Government's electoral district proposal meets harsh reception from Centre and SDP

The Finnish government has put forward a proposal to amend the constitution, which would allow for a reduction in the number of electoral districts for parliamentary elections. The Ministry of Justice circulated a draft of the proposal for comments on Wednesday. Under the proposed changes, the number of electoral districts would range from a minimum of nine to a maximum of fifteen, with the autonomous region of Åland retaining its status as a separate district.

Currently, the constitution mandates at least twelve and no more than eighteen electoral districts. The government's stated objective is to enhance the proportionality of parliamentary elections. It argues that the "hidden vote threshold" is particularly high in small electoral districts, meaning a party needs a larger share of the vote to secure a seat. For instance, in Lapland, only six parliamentary seats were available in the last election. The hidden vote threshold refers to the percentage of votes a party needs to win at least one seat within a specific district.

While the Ministry of Justice notes that implementing the proposal would not automatically necessitate changes to the current electoral map, it would practically enable the consolidation of districts. This could lead to situations where electoral districts are combined, avoiding the need to divide certain areas. Previously, parliamentary parties discussed electoral system reforms, but a proposed electoral region model by the government failed in the spring due to disagreements.

Party officials have reacted negatively to the new proposal. Antti Siika-aho, the Centre Party's secretary, and Mikkel Näkkäläjärvi, the Social Democrats' secretary, both issued statements criticizing the government's move. Näkkäläjärvi called it a "hasty decision" by the Orpo government, arguing that such a significant change should have been prepared during government negotiations. Siika-aho also deemed the proposal hasty and its underlying rationale unclear. Because the change involves the constitution, it requires approval from both the current and the next parliament, with the latter needing a two-thirds majority.