Art. 49 FADP
- Art. 50 FADP
- Art. 51 FADP
- Art. 54 FADP
- Art. 57 FADP
- Art. 58 FADP
- Art. 60 FADP
- Art. 61 FADP
- Art. 62 FADP
- Art. 63 FADP
- Art. 64 FADP
- Art. 65 FADP
- Art. 66 FADP
- Art. 67 FADP
- Art. 69 FADP
- Art. 72 FADP
- Art. 72a FADP
-
- Art. 2 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 3 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 4 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 5 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 6 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 7 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 8 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 9 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 11 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 12 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 25 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 29 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 32 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 33 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 34 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
CODE OF OBLIGATIONS
FEDERAL LAW ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
LUGANO CONVENTION
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON POLITICAL RIGHTS
CIVIL CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON CARTELS AND OTHER RESTRAINTS OF COMPETITION
FEDERAL ACT ON INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
DEBT ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY ACT
FEDERAL ACT ON DATA PROTECTION
SWISS CRIMINAL CODE
CYBERCRIME CONVENTION
- I. History of origins
- II. Significance of the provision
- III. Commentary on the text of the norm
- Materials
- Bibliography
I. History of origins
1 List combinations have been permissible since the introduction of proportional representation and the National Council Election Act in 1919, as have sub-list combinations. Therefore, it has also been necessary since 1919 to distribute the mandates awarded to the group of linked lists among the individual lists. The legislator regulated this itself, instead of leaving it to the lists concerned, and in doing so opted for a regulation that is still in force today. The relevant Art. 21 aNWG did not give rise to any comments, neither in the dispatch nor in the parliamentary debates.
2 There were various efforts to abolish the possibility of list connections or sub-list connections, but they were unsuccessful. If list or sub-list connections were no longer permissible, Art. 42 PRA would also become invalid.
II. Significance of the provision
A. General
3 List and sub-list combinations are a frequently used instrument in National Council elections and have a considerable influence on the distribution of mandates. Since they are used so frequently, the question of how the mandates obtained by the list group are allocated to the individual lists in the initial and remainder allocations pursuant to Articles 40 and 41 PRA is of essential importance.
B. Procedure of the distribution of mandates
1. Procedure of distribution to the lists
4 The mandates are distributed to the lists in several steps:
Distribution of the mandates to the lists (groups) according to Art. 40 and 41 PRA.
Distribution of the mandates to the lists or sub-groups combined in the group according to Art. 42 para. 2 PRA
Distribution of mandates to the individual lists united in the sub-list combination according to art. 42 par. 2 PRA.
2. Example of the distribution of mandates to individual lists
5 The initial distribution is illustrated using the example of the National Council election results in the electoral district (canton) of Lucerne in 2019. The canton (= constituency) had to allocate nine seats in the National Council to the lists. A total of 35 lists competed. Of these 35 lists, two competed individually, the others were combined in a total of three different list groups, with "mother parties" and their smaller offshoots additionally linked by sub-list connections. (Sub-)list groups of the same party are each marked with a plus sign. Among others, there was a list connection between the Green Party, the SP, the GLP and the list "Integrale Politik" (IP). The group "Greens+, SP+, GLP+, IP" was treated as a single list within the distribution according to Art. 40 PRA and was awarded a total of three mandates. As an example, the distribution among the sub-list groups as well as among the individual lists for a sub-list group is calculated through here.
a. Distribution among the sub-list groups
6 The votes were distributed among the individual lists as follows:
List | Votes |
| Sub-list group | Votes |
Grüne | 123’739 | } |
Grüne+
|
145’107 |
Junge Grüne | 11’963 | |||
Unternehmer*innen für eine grüne Wirtschaft (Grüne) | 9’405 | |||
|
|
| SP+ (6 Listen) | 160’408 |
|
|
| GLP+ (3 Listen) | 84’227 |
Integrale Politik (IP) | 5’945 |
| -- | 5’945 |
|
|
| Total | 395’687 |
7 The three mandates of the list group must now be further distributed. Pursuant to Art. 42 para. 1 PRA, the linked lists of the sub-list groups are each treated as a single list. Art. 40 PRA is applied and the divisor is calculated: Number of party votes of the entire list group divided by (the number of mandates to be allocated plus one), rounded up to the next higher whole number.
395,687 / (3+1) = 98,921.75 à divisor: 98,922 (= "mandate price")
The quotient of each sub-list group or list is calculated by dividing the number of party votes of the sub-list group or list by the divisor. The number before the decimal point indicates how many mandates the sub-list group receives after the initial distribution.
