Election issues

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! That an election is conducted correctly is essential for respect for democracy to be upheld. We live in a time where we see that in other countries, the suspicion of the electoral system is used as a way to strengthen populist and extreme forces. We saw in the USA how Trump questioned the voting machines, which it was subsequently shown that there was nothing wrong with. We have also seen that foreign interests in this security-politically troublesome situation try to influence election results. By questioning the electoral system, they become a threat to democracy.

The smallest errors made in elections therefore feed forces that are a threat to democracy. That the election is fair and that the possibility of electoral fraud is minimized, that citizens have oversight of the election process and that the election result can be appealed if violations have occurred is important for the trust in democracy to be able to be maintained.

With this said: The perfect electoral system does not exist. Different goals are in conflict with one another. Such things as geographical distribution, absolute fairness, the possibility of creating majorities, and so on collide with one another, and one must make a trade-off between the different purposes that the electoral system has.

Different trade-offs have also been made in different countries. We do not call countries such as the United Kingdom undemocratic, even though they have an electoral system that deviates very much from ours. The same applies to the American electoral system, the French electoral system, and so on. The systems are the result of different trade-offs and different historical experiences. We must also remember this when we discuss the design of the electoral system and not use as a first argument that anyone proposing it has undemocratic purposes, because it is a matter of trade-offs.

Election issues

In this report, a number of motions with different proposals are addressed. Let me begin by stating that if one wants to change the electoral system in any decisive way, the issues must be treated as a whole precisely because different purposes of the electoral system conflict with one another. Furthermore, changes must occur with broad majorities. We shall fight over the content of politics - not over its rules of the game.

I sit in the Election Review Board. After the last election, we can well conclude that yes, some mistakes are made, but primarily it concerns relatively small mistakes that have not affected the election result and which are the result of human error. But it is clear that if I had arrived at my polling station and been met with what a number of citizens were met with at the last election, namely that the election official says that I have already been struck off, I would probably have become quite upset. It is about not being allowed to cast one's vote because the election official has placed the ruler on the wrong row.

It is clear that the electoral system is not perfect, and therefore it must constantly be refined and changed.

Motions have been submitted regarding separate election days ever since the common election day was introduced in 1970. The purpose is then to increase the focus on local and regional issues. Experiences from other countries, for example our neighboring country Finland, are however that voter turnout becomes very low in purely local and regional elections. It undermines the legitimacy of the election.

Reference is sometimes made to the period before 1970, when Sweden had separate election days but where voter turnout was still relatively high in the municipal and county council elections. But then we must remember that at that time we had a bicameral system, and the first chamber was indirectly elected by the county councils and the larger cities. Even municipal and county council elections had an influence on national politics, and that maintained a high voter turnout.

There is also a tendency with ever-increasing vote splitting and more votes for local parties. This perhaps shows that the need for separate election days is not as great as has been previously suggested.

There is a question regarding the publication of opinion polls near election day. One might wonder if it can affect the election result. Does it lead to tactical voting? On the other hand, perhaps it contributes to mobilizing people so that more people go and vote. No democrat can well be against an increase in voter turnout? This is an example of different interests meeting and trade-offs must be made.

In summary, it can be stated that the various proposals regarding the electoral system are on the table, and it is time for a new parliamentary inquiry. I move for approval of KU's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Lindahl (SD)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to move for approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation 5 in the report KU23 Election Issues.

It has now been a number of months since the autumn elections last year, and it is time once again to debate election issues in the Swedish Riksdag.

If one first wants to summarize the Election Authority's account of how the election process proceeded, one can say that things basically functioned well. However, there were quite a few identified deficiencies. This is obviously serious and must be noted, because it is through free and general elections that political power in Sweden is distributed. It is through the elections that the will of the people expresses itself, and they ultimately decide how our country shall be governed.

