Madrilenian regional election, May 2003

Madrilenian regional election, May 2003

25 May 2003
All 111 seats in the Assembly of Madrid 56 seats needed for a majority
Opinion polls
Registered	4,443,533 3.9%
Turnout	3,078,052 (69.3%) 8.4 pp
First party Second party Third party   Leader Esperanza Aguirre Rafael Simancas Fausto Fernández Party PP PSOE IUCM Leader since 16 October 2002 26 November 2000 11 July 2002 Leader's seat Madrid Madrid Madrid Last election 55 seats, 51.1% 39 seats, 36.4% 8 seats, 7.7% Seats won 55 47 9 Seat change 0 8 1 Popular vote 1,429,890 1,225,390 235,428 Percentage 46.7% 40.0% 7.7% Swing 4.4 pp 3.6 pp ±0.0 pp
President before election Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón PP President after election Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón (ad interim) PP

The May 2003 Madrilenian regional election was held on Sunday, 25 May 2003, to elect the 6th Assembly of the Community of Madrid. All 111 seats in the Assembly were up for election. The election was held simultaneously with regional elections in 12 other autonomous communities and local elections all throughout Spain.

As a result of the election, the People's Party (PP) lost its absolute majority in the Assembly, paving the way for a coalition government between the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE) and United Left (IU), headed by Rafael Simancas. However a major political scandal erupted when two PSOE MPs refused to enter a pact with IU, in an episode popularly known in Spain as the Tamayazo (by the name of one of the rebel MPs, Eduardo Tamayo). With no candidate able to obtain the absolute majority of votes needed to become President, a snap election was held in October 2003.

Background

The PP had replaced the PSOE in government after 12 years of Socialist rule as a result of the 1995 election. In the 1999 election, the PP under Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón managed to maintain their absolute majority, despite the opposition PSOE recovering lost ground.

For the 2003 election, the ruling PP switched leadership: President Ruiz-Gallardón stood as candidate for the office of Mayor of Madrid, while the regional list was to be headed by Senator and former Minister Esperanza Aguirre.

Electoral system

The 111 members of the Assembly of Madrid were elected using the D'Hondt method and a closed list proportional representation, with a threshold of 5 per 100 of valid votes—which included blank ballots—being applied regionally. Parties not reaching the threshold were not taken into consideration for seat distribution. The Assembly was entitled to one member per each 50,000 inhabitants or fraction greater than 25,000, according to the updated data of the population census.^[1][2] Voting was on the basis of universal suffrage, with all nationals over eighteen, registered in the Community of Madrid and in full enjoyment of all political rights entitled to vote.

The electoral law provided that parties, federations, coalitions and groupings of electors were allowed to present lists of candidates. However, groupings of electors were required to secure at least the signature of 0.5 per 100 of the electors entered in electoral register of the Community of Madrid. Electors were barred from signing for more than one list of candidates. Concurrently, parties and federations intending to enter in coalition to take part jointly at an election were required to inform the relevant Electoral Commission within ten days from the election call.^[1][3][4]

Elections were fixed for the fourth Sunday of May every four years. The President of the Community of Madrid had the prerogative to dissolve the Assembly and call a snap election, provided that no motion of no confidence was in process, no nationwide election was due and some time requirements were met—namely, that dissolution did not occur either during the first legislative session or within the legislature's last year ahead of its scheduled expiry, nor before one year had elapsed since a previous dissolution—. Additionally, the chamber was to be automatically dissolved and a new election called if an investiture process failed to elect a regional President within a two-month period from the first ballot. Any snap election held as a result of these circumstances would not alter the period to the next ordinary election, with elected deputies merely serving out what remained of their four-year terms.^[2][3]

Opinion polls

Vote

Poll results are listed in the table below in reverse chronological order, showing the most recent first. The highest percentage figure in each polling survey is displayed in bold, and the background shaded in the leading party's colour. In the instance that there is a tie, then no figure is shaded. The lead column on the right shows the percentage-point difference between the two parties with the highest figures. Poll results use the date the survey's fieldwork was done, as opposed to the date of publication. However, if such date is unknown, the date of publication will be given instead.

Seat projections

Opinion polls showing seat projections are displayed in the table below. The highest seat figures in each polling survey have their background shaded in the leading party's colour. In the instance that there is a tie, then no figure is shaded. 56 seats were required for an absolute majority in the Madrid Assembly.

