Election issues

Susanne Nordström (M)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating electoral issues. This is a committee report, and there are many, at the very least, interesting motions. Some are about how we can increase voter turnout, others are about lowering the voting age, and then there are proposals regarding the ballot system itself. It is, in some way, the foundation of our democracy. That is where I intend to focus in my speech. But first, I move for approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

A lot has happened over the years with the electoral system. I thought we would look back a bit and look at Swedish electoral history.

With the suffrage reform of 1909, Sweden took an important step towards a more inclusive democracy. At that time, we introduced universal suffrage, but only for men over 24 years of age, and we moved from majority voting to a proportional electoral system.

At the same time, we still had a bicameral parliament where the members of the first chamber were appointed indirectly through the county councils and municipal councils, while the voting for the second chamber resembled the electoral system we have today.

Further changes occurred subsequently in connection with the transition to a unicameral parliament in 1970. At that time, the elections to the Riksdag, county councils, and municipal councils were coordinated, which required adjustments in the electoral procedure.

There were even far-reaching plans to introduce machine voting with punch cards. It was perhaps lucky that it did not become so. It was the technical uncertainty that made it never become a reality.

Instead, temporary changes were introduced which were later made permanent with the 1972 Election Act. Among other things, the ballot papers were standardized. We all know that they have different colors depending on which election they refer to.

Election issues

But what does it look like today? At every election, an enormous amount of ballots is printed. It was a total of 710 million ballots before the 2022 election. The reason is that we have three elections simultaneously. There are 405 different constituencies and a hundred parties participating. In the last election, 238 parties ordered ballots, but only 36 of them stood in the parliamentary election.

Ballots do not only serve a function on election day. Many parties use ballots in their campaign work. They can be distributed in campaign booths and sent home in letters to voters, and one may want to highlight candidates. Despite being used by political parties, it was only a fraction of all printed ballots that were used for that purpose.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish electoral system is an important part of our democracy. It has undergone major changes to become more accessible, fair, and efficient. But there are some tough questions. They are, for example: How do we ensure a sustainable and modern voting procedure? How do we reduce the number of ballots? Do we want to reduce the number of ballots? How do we build a system that makes it easy for everyone to vote?

These questions are important. They are exactly the questions that we who sit on the parliamentary ballot committee have to take a stand on. The intention is that we are to submit proposals for a ballot system – perhaps a new one, we do not know yet.

I want to highlight some issues concerning participation in elections. We know that voter turnout is lower among people with disabilities. According to SCB, the turnout at the general elections in 2022 was a full 11 percent lower in this group compared to the population as a whole.

The design and placement of the ballot papers are part of the problem. I have seen pictures from polling stations where the ballot papers were placed so high that they were difficult to reach for someone, for example, sitting in a wheelchair. Fortunately, this belongs to the exceptions, but still.

The text on the ballot itself is sometimes quite small. The ballots are thin, and it can be easy to include more than one ballot in the envelope. In that case, they become invalid.

Voting is particularly difficult for people with visual impairments. Despite the Election Authority providing braille material for the visually impaired, it can be difficult for them to actually know that they have received the correct ballot in the envelope.

Madam Speaker! As I just said, the Swedish electoral system has many strengths, but there are also needs that need to be addressed to strengthen democracy and increase participation.

The system of party ballots has a long tradition in Sweden and is well-known to many voters. Voting is simple, especially if one casts their vote for a party that is already established in the Riksdag or has received at least 1 percent of the votes in the most recent elections.

For these parties, the election administration ensures that ballot papers are available in all polling stations and early voting locations, but for small parties as well as for new parties, it is not as easy. They must distribute their own ballot papers to the voting locations, and if such a ballot paper is missing, the voter must write the party name themselves. Not everyone has a handwriting as neat as mine, so it is not certain that one can see what is written and then the vote becomes invalid.

We have a low proportion of invalid votes, which well means that the system works well. But we can certainly make it even better.

In conclusion, I want to say that the election is the foundation of our democracy. It is through it that our voice affects the future, shapes politics, and ensures that our values are represented in the decision-making assemblies. Therefore, it is crucial that the electoral system is accessible, understandable, and legally secure for all voters.

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

Hans Ekström (S)

Madam Speaker! An electoral system that voters have confidence in, recognize, and which is transparent is a prerequisite for democracy's legitimacy. There is an ongoing investigation – Susanne Nordström mentioned it – which is looking at the ballot system, and it must, of course, be allowed to finish its work before any comments are made on any proposals.