Madam Speaker! The election process itself is one of the most fragile points when it comes to our democracy. Recurring incidents and occurrences risk damaging the legitimacy of the election result - a legitimacy that is a prerequisite for a healthy and revitalized democracy. The Sweden Democrats therefore consider it important to establish a central incident reporting. With national coordination, one can during and after an election identify vulnerabilities that could improperly affect the election result.

The first and most important step towards solving a problem is to actually know what is wrong. If we cannot effectively compile incidents noticed by Valmyndigheten, Valprövningsnämnden, and the municipal election committees, it will simultaneously be difficult to get an overview of which parts of the electoral system are not functioning.

Then we have the question of municipal election informers, something that is currently completely unregulated. Irregularities have occurred linked to this type of service, which is deeply unfortunate as the service has the status of being independent and often targets groups of voters who need extra help in exercising their right to vote. Therefore, the Sverigedemokraterna believe that clear national guidelines should be developed for local election informers where precisely impartiality is emphasized.

Furthermore, we believe that it should be an absolute requirement that the person voting provides identification. Today, it is possible for another person to certify the voter's identity. There is also a possibility for poll workers to grant a person the right to vote through personal acquaintance, which is a very arbitrary assessment.

A recurring concern in connection with elections is that the wrong voters are struck off the electoral roll, that is, voters risk losing their right to vote. If identification requirements are introduced, we believe that it reduces the risk of incorrect removal from the electoral roll. At the same time, it is ensured that the right person votes in the right election, given that there are different levels when three elections occur simultaneously.

Finally, I want to raise the issue of the ballot system. In the Election Authority's report Experiences from the 2022 elections, one can read the following paragraph: "Many of the problems, challenges, and incidents that occurred during the 2022 elections are linked to the ballot system. The Election Authority considers it of the utmost importance that the ballot system is changed immediately. Today's system is difficult for voters to understand and brings with it significant challenges and risks regarding, for example, logistics, security, and accessibility. The Election Authority assesses that the new legislation with screening of ballot stations has functioned well to strengthen the secrecy of the vote, but that it has been very challenging for the municipalities to manage with queues during the voting reception as a result. If no measures are taken before the 2026 elections, there is a risk that problems will repeat or escalate."

The Sweden Democrats have been advocates of a ballot reform and agree with the Election Authority's conclusions in the latest experience reports. A change of the ballot system is the key to remedying many serious deficiencies that plague the election process. It is therefore pleasing that the Sweden Democrats have now reached an agreement with the government in the form of the Tidö Agreement, where one can read the following declaration of intent:

"Appoint a parliamentary committee with the mandate to review today's Swedish electoral system with party-specific ballots and its impact on democracy regarding, for example, voter turnout and legal certainty, taking into account the Election Authority's previous views. The investigation should also be tasked with analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of a system with common ballots, as well as gathering knowledge from countries that currently have such systems."

The Sweden Democrats are, as said, positive towards the initiative to investigate a potential ballot reform. It is truly high time, Madam Speaker.

In this speech, Leonid Yurkovskiy (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Erik Ottoson (M)

Madam Speaker! The debate we are having today on KU's report on Election Issues may appear to be a debate where we simply stand and agree with each other in many respects. That is how it should be.

As my colleague Hans Ekström from the Socialdemokraterna explained, breadth and stability are needed in our processes when we reform the electoral system, something that is extremely important for the legitimacy of democracy. I whispered to colleague Ekström as he was heading down from the rostrum that I almost pressed the button for approval for the first time after having heard a Socialdemokrater speak.

I think this is an important issue for long-term stability, because it is, as has been said earlier, when this foundation of our democracy is questioned that the problems with democracy in a broader sense arise and the legitimacy problems begin to emerge. Does this mean that no changes should be made at all? No, of course not, Madam Speaker.

As my colleague from the Sweden Democrats, Fredrik Lindahl, mentioned earlier, during this mandate period we will establish a parliamentary committee with the aim of reviewing the ballot system, which is in need of such a review. It is logistically tricky, and the Election Authority has in many ways demonstrated the problems that exist in the ballot system as it is today.