E.g. for the sub-list group "Greens+": 145'107 / 98'922 = 1.467 à Entitlement of the sub-list group according to the initial allocation: 1 mandate
Sub-list group/List | Number of party votes | Quotient (rounded) | Mandates |
Grüne+ | 145’107 | 1.47 | 1 |
SP+ | 160’408 | 1.62 | 1 |
GLP+ | 84’227 | 0.85 | 0 |
IP | 5’945 | 0.06 | 0 |
Total |
|
| 2 |
8 A further mandate must be distributed by means of a remainder distribution in accordance with Art. 41 PRA. According to Art. 41 para. 1 lit. a PRA, a quotient is first calculated for each grouping by dividing its party votes by the number of mandates already allocated to it plus one.
E.g. for the Greens: 145,107 / (1+1) = 72,553.5
Sub-list group/List | Number of party votes | Quotient |
Grüne+ | 145’107 | 72'553.5 |
SP+ | 160’408 | 80’204 |
GLP+ | 84’227 | 84’227 |
IP | 5’945 | 5’945 |
Total |
|
|
The sub-list group GLP+ has the largest quotient in terms of the "hypothetical mandate price" and is therefore awarded the last mandate of the list group. Accordingly, the sub-list groups Greens+, SP+ and GLP+ each receive one mandate.
b. Distribution among the individual lists
9 Greens+, SP+ and GLP+, which are each entitled to one mandate according to the above calculation, are sub-list groups. It must be decided last which list of the sub-list group receives the mandate in question. This mandate distribution is also calculated on the basis of Art. 40 and 41 PRA.
The divisor is calculated: Number of party votes of the entire sub-list group divided by (the number of mandates to be awarded plus one), rounded up to the next higher whole number.
145'107 / (1+1) = 72'553.5 à divisor: 72'554 (= "mandate price")
The quotient of each list is calculated by dividing the number of party votes of the list by the divisor. The number before the decimal point indicates how many mandates the sub-list group receives after the initial distribution.
E.g. for the Green List: 123,739 / 72,554 = 1.705 à Entitlement of the Green List according to the initial distribution: 1 mandate
List | Number of party votes | Quotient (rounded) | Mandates |
Grüne | 123’739 | 1.47 | 1 |
Junge Grüne | 11’963 | 0.16 | 0 |
Unternehmer*innen für eine grüne Wirtschaft (Grüne) | 9’405 | 0.000002 | 0 |
Total |
|
| 1 |
The mandate of the sub-list group Greens+ is thus allocated to the list "Greens". The corresponding calculation must be performed for each sub-list group.
C. Legal comparison
10 List combinations are not permitted in all cantons. In cantons with a mandate allocation system according to Pukelsheim, list connections are excluded because they are unnecessary. In most cantons with the Hagenbach-Bischoff system, however, list connections are allowed, as well as in two other cantons with other variants of proportional representation systems. Sub-list connections exist only in a few cantons. If list or sub-list combinations are possible, they are treated in the same way in the cantons as in the Confederation, both with regard to the calculation of the distribution of first and remaining mandates and with regard to the distribution of the mandates won by the group of combined lists among the individual lists.
III. Commentary on the text of the norm
A. Par. 1: Dealing with connected lists in the distribution of mandates
1. "Group of linked lists
11 The legal provision refers to a "group of linked lists". It does not explicitly name list or sub-list connections, but applies to both at the respective stage of mandate distribution.
2. "in the distribution of mandates"
12 The distribution of mandates among the lists in the broad sense takes place in several steps, as described above. Art. 42 para. 1 PRA is relevant for all these distribution steps: On the one hand, it applies to the distribution of mandates among the lists and list combinations according to Art. 40 and 41 PRA (step 1). However, the paragraph is equally applicable to the distribution of mandates among the sub-list groups combined in sub-list combinations pursuant to Art. 42 para. 2 PRA (step 2).
3. mechanism: "treated as a single list"
13 List connections are intended to give as many votes as possible an influence on the distribution of mandates and thus improve the equality of success values. Without list connections, this is problematic especially for votes cast for smaller lists, particularly in constituencies with few seats. The risk is that the lists in question would not receive a mandate, but would fail to meet the natural quorum. The idea of list combinations is based on the fact that it is better that at least one slightly larger list associated with the small list is awarded a mandate than that the votes for the small list have no influence at all on the distribution of mandates. However, it can also happen that a small list helps a large list to a mandate by means of list connections without benefiting from it itself.