There are, of course, some flaws in the electoral system to look at. But I assume that the tradition we have in Sweden of broad majorities in matters concerning the functioning of democracy will also apply this time. It is important for the electoral system's legitimacy for everyone.

We live in a time when democracy is threatened and challenged all around the world. Let us therefore be extra careful with the sensitive structure that gives democracy its legitimacy. Changes should occur slowly and cautiously – I feel that as a Social Democrat, I am very conservative in these matters. Changes must go slowly. There is an intrinsic value in the voters recognizing themselves from time to time when they go to vote.

We have all voted for the first time at some point. It was nervous. Imagine if it were like voting for the first time every time you went to vote because some investigation had come up with some new reform for how one should behave! So we probably do not want that.

For democracy to have legitimacy, a high voter turnout is required. Sweden has traditionally had a high voter turnout in elections to the Riksdag, up to 90 percent. Therefore, it is worrying that the turnout has fallen in the most recent elections. We Social Democrats want a plan for increased voter turnout to be developed, and therefore I move for approval of reservation 1.

In addition, the report contains thoughts on changes. These concern, for example, separate election days, lowered voting age, and so on. Regarding some issues, one might at first glance feel that "that was a clever idea – perhaps that's what we should do!" However, for those clever ideas to truly become proposals, proper investigations and a great deal of reflection are required.

However, I would like to mention one question that stands out and which I believe there is reason for us elected representatives to be ashamed of. It concerns the possibilities for the visually impaired to exercise their right to vote in a way that upholds the secrecy of the ballot. This has been discussed for a long time, and it is truly time that we now reach a conclusion on that issue.

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

Fredrik Lindahl (SD)

Madam Speaker! First, I would like to move for the approval of the Sweden Democrats' reservation 4 in this committee report on electoral issues. The Sweden Democrats also have a number of other reservations in this report. Of course, we take a positive view of these as well, even if I do not move for their approval. I will, however, take the opportunity to briefly speak about some of our proposals.

Sweden is formally a constitutional monarchy. Above all, we are a parliamentary and representative democracy. It is through the free and general elections that we delegate the political power in our country. It is precisely through these elections that the will of the people gets its clear voice, and it is thereby that we decide how Sweden shall be governed.

At the same time, we must be aware that it is precisely the election process itself that is one of democracy's most sensitive moments. Recurring incidents and occurrences risk undermining the trust upon which the legitimacy of the election result is built: a legitimacy that is absolutely crucial for a living and healthy democracy.

Therefore, we believe that a central incident reporting is necessary. With a national coordination, we can quickly identify the vulnerabilities that could improperly affect the result, both during and after an election.

The first and most important step in addressing problems is to know exactly what is wrong. If we cannot effectively collect and analyze the incidents reported by Valmyndigheten, Valprövningsnämnden, and the municipal election committees, it will be impossible to get a clear overview of which parts of our electoral system are not functioning as they should.

We also have an unregulated situation regarding the municipal election information officers. Tragically, irregularities have occurred in connection with this service, a service that by its nature should be completely independent and which is usually directed towards those voter groups who need extra support to be able to exercise their right to vote. Therefore, it is our view that national guidelines, where impartiality is at the center, must be developed to ensure that these actors live up to their important mission.

Furthermore, I want to highlight the need for a strict identification requirement for those who vote. Today, there is the possibility that another person can certify a voter's identity or that a poll worker, based on personal acquaintance, can approve a vote. This leaves room for arbitrary judgments, which we consider unfortunate.

A recurring concern is that the wrong voters are sometimes struck off the electoral roll, which in practice risks depriving a citizen of their right to vote. With the introduction of a mandatory identification requirement, we are convinced that the risk of such mistakes would decrease significantly.

Furthermore, we must ensure that the places where voting takes place are strictly neutral and free from improper political influence. According to the Election Act, propaganda or anything else aimed at influencing voters in polling stations and voting premises is prohibited. Unfortunately, the interpretation of what constitutes political propaganda can vary greatly between municipalities, which risks creating unequal rules of the game and uncertainty. In one municipality, it has been decided by the election committee that no campaign activity shall be allowed within a radius around the polling station. In another municipality, a party sets up a campaign tent at the entrance to the voting. At one polling station, eight representatives from eight parties humbly distribute ballot papers. At another, eight representatives from one party distribute ballot papers so that the voter is forced to run a gauntlet to enter the polling station itself.

The regulatory framework needs to be reviewed regarding what is defined as propaganda so that the same conditions apply to all municipalities and foreign authorities.