At the same time as one analyzes this, one must keep in mind that every change, every thing that causes voters who come to the polling station to experience that they do not recognize it since they were there last time, must be well-founded. It must be pedagogical and easy to understand, and it must appear robust and secure for the voters. When they leave, they must feel that they have had the opportunity to express their opinion and that they are certain that it was done correctly. Therefore, changes to the ballot system must be carefully analyzed, reviewed, and grounded in the public's trust in the electoral system. We in the parliamentary committee will need to ensure that this is the case.

Support for our electoral system is, as said, a fundamental basis. We must not forget that this does not only apply to the three elections we have every four years but also the election we have every five years: the election to the European Parliament. It is creeping closer. There is an ongoing process at the European level in the European Parliament, which has the right of initiative in these matters, to lay out the fundamentals for how the work shall function.

I was there myself just a few weeks ago, representing the Committee on the Constitution in the European Parliament's AFCO Committee, where the discussions on these issues are heated and where there are many interesting and lively proposals on how the system can be reformed. What strikes me is that the national parliaments, less than a year before the election is to take place, do not quite have the same appetite for drastic changes with narrow majorities.

Something that I consider to be a sign of health regarding European democracy, Madam Speaker, is that one also there, to an ever-increasing extent, reasons roughly as we do in Sweden when we talk about legitimacy. Things and matters must occur with broad agreements, it must not go too fast, and there must be a fundamental legitimacy in the process. It is something that I think is important for us Swedes, who have this in our blood, to emphasize in various European contexts where we meet those who perhaps want to move a bit faster and who perhaps do not have quite as large problems with doing things with narrow majorities—things that can sometimes create clashes between different democratic philosophies.

In our European community, in our European Union, we have different national systems. That is why the Swedish position is – and will continue to be, I would guess, given how broad support it has – that the national democracies but also the European democracy in a national context must be allowed to function in slightly different ways. It is in order to maintain precisely this legitimacy in the system – that and the recognition. One should feel that when I left the ballot box, it was right. My vote counted. And when the votes are counted together in the evening, one should feel that there is a stability in the system. It was right there too.

With that, Madam Speaker, I would like to move for approval of the Committee on the Constitution's proposal.

In this speech, Lars Engsund (M) concurred.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! It is almost noticeable in this debate that the Committee on the Constitution is currently in its spring review. I would not go so far as to "like" the previous speakers, but I can agree in large parts with what they have said about the electoral system. It is perhaps something that characterizes our committee – we are trying to find common ground and find consensus on issues that are fundamental to our democracy.

But I am also a member of the Left Party, Madam Speaker, so I still wish to move for approval of reservation 1 in this report, which deals precisely with electoral issues and our electoral system.

It is appropriate, as the previous speaker said, that we are debating these issues when we still have last year's election in our minds. We in the committee have also taken part in the experiences from the Election Review Board, where I sit together with several others who are in the room now, but also of the experiences that the Election Authority has after the completion of the latest election. I can truly recommend interested persons to read these experience reports.

Madam Speaker! Our Swedish electoral system is based on the constitutional provisions regarding universal and equal suffrage and that elections shall be free, secret and direct.

Today, one becomes eligible to vote in elections when one turns 18, regardless of gender. But it has not always been that way. I know that the Speaker is well aware of this because during the last parliamentary term, we celebrated the democracy jubilee and 100 years of free and equal suffrage, which also includes women's suffrage.

One hundred years ago, women's suffrage and female members of parliament were new phenomena. They came after a long and determined struggle against fierce opposition had finally been completed. Sweden was actually last in the Nordic countries to introduce suffrage for women.

Fredrik Theodor Borg, who was a member of the Riksdag during the late 1800s and advocated for democracy and republic, was also the first member of the Riksdag – for it was only men at that time – who motioned for suffrage for women. He did so in 1884, but unfortunately, he did not get to experience either republic, democracy, or suffrage for women. Unfortunately, he died before these reforms came. Some I am still waiting for, however, but some we have been able to celebrate for a number of years. As I said earlier, several of these decisions were highlighted during the last parliamentary term.

