The <Anchor>

election is over, but the problems left by our politics need to be addressed. Originally, it was the purpose of the changed election system to help small parties enter the National Assembly to reflect various voices, but the light was desired as the Democratic Party and the United Party formed a proportional party.

Then, how much the two big parties actually benefited, in fact, reporter Lee Kyung-won at the corner analyzed.

<Reporter>

The results of this general election are 180 seats in the Democratic Party, 103 seats in the United Party and 6 seats in the Justice Party.

This is the result of applying a semi-interlocking proportional system.

But before this system came into effect, what would it have been like to follow the rules for the allocation of proportional representation in the last general election?

It is assumed that the Democratic Party and the United Party each have the same percentage of votes in the current proportional party.

181 seats of the Democratic Party, one more seat than this, and 102 seats and one seat of the United Party.

The Justice Party is the same.

Whether the election system is changed or not, the number of seats has hardly changed.


Remember this scene.

At this time last year, when the four parties, including the Democratic Party, introduced a linked proportional representation system, the United Party was never allowed to do so.

Next analysis.

If the two large political parties did not create a proportional party and received the current proportional support rate, in the semi-linked brothers, the Democratic Party lost 11 seats and the United Party lost 7 seats.

Instead, the share of the small political parties, including eight seats per justice, increases.

The two large political parties were able to keep their share with the trick of being a proportional party.

In the end, nothing changed.

(Video editing: Seung-Yeol Lee, CG: Yoo-Ra Kang, Data search: Jung-Woo Kim and Hye-Ri Kim)