Recently, public-politician Suren Sahakyan shared on his Facebook page in a post in which, based on the methodology of distribution of mandates announced by the Central Electoral Commission, it was concluded that the votes of the forces that do not overcome the passing threshold in the NA elections are not distributed among the passing ones, but they do not participate in the calculation, and therefore, thus putting an end to the “pulverization of votes”, as the author of the post notes, “the thesis that is false, extremely destructive and has a real, negative impact on the elections”.

In his post, Suren Sahakyan correctly presented the methodology, but not the conclusion. The problem is purely logical.

Suppose 1 million citizens voted, and three forces overcame the threshold:

• Power 1: 35% (350 thousand votes)
• Strength 2: 25% (250 thousand votes)
• Strength 3: 15% (150 thousand votes)

The remaining 25% (250 thousand votes) went to those who did not pass the threshold.

If the mandates were distributed in proportion to the entire 1 million votes, the three powers would receive 35, 25 and 15 mandates, totaling 75. The remaining 25 mandates would simply remain unallocated.

But in reality, the calculation is made not on the basis of 1 million, but on the basis of 750,000 votes, only with the sum of those who passed the threshold. As a result, mandates become:

• Strength 1: 47 (12)
• Strength 2: 34 (9)
• Strength 3: 20 (5)

Increase: 26 mandates in total. These 26 mandates are the result of the proportional redistribution of 250,000 votes of those who did not win. Changing the basis of the calculation from 1 million to 750 thousand is mathematically equivalent to distributing those 250 thousand votes proportionally among those who won.

The author’s mistake is that he confuses two different things: calculation mechanism (how the numbers are obtained) and calculate the result (who gets how many mandates). Formally, the mechanism does not really “take” the votes of those who did not win and “do not add” to those who won. However, since the basis of calculation changes, the result is the same as in the case of direct redistribution. This is what is called “pollination of votes”.

The thesis about “pollination of votes” is not false. Often an attempt is made to present this topic as exclusively political manipulation, but in fact there is a clear mathematical logic here. In a proportional electoral system, each vote that is given to a force that has not overcome the transient threshold is effectively excluded from the distribution of mandates, but these votes do not disappear in a political vacuum: they turn into an additional advantage for the forces that have overcome the threshold.

But the biggest benefit from this advantage is obtained by the political power that occupies the first place, because this “bonus” is not distributed equally to everyone. The redistribution of mandates is carried out in proportion to the percentages received by the forces that have already passed, that is, the greater the main result of any force, the greater the share it receives at the expense of “lost” votes. The example given above is a clear proof of this: the force that received the most votes had an additional 12 mandates, and the one that passed the threshold with the fewest votes – 5 mandates.

In other words, if, for example, small political forces, realizing that they will not overcome the temporary threshold, enter the electoral struggle, the 0.5, 1, 2, 3 percent of the votes collected by them during the final calculation of the results EXCEPTIONALLY will create an additional advantage for the political force that received the most votes. This is the real basis of the “pollination of votes” thesis.

—