Madam Speaker! Something one must not forget, even though it was fun to celebrate the anniversary last parliamentary term, is that even after the breakthrough in 1921, not everyone received the right to vote. Those who had been sentenced to prison, those who were in personal bankruptcy or had tax debts, and those who received grants from the poor relief—that is, today's social assistance—did not get to vote. It was actually not until 1989, so about 35 years ago, that all different voting restrictions were removed.

In short, it can be stated that the right to vote and our electoral system have changed, developed, and improved over time, and so it needs to continue.

Vänsterpartiet has in recent years submitted several proposals linked to the right to vote. We consider, just as before, even though we have not submitted a motion on it this time, that the right to vote should apply from the year one turns 18. The reservation we have in the report, which I have moved to approve, concerns that we want to see a lowered voting age to 16 on a trial basis in the municipal elections, in accordance with the proposal that the Democracy Inquiry submitted in 2016.

One can note that in previous years when similar motions have been handled in our committee, the committee's majority has referred to the fact that they do not want to anticipate the Government Offices' preparation of the Democracy Inquiry's proposal. But in the autumn, the government chose to dismiss the matter regarding the inquiry's report. In other words, this inquiry has gone from being a shelf-warmer to having been tossed into the wastebasket. Naturally, I and my party find this regrettable, especially since several countries in our surrounding world have lowered the voting age.

A few weeks ago, I, the vice-chairman of the committee, and several other members were at a conference organized by the European Parliament which was linked to the voting act. There, several members from other parliaments testified about how their countries had lowered the voting age and about the good experiences one had from, for example, Austria, Germany, and Malta.

Madam Speaker! We know that research shows that the habit of voting is established in young years, and we know that voter turnout today is lower among first-time voters than in the rest of the population.

The electoral information provided to upper secondary school students during the election campaign by, for example, youth organizations and parties is therefore particularly important. But the mobilizing effect is weakened when many of those sitting in the classrooms are not affected because they will not have the opportunity to vote.

Particularly in matters concerning school, leisure, urban planning and other areas that directly affect the everyday lives of young people, we believe it is reasonable and desirable that young people are given more influence.

The average age of first-time voters in Sweden is today 20 years. It is actually the highest average age in all of Europe.

If the voting age in municipal elections were lowered to 16 years, the average age of first-time voters would drop from 20 years to 18 years in municipal council elections. That was exactly what the Democracy Inquiry proposed. It would also mean that a majority of first-time voters are in upper secondary school the first time they have the right to vote, which would give the school system the opportunity to develop and expand its democracy work and be a support for first-time voters who need to navigate among complicated political ideologies and proposals.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to say something about the experiences from the 2022 election and our electoral system.

The Swedish electoral system is based, as said, on universal and equal suffrage and that elections shall be free, secret, and direct. This is established in our constitution. The right to vote is determined based on impartial requirements, for example, age. All voters have an equal right to influence the result through what we commonly call one vote per person, and all voters have the opportunity to vote directly for the candidates they prefer in the various assemblies. The secrecy of the ballot is strong, and no one else may decide what a voter shall vote for or force the voter to reveal how they voted.

The electoral system also needs to have robustness against attempts at manipulation in various ways. We have that today through our decentralized system with vote reception and vote counting all around the country. Since the vote reception and vote counting are public, anyone can go and watch when, for example, the votes are counted.

Transparency and decentralization contribute to creating a system that makes it more difficult to manipulate or influence the election result. This means, as previous speakers have said, not that our electoral system is perfect in all parts, but it needs to be continuously reviewed. I agree with previous speakers on this. There was probably no one who thought it was good to have long queues at the polling stations during the election last year. It is also clear from the appeals that have been handled in the Election Review Board.

There is also a particular need to highlight the situation prevailing for voters who have a visual impairment or other disability. They have greater difficulty in maintaining their secrecy of the vote. Work is ongoing here which I hope will lead to something soon. It is important that all people are guaranteed the secrecy of the vote that we have.