Furthermore, the Sweden Democrats consider that persons who assist voters must fulfill strict requirements to protect our democracy's fundamental principle of ballot secrecy. Therefore, we propose a criminally sanctioned duty of confidentiality for relatives or other individuals who help voters to vote. Poll workers, who are already covered by a duty of confidentiality and criminal liability, should also inform voter assistants about this requirement. Given that the voters who need assistance most often belong to the most vulnerable in our society, we consider this additional measure to be absolutely necessary.

I can conclude with a comment regarding the ballot system. In view of the experiences that, among others, the Election Authority has reported, the Sweden Democrats have agreed with the government within the Tidö Agreement that the ballot system with party-specific ballots is now to be reviewed. As a result of this agreement, the government has appointed a parliamentary committee to review the ballot system, and we will return to the matter when the investigation has submitted its result.

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

Gudrun Brunegård (KD)

Madam Speaker! Democracy is the foundation of our society. It is through free and independent elections that we, the Swedish people, exercise our power and shape Sweden's future. It is democracy that decides who governs, which laws are enacted, and in which direction Sweden shall go.

From a democratic perspective, trust in our elections is absolutely central. Democracy is built on the fact that our elections are conducted in a secure, fair, and safe manner, and this is what we are debating today: election issues and the Swedish electoral system.

Madam Speaker! We should be proud that Sweden has a long history of a stable electoral system. But we cannot lean back and take this for granted. We need to continue to strengthen the protection of the secrecy of the vote, increase security in the voting process, simplify voting for Swedes living abroad, and ensure that the electoral system is robust enough to withstand external and internal threats.

Madam Speaker! In the Election Authority's report on experiences from the 2022 elections, it is noted that for a majority of voters, the elections and the voting function well. But at the same time, there is a need for changes to simplify, improve, and create a less vulnerable system.

It is against this background that work is currently underway in a parliamentary committee to review, evaluate and consider changes to the ballot system. This is necessary and welcome.

It is clear that the current ballot system has become increasingly difficult to manage. One example is the ballot stations, which are almost impossible to oversee, with a full set of three name ballots per party, just as many with only the party designation, and in addition, completely blank ballots.

To protect the secrecy of the vote, the ballot stations at the 2022 election were framed with privacy screens, which partly contributed to further hindering the overview. Not so few voters reported that they could not find the ballots of the party they were seeking. Furthermore, only one voter at a time was allowed through, which increased the queue formation, something that I myself witnessed in my capacity as vice chairman of the election committee in my home municipality Vimmerby.

Another example is the disproportionately large proportion of rejected postal votes from abroad. For a shipment to be approved, it must be postmarked abroad within a certain date interval. However, I myself have experience of the extremely unreliable postal services that can prevail in certain countries and how one would rather collect several weeks' worth of letters to send with an acquaintance who is on their way home and can put the letters in the mail at home in Sweden. I can imagine that this applies particularly to a shipment as important as one's ballot paper. One might not dare to trust the postal service to have it arrive at the right time, but instead sends it with an acquaintance who is going home. But with a Swedish postmark, an overseas vote is rejected. And how often does one otherwise receive letters that are even postmarked nowadays?

This is an example of something that needs to be solved in a better way.

Another very pressing issue is how to protect the secrecy of the vote for a person with a disability who is dependent on someone else's assistance during the voting procedure.

In this motion report, proposals regarding constituency delimitation, percentage thresholds for a party to enter any of the parliamentary levels, how to increase voter turnout from different population groups, and some other matters are also addressed. In these different parts, we refer to ongoing investigation work within the framework of the Ballot Committee, which is to be completed in September this year, or to other parts that are being prepared in the Government Offices.

Madam Speaker! The Christian Democrats will always stand up for a safe, fair and secure electoral process. Democracy is worth defending – every day, every election.

With this said, I would like to move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and thank you for the floor.

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

Jessica Wetterling (V)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 3.

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 that has not always been the case. For just over 100 years ago, women's suffrage and female members of parliament were new phenomena. They came after a long and determined struggle against fierce opposition. Sweden was actually last in the Nordic countries to introduce suffrage for women.

Something one must not forget in this context is that even after the breakthrough that occurred 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 – were not allowed to vote. It was not until 1989 that all different voting restrictions were removed.

In short, it can be said that the right to vote and our electoral system have changed, developed, and improved over time, and so it must, of course, continue to do so.

