Agenda Profile: Helir-Valdor Seeder
Third Reading of the Draft Act on the Amendment of the Riigikogu Election Act and the Amendment of Other Related Acts (Bill 344 SE)
2024-05-07
15th Riigikogu, 3rd session, plenary session
Political Position
The political position is strongly opposed to Draft Law 344 SE because frequent and piecemeal amendments to the law erode confidence in elections. This stance is policy-based, focusing on the failure to resolve the uniformity of elections and the disproportionality of the electoral districts, which are essentially constitutional issues. The speaker confirms that the Isamaa faction will not support the bill during the final vote.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Topic Expertise
The speaker demonstrates thorough knowledge of electoral legislation, constitutional principles (proportionality, uniformity), and the technical security of e-voting. This expertise is substantiated by references to the positions held by the Electoral Commission, the Electoral Service, and the Chancellor of Justice, particularly concerning the lack of verifiability of operating systems (Google, Apple) on smart devices. He stresses that the environment for m-voting falls outside the control of state institutions, which leaves the issue of trust unresolved.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Rhetorical Style
The style is analytical, critical, and formal, relying on logical arguments and expert assessments rather than conspiracy theories. The speaker focuses on highlighting systemic issues (proportionality, uniformity) and procedural violations (referencing the internal rules of procedure/house and work order law). They employ an approach that avoids redundancy while maintaining emphasis, specifically to draw attention to questions that remain unresolved.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Activity Patterns
The speaker referenced their active participation in the bill's proceedings, noting that they spoke twice during the previous reading (both on their own behalf and on behalf of the faction). This demonstrates a high level of commitment to the debate surrounding this draft law. Information regarding other general activity patterns is unavailable.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Opposition Stance
The primary criticism is leveled against the Government of the Republic, as the initiator, and the Constitutional Committee, accusing them of disregarding expert observations and committing procedural violations. The criticism is intense and focuses both on substantive deficiencies (security, uniformity) and the unlawful consolidation of proposed amendments and their classification as "insincere." Furthermore, the actions of the Presidium are criticized regarding the calling of recesses during the period of obstruction.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Collaboration Style
In discussing cooperation, the speaker relies on external expertise, citing the Electoral Service, the Electoral Commission, and the Chancellor of Justice to strengthen their opposition to the draft bill. There is no information available regarding inter-party cooperation or any readiness to compromise with the bill's supporters.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Regional Focus
The regional focus emerges when describing the problem of disproportionate electoral districts, highlighting, for instance, the disparity in mandate numbers between Harju and Rapla counties (16 mandates) versus Lääne-Viru County (5 mandates). This focus contributes to a broader national critique of the election law, underscoring the unequal representation of the electorate.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Economic Views
There is not enough data.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Social Issues
There is not enough data.
1 Speeches Analyzed
Legislative Focus
The legislative focus centers on challenging Draft Bill 344 SE, concerning e-voting and m-voting (mobile voting), highlighting its significant substantive and procedural flaws. The speaker calls for a holistic and complex reform of the electoral law that would finally resolve the issues of proportionality and electoral uniformity—problems the Riigikogu (Estonian Parliament) has sidestepped for years.
1 Speeches Analyzed