I apologize for running over time. The last thing I want to say is that we will probably have to return to the ballot system in an investigation.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Free and independent elections are the foundation of our democratic system. It is about the parties having equal conditions to inform about their policies and about the candidates not being subjected to harassment or threats. It is about the voters having good conditions to familiarize themselves with what the different parties want to achieve so that they can make well-informed decisions on how they should vote. It is also about the election process itself being transparent, while the secrecy of the ballot is maintained.

On the whole, the Swedish electoral system meets expectations. But the criticism we received from independent observers at the 2018 election, that the secrecy of the vote was risked by voters being allowed to pick up ballot papers in unprotected stands in a room where multiple people were circulating, gave rise to changes which in turn actually created new problems. The arrangement of only letting in one person at a time created queues, and the ballot paper stands with privacy screens that were put up made it difficult to find the correct ballot paper. The voting situation thus created stress. It also cannot be ruled out that the queue formation caused some voters to give up and refrain from voting. In that case, the best intention has become the enemy of the good.

Another problem, which has persisted for a long time, is that persons with visual impairments cannot vote without the secrecy of the ballot being compromised. If one has a sufficiently severe visual impairment, one cannot find the correct ballot without the help of a sighted person. One also cannot find the person one wants to cross and support through one's personal vote. It is necessary to find a solution to this.

Overseas voting also has its challenges. The Election Authority notes that an excessively large number of postal votes are rejected, either because they have arrived too early or too late, or because the voter has prepared the vote incorrectly. Therefore, it will be interesting to see what the Election Authority's proposal will lead to. This is very significant.

The Election Authority has a number of proposals for changes to address the logistical challenges, local problems, and queues that characterized the 2022 election. This will be something for the government to take a position on. That the electoral system is free and fair is, as mentioned, important for upholding democracy. The four parties in the government base agree that a review of exactly this is needed.

I cannot help but point out that, in order to safeguard our free democracy, it is important that we maintain a respectful tone towards one another. The members of the Committee on the Constitution have this, but unfortunately, it may not be the case in the general debate. It is not worthy opposition politics to say that democracy is under threat as soon as one does not get their way. We must be able to have a better tone and a better approach than that in order to preserve and safeguard our Swedish democracy.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Björk (C)

Madam Speaker! In September last year, it was once again time for the Swedish people to cast their vote for one of all the parties that this time were available to choose from in the municipal elections, regional elections, and the parliamentary election. Many parties, and thus many different ballots, were available to choose from for those who decided to go and vote.

Many chose to vote in the election in the autumn. More specifically, just over 80 percent of all eligible voters in the country cast their vote for a party in the municipal election, and approximately the same number did so in the regional election. Just over 84 percent did so in the parliamentary election, which is a high figure in an international comparison. It was, however, a decrease of a full 3 percentage points from the previous parliamentary election, i.e., compared with 2018. With the 2022 election, a positive trend that had lasted for the last 20 years was unfortunately broken. During that period, voter turnout in the parliamentary election had actually risen from a bottom note of 80.1 percent in 2002.

Madam Speaker! Everyone here in the chamber is probably in agreement that a clear decline in voter turnout, following last autumn's election, is not good. A high voter turnout is an important part of a vibrant democracy - provided that the voters actually have a free choice, that is. In that regard, we Swedes are among the lucky ones in the world. We actually have the opportunity to freely cast our vote for the party or parties that we want to give power and influence.

Practicality also means that it should be easy to do the right thing. The voting system itself must be robust, and the person who goes to the ballot boxes must understand how to proceed once they are on site. The voter must be secure that the vote the voter wants to cast ends up where it is supposed to.

Was it like that in the autumn election? Well, many of us who were politically active and stood outside polling stations on election day itself, September 11, could note with our own eyes that it did not look quite as it used to, which many of my colleagues in the Committee on the Constitution have pointed out. The queues were long – they stretched significantly further than before. This was primarily due to the fact that new rules had been introduced to strengthen the protection of the secrecy of the vote. This entailed major logistical challenges in the polling stations and caused the procedure inside the polling station to take longer for the voter.