Vänsterpartiet has in recent years presented 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 and which I have moved for approval concerns that we want to see a lowered voting age to 16 years on a trial basis in the municipal elections, in accordance with the Democracy Inquiry's proposal.

We 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 investigation's proposal. But in 2022, the government chose to dismiss the matter regarding the investigation's report. In other words, this investigation went from being a shelf-warmer to actually being completely tossed into the wastebasket. My party naturally finds this regrettable, especially since several countries in our surrounding world have lowered the voting age.

Madam Speaker! We know from research that the habit of voting is established in young years, and we also know that voter turnout is lower among first-time voters than in the rest of the population. The election information provided to upper secondary school students during a campaign by, for example, youth organizations or parties is therefore particularly important, but the mobilizing effect is weakened when many of those sitting in the classroom are not affected because they will not have the opportunity to vote. Especially in matters concerning school, leisure, urban planning, and other areas that directly affect young people's everyday lives, 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, and it is actually the highest average age in all of Europe.

If the voting age were lowered to 16 years in the municipal elections, the average age would instead drop to 18 years in the municipal council elections. That was exactly what the democracy inquiry proposed. It would also mean that a majority of first-time voters would be in upper secondary school the first time they have the right to vote, and it would give the school system an 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 previous years' elections and our electoral system.

I am, just like some of the previous speakers, a member of the ballot paper investigation, whose work is ongoing. I shall, of course, not anticipate the investigation's proposals, but the more I think about our electoral system, I also realize what a foundation it is for our democracy and how incredibly interesting these issues actually are.

The Swedish electoral system is based, as previous speakers have 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 usually call one vote per person – in this world order perhaps an odd phenomenon nowadays.

The secrecy of the vote is strong. No one else may decide what a voter shall vote for or force the voter to reveal how they have voted. It is of course important that the electoral system has a robustness against attempts at manipulation in various ways. I believe that we have this today with the help of our decentralized system for vote reception and vote counting all around the country. The vote reception and vote counting are public. Anyone can watch when, for example, the votes are being counted.

Transparency and decentralization contribute to creating a system that makes it more difficult to manipulate or to influence the election result. That means, just as previous speakers have also touched upon, not that our electoral system is perfect in all parts, but that it also needs to be reviewed continuously. I naturally agree with previous speakers in this.

I also want to agree with what many parties in the Riksdag are concerned about, which has also been raised by previous speakers. It concerns the need to highlight the situation for voters with different forms of visual impairment or other disabilities. They have greater difficulties than we others in preserving the secrecy of the vote. Work is currently underway that I truly hope will lead somewhere. I know that we in the Committee on the Constitution are united in the view that it is, of course, extremely important that all people are guaranteed the secrecy of the vote to which they are entitled.

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

Malin Danielsson (L)

Madam Speaker! In the report we are debating right now, we address electoral issues, and it may have a practical perspective in our discussion. It is largely about what lessons we can draw from the 2022 election, how we ensure that persons with visual impairments can vote with maintained secrecy of the ballot, or how the handling of votes from abroad can become more timely.

All these questions are important to ensure the legitimacy of elections. But elections are so much more. Thanks to democratic elections and peaceful transitions of power, many of us in the world now live in peace and freedom. In Sweden, we choose who shall be given the trust to govern, and every four years we can evaluate and see if the trust remains or if we would rather have other representatives.

Dictatorships, coups d'état and wars are the alternatives to democratic elections, and they are rarely pleasant. Despite this, it is no longer quite going well for democracy in the world. The V-Dem Institute, which annually reports on how democracy develops in the world, paints a gloomy picture. Since 2009, the proportion of the world's population living in countries that have been autocratized has been greater than the proportion living in countries that have been democratized. These are worrying trends we see, and we also see how countries are subjected to disinformation and foreign influence before and during elections.

Maria Ressa, journalist and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize 2021, said in an interview last year that by the end of 2024 we will know if democracy survives or dies. The background to her concern is the rapid development of AI, deepfakes, and social media. I suspect that there are additional worrying things that have been added to the list since then. The answer to the question of whether democracy survives or dies is not so easy to determine, but we can well state that it is shaking violently in many places in the world when we look at democratic development.

Madam Speaker! We have the privilege in Sweden to discuss the issues we are discussing today, namely how we implement changes in the electoral system to strengthen democracy, how we make it possible for more visually impaired people to vote with maintained secrecy of the ballot, how our ballot papers should be designed, and how we can take advantage of the experiences we gained during the 2022 general election and in the 2024 election to the European Parliament.