14 Accordingly, the votes of all linked lists are added together when the mandates are distributed as a whole. The purpose of list combinations is therefore precisely that the lists concerned are treated as a single group for the distribution of mandates, which is ensured by this paragraph.
B. Para. 2: Allocation to the individual lists
1. Para. 2, sentence 1: Distribution according to Art. 40 and 41 PRA
15 The distribution to the lists combined in the list group is carried out according to the same mechanisms as the initial and residual distribution to all lists, which is why reference can largely be made to the commentary on these articles for an explanation of the same.
16 The interaction of the initial distribution (Art. 40 PRA) and the residual distribution (Art. 41 PRA) has the effect that larger parties systematically receive a small advantage in the distribution of mandates. This applies not only to the distribution of mandates among the list groups, but also to the distribution among the individual lists. Therefore, list combinations are generally to the advantage of the larger parties within the group when it comes to the distribution of mandates stricto sensu. On the other hand, they ensure that votes for smaller parties at least influence the initial distribution of mandates.
2. Para. 2, second sentence: Reservation of Art. 37 paras. 2 and 2bis
17 As the only part of the entire provision, sentence 2 of para. 2 was later added to Art. 42 PRA. Art. 37 paras. 2 and 2bis, to which reference is made therein, deal with the question to which list additional votes are attributed in the case of sub-list connections. Sub-list connections were extensively discussed and newly regulated in the 1994 revision of the PRA. The Federal Council's draft proposed to prohibit sub-list connections. Parliament opted for a solution that allowed sub-list connections but limited them to lists bearing the same designation with other additions. In the course of this comprehensive new regulation, Art. 37 para. 2 and 2bis were also inserted, as well as the reservation of these articles in the distribution of mandates among the individual lists.
I would like to thank Joey Jüstrich and Matthias Zinniker, auxiliary assistants at the Center for Democracy Aarau, for their stimulating comments, assistance in researching the material and reviewing the text.
Materials
Botschaft des Bundesrates an die Bundesversammlung betreffend die Wahl des Nationalrates nach dem Grundsatze der Proportionalität vom 26.11.1918, BBl 1918 V S. 121 ff. (zit. Botschaft NWG).
Botschaft über eine Teiländerung der Bundesgesetzgebung über die politischen Rechte vom 1.9.1993, BBl 1993 III S. 445 ff. (zit. Botschaft BPR-Revision 1993).
Bibliography
Aubert Jean-François, Die schweizerische Bundesversammlung von 1848–1998, Basel 1998.
Glaser Andreas/Frei Florian, Rechtswidrige Unterlistenverbindungen zwischen verschiedenen Parteien, ZBl 121 (2020), S. 308-314.
Haller Walter/Kölz Alfred/Gächter Thomas, Allgemeines Staatsrecht, 6. Aufl., Zürich 2020.
Hangartner Yvo/Kley Andreas/Braun Binder Nadja/Glaser Andreas, Die demokratischen Rechte in Bund und Kantonen der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft, 2. Aufl., Zürich 2023.
Kley Andreas, Demokratisches Instrumentarium, in: Biaggini Giovanni/Gächter Thomas/Kiener Regina (Hrsg.), Staatsrecht, 3. Aufl., Zürich 2021, S. 360–388.
Kölz Alfred, Probleme des kantonalen Wahlrechts - Darstellung und kritische Betrachtung der Gesetzgebung und der bundesgerichtlichen Rechtsprechung, ZBl 88 (1987), S. 1–48.
Lehner Irina, Kommentierung zu Art. 40 und 41 BPR, in: Glaser Andreas/Braun Binder Nadja/Bisaz Corsin/Tornay Schaller Bénédicte (Hrsg.), Onlinekommentar zum Bundesgesetz über die politischen Rechte, abrufbar unter https://onlinekommentar.ch/de/kommentare/bpr40, besucht am 15.6.2023.
Thurnherr Daniela, Kommentierung zu Art. 149 BV, in: Waldmann Bernhard/Belser Eva Maria/Epiney Astrid (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesverfassung, Basel 2015.
Weber Anina, Listenverbindungen: Problematische Liaisons bei Wahlen, AJP 2013, S. 683–697.
Wyler Stefan, Kommentierung zu Art. 31 BPR, in: Glaser Andreas/Braun Binder Nadja/Bisaz Corsin/Tornay Schaller Bénédicte (Hrsg.), Onlinekommentar zum Bundesgesetz über die politischen Rechte, abrufbar unter https://onlinekommentar.ch/de/kommentare/bpr31, besucht am 20.6.2023.