That there were voters who turned back already outside the polling station, at the sight of the long queues, is at the very least concerning. If it resulted in a lower voter turnout than before, we must seriously hear the warning bells and do something about it.

Madam Speaker! Many of the problems we saw in the 2022 election are related to the system of ballot papers we have today. For a first-time voter who is completely unfamiliar with this system—with yellow, blue, and white ballots, ballots with different party designations, and ballots with and without names—it can probably feel like a bit of a jungle to step behind the screen to pick up the correct ballots while the queue behind rolls on. As said: It should be easy to do the right thing for those who want to vote in general elections. This is not sufficient.

As the Election Authority points out in its report on the experiences from this autumn: If no measures are taken before the next election in 2026, there is a risk that we will see the same problems again or even that the problems will become even worse. Fundamentally, this is a democracy problem, because the electoral system and the right to participate in free, secret, and direct elections is, again, an important part of a strong democracy. Therefore, it is important to safeguard both the integrity and the robustness of the electoral system.

As the Election Authority points out in its experience report, it would be possible to fundamentally change the ballot system as early as 2026 if an investigation into this is appointed immediately with the mandate to deliver a proposal before the end of 2023.

Centerpartiet shares that view. There is no time to waste here. We do not have time to wait. An inquiry must be appointed immediately with a mandate to review how a new ballot system can be designed.

I move for approval of reservation 4 under point 9.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! This report is extra interesting as we have, this year after an election year, received the reports from the Election Authority and the Election Review Board.

Even though my colleagues have pointed out that we should proceed slowly and in great consensus, which characterizes the Committee on the Constitution, I nevertheless want to point out some of the problems that need to be addressed before the upcoming elections.

The Election Authority highlights a need for reforming the ballot system, and we will have reason to return to this.

The Election Review Board highlights the problems with queues that formed at certain ballot collection points. The new system with screened-off areas where the ballots were placed was the main cause of the queues, and according to the report, 45 percent of the municipalities assess that this may have affected voter turnout, which is very concerning. It is of course not acceptable and needs to be handled together with other issues in the reports, which are now being prepared in the Government Offices.

Madam Speaker! A particularly important issue to address ahead of the upcoming elections is the accessibility for persons with disabilities. Persons with visual impairments must be guaranteed voting with secrecy even in personal votes.

People with intellectual disabilities need to be provided with reasonable conditions to access election information. That is why it was good that the Agency for Accessible Media was commissioned to produce easy-to-read news information in connection with the 2022 general elections.

More good examples of how one can reach this group can be found within civil society. For example, Studieförbundet vuxenskolan conducts the training "Mitt val" (My choice) in municipalities across the country. It is aimed at persons with intellectual disabilities and aims to provide easy-to-understand information about the election.

The experience after the 2018 election was that over 80 percent of those who participated in Mitt val before the election voted, which is a great success as voter turnout is particularly low in the group.

Examples of elements in the training are that representatives of the parties are invited to a political discussion where they get to answer questions from the participants. Prior to this, the politicians receive training in plain language to lower the language barriers. This is something we would all probably benefit from in various contexts.

It is of the utmost importance that municipalities can continue to carry out these types of trainings together with civil society if we are to seriously have universal and equal suffrage.

Madam Speaker! Even though it has been stated on several occasions that there is no support for introducing separate election days for the parliamentary elections and the municipal and regional elections, I shall dwell for a moment on the question.

The common election day and Sweden's four-year mandates mean that Sweden today is one of the democratic countries in the world with the longest time between elections. The common election day leads to the parliamentary election coming into focus and the regional and municipal elections often falling into the shadows, not least in regions with less media coverage of the local council elections.