It is truly a treasure: With us, democracy lives and thrives. But it is important to remember that democracy is still fragile. It is entirely dependent on you and I – all of us – standing up for it, in large and small ways.

Finally, Madam Speaker, there is a liberal obsession that we usually raise in connection with the proposal for separate election days for the parliamentary and municipal and regional elections. Even though it has been stated on several occasions that there is no support for introducing separate election days, I nevertheless wish to dwell for a short moment on the question.

The common election day and Sweden's four-year mandates mean that Sweden is one of the democratic countries in the world that has 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 by women was large. Issues that generally engaged more women – healthcare, school, and care – were handled to a greater extent within municipalities and regions. When these choices are somewhat obscured, it is problematic, also from an equality perspective.

There are further reasons why the Swedish people should be allowed to go to the polls on more than one occasion during a four-year period and vote for the different national assemblies. I will not go into them now, but I note that the Liberals still hope that, in the long run, we will be able to introduce separate election days in Sweden.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

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

Jan Riise (MP)

Madam Speaker! Voter turnout is often used as a measure of the state of democracy in our society. Now, voter turnout has decreased during both the most recent parliamentary election and the 2024 EU election by 3 and 2 percentage points respectively. These are signals that must be taken seriously. There are questions in this that definitely need to be discussed.

A living democracy is enduring and is characterized by participation and equal opportunities and influence. A good deal is being done and has been done, but more remains to be done. We need, among other things, to consider how young people, particularly of high school age, can be more engaged. I will return with a reasoning regarding lowered voting age very soon. But I also think that the proposal from the S-group in the committee regarding a less anxious approach in terms of letting political youth organizations enter schools has obvious points.

Madam Speaker! It may not be exactly the ballots that cause voter turnout to drop, but nevertheless, it is naturally important to conduct a review of the system in light of an increasing number of advance votes and a greater consideration of costs and the environment, and finally also to increase the possibility to understand and be able to do right. Work is currently underway on such a review, and we await the proposals that the parliamentary committee will come forward with. There are, as far as I understand, both more far-reaching proposals and proposals that are more about adapting the system we have.

Madam Speaker! We agree that democracy needs to be developed and broadened. A broader anchoring in society is desirable, not least against the background of the declining figures for voter turnout. In this speaker's chair, I spoke about a lowered voting age even a year ago. That stone rolled back again, but like Sisyphus, I will continue to roll it up onto the agenda again.

What has happened since the spring of 2024 that gives me reason to raise the issue again? There are a few points.

We see an increasing engagement in the issue from civil society. Both youth organizations and large organizations that work for the children's best believe that it is a good idea.

The democracy investigation that was being prepared in the Government Offices for a period has now been concluded without proposals in the area. For the pessimist, it can be interpreted as that we are back at square one again. For a more optimistically minded person like me, it can be seen as that we are free to come forward with new proposals.

Finally, research and follow-up in the field still support the idea of a voting age at 16. There are several examples of countries and states where 16-year-olds have the right to vote, and I cannot see any examples where it has been chosen to go back to a higher age after having tried the lower limit.

Election issues

Furthermore, one can possibly argue that the loosening of what it means to be an adult, which in some sense can be linked to the age of majority, has continued in a more negative direction when, among other things, the government reasons about prison sentences for children.

Among examples of countries that have experience of voting rights for 16-year-olds are Austria, Scotland, Malta, Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador as well as parts of the USA, Germany and Estonia.

An important aspect of this is what a German research group presented in April last year. The group investigated and sought answers to the question of whether young people's ways of seeking information changed in connection with them receiving the right to vote. It turned out that the right to vote made a big difference in the political discussions they engaged in or which election compasses they used. It turned out, therefore, that it is not the act of voting itself that changes the behavior, but it is the right to vote, that is, the right to be able to vote.

We know that many young people do not feel included in society and do not have influence over decision-making, something I also raised in the debate on the rule of law principle. There is no lack of issues and challenges where greater engagement would be valuable: climate, environment, legal issues in many areas and international cooperation, just to mention a few.

We received the right to vote at the age of 18 in 1975. I was 18 then. When I look back on my high school years and compare them with my now 18-year-old daughter, I can think that it is to the highest degree a reasonable order that they, with the maturity they exhibit today, deserve the opportunity to also participate with the right to vote.

On behalf of the Miljöpartiet, we have previously stated that voting rights for 16-year-olds is an important reform that could be introduced as a pilot project in some municipalities and regions with a view towards the 2030 elections.

With that said, I move for approval of reservation 3 and thank you for the debate.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 16.)

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