In the 2022 election, it became clear that the difference between which issues were prioritized by men and women was large. Issues that generally engaged women – healthcare, school, and care – are handled to a greater extent within the municipality and region. That these choices then come into the shadows is problematic even from an equality perspective.

There are further reasons why the Swedish people should be allowed to go to the ballot box on more than one occasion during a four-year period, but I will not go into those. Even though we do not have a reservation on this matter, the Liberals want separate election days to be introduced in the long run.

I can take some comfort in the fact that we will already have to go to the polls again next year when it is time to vote for the European Parliament, which is quite important.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! The consensus that many of my colleagues have witnessed has characterized the Committee on the Constitution in many contexts, which has resulted in us taking up issues where we are actually in very much agreement. I had a slight suspicion that it would go in that direction, so I will concentrate on a few issues. It does not mean that I am very much against the others, but in many contexts I share the same views as my colleagues.

In Sweden, voter turnout is high, but in the election in September 2022, it was a break in the trend for the first time in a long while. In the 2018 parliamentary election, 87 percent participated and in 2022 a little over 84 percent, thus a decrease of approximately 3 percentage points. Even though the figure is still high from an international perspective, it nevertheless means that approximately 16 percent, one in seven eligible voters, did not vote in the latest parliamentary election.

It is thus many people who do not use one of the most important opportunities to influence society that we have. It also means that the legitimacy for the elected representatives and, in the long run, for the government that is appointed also decreases.

We have an election authority that is centrally responsible for the implementation of elections and nationwide referendums. The Election Authority also has various tasks linked to the election, including providing information on when, where, and how to vote. The Agency for Youth and Civil Society has had the mandate to conduct school elections.

However, there is no authority that has an explicit mandate to increase voter turnout. The political parties carry out important information initiatives. Miljöpartiet believes that measures also need to be taken by independent authorities, which have a different role and platform for dialogue with the citizens.

We therefore mean that the government should task one or more authorities to carry out measures to increase voter turnout and that an investigation should analyze the conditions for this. The work should specifically focus on increasing voter turnout in vulnerable areas and in groups that vote to a lesser extent.

I also want to remind that we not so long ago discussed KU's report 30 on constitutional issues. There, we argued for the establishment of a national democracy function according to the proposal of the committee Democracy 100 years. I mean that such a function, appropriately placed regionally with the county administrative boards as the organizational base, can contribute to a stronger democratic anchoring and thus also to a higher voter turnout generally speaking.

Madam Speaker! The voting age was lowered successively during the 20th century - in 1945 to 21 years, 20 years later to 20 years, and in 1975 to today's voting age, 18 years. We believe it is time for a further reduction in order to broaden and strengthen democracy. It is important for several reasons, not least because every second young person does not feel included in society and because many experience that they do not have influence over political decision-making.

Election issues

The Democracy Inquiry proposed that a pilot project with a voting age of 16 should be carried out at local elections, something that has not yet become a reality. The average age for first-time voters in Sweden is today 20 years, which is Europe's highest. With a reduction of the voting age to 16 years, the average age could be lowered to 18 years. We believe that this would be a good way to test how a general reduction would turn out. The Government should therefore work to ensure that a pilot project with a lowered voting age is initiated in the way the inquiry proposed.

This would increase the opportunities for today's and tomorrow's youth to engage and influence our future society. With ongoing climate change and other major challenges that in many ways define their future, such a lowering of the voting age is a proposal for broader experiences, different backgrounds, increased equality, and diversity.

Madam Speaker! We also note that the Election Authority has reported a number of experiences from the recent election that lead to questions about possible improvements. This concerns in particular our system of ballot papers and how they are placed and distributed. The Authority has presented a number of proposals in this regard.

It is obviously important to always evaluate and question whether things can be done better, while maintaining safety and naturally also preferably with increased voter turnout as a goal. To form a parliamentary committee with the task of more closely considering different possibilities and experiences is a way forward.

With that said, I conclude by moving for the approval of our and the Left Party's joint reservation, number 1, regarding the lowered voting age.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 14.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)