Results

← Summary of the 25 May 2003 Assembly of Madrid election results →

Parties and coalitions		Popular vote			Seats
		Votes	%	±pp	Won	+/−
	People's Party (PP)	1,429,890	46.67	–4.40	55	±0
	Spanish Socialist Workers' Party (PSOE)	1,225,390	39.99	+3.56	47	+8
	United Left of the Community of Madrid (IUCM)	235,428	7.68	–0.02	9	+1
	The Greens (LV)	42,322	1.38	+0.69	0	±0

Aftermath

Tamayazo scandal

In the end, the People's Party won the election but fell some 25,000 votes short of a majority, with 55 out of 111 seats. The other two forces in the newly elected Assembly, the PSOE with 47 seats and IU with 9, started negotiations to form a coalition government, which included the election of a favourable President of the Assembly (i.e. Speaker) and Bureau. As part of the deal, Socialists would control the majority of the government, but a disproportionate amount of the budget would be under the responsibility of IU regional ministers. This sparked criticism from some sectors in the Socialist party, but then-leader Rafael Simancas dismissed them as moot, saying "it was time for a government of the left in Madrid".

However, when the opening session of the new legislature began and the temporary president^[5] called for the election of the Speaker to start, concern spread through the Socialist ranks: two of their Assembly Members (AMs) were missing,^[6] leaving the left-wing coalition with 54 seats against the 55-strong People's Party.^[7] At Mr. Simancas' request, the vote was delayed for 15 minutes but finally the PP forced its commencement.^[8] The result was the election of the PP AM Concepción Dancausa as Speaker and a PP-favorable Bureau (4 members against 2 Socialists and 1 IU).

The scandal swept into the media, making the two "absent" AMs, Eduardo Tamayo and María Teresa Sáez, the most sought-after people in Madrid that day. Suddenly, they granted a TV interview in which they explained their reasons for not showing up: the coalition deal with United Left, they insisted, was not fair to the voters, who had chosen the Socialists over IU more than five to one. Tamayo argued that "90% of the PSOE programme is irreconcilable with that of IU"^[9] Furthermore, both felt their concerns were too quickly dismissed they were raised in the internal party apparatus, which they criticised as being too willing to reach power no matter what the cost. In response, party leader Rafael Simancas, who denied such concerns were actually voiced in party meetings, started the procedure to expel them from the party. He then fired a full round towards the PP, which he accused of bribing the two AMs to prevent a left-wing government in Madrid and "using paychecks to change the election results".^[10] The rival party quickly denied all accusations and sued the PSOE for calumnies.^[11] The two parties immediately engaged in a political and media dogfight for the whole summer, while the third party in dispute, IU, only mildly criticised the PP and distanced itself from the confrontation.

The situation in the Assembly was no better, as the two PSOE AMs continued not to attend: even though the conservatives held a theoretical majority with 55 seats out of 109 and could push some decisions through, neither it nor the rival coalition could command the absolute majority of 56 seats required for the election of the President of Madrid. The People's Party was rumoured to be planning an investiture vote for its candidate Esperanza Aguirre, who called for the dissolution of the Assembly and fresh elections.^[12] The proposal was not moot, since the law governing the election of the regional President requires an absolute majority in the first vote, but only a plurality in a second poll, making the left-wing coalition unable to block the election of its arch-rival. Furthermore, the PP requested the legal services of the House to determine whether the "majority" would actually be defined to be 55 seats, since the two socialist AMs had never been sworn into their seats.

In response, the two AMs notified the Speaker they would finally enter the Assembly at its next meeting,^[13] which created an even more awkward situation: there was no viable majority, since the Socialist party had expelled them, denounced them as "traitors" and refused to accept their votes in an investiture session.^[13] Then, Assembly Speaker, PP AM Concepción Dancausa announced that she would be forced to call new elections if no candidate could heed the confidence of the House. In a bid to delay the new elections until after the summer, Socialist leader Rafael Simancas, who had pushed for a parliamentary investigation of the events, requested a vote for his investiture to be scheduled.^[14] He claimed not to intend to be elected, even though Tamayo and Sáez had offered their support should the pact with IU be modified.^[14] With Tamayo and Saez abstaining, Simancas lost the vote^[15] in a session marked by accusations and counter-accusations between the different groupings.^[16]

During the summer, a parliamentary committee was formed and put to work investigating the causes of the "betrayal". The left-wing coalition was cornered in the choice of committee members, since there was no way they could have a majority: either they followed the letter of the Assembly rules and allotted at least a member to each parliamentary group (thus again leaving the majority in the hands of Tamayo and Sáez) or accepted the PP proposal by which the House denied the two AMs representation in the committee on the grounds that they were the actual object of investigation (thus giving the majority to the conservatives). The latter choice was finally implemented^[17] and, after a month of 12-hour sessions in which many prominent politicians and businessmen from both sides were summoned and vast amounts of vitriol were served by both mainstream parties, the committee passed a report concluding Tamayo and Sáez were not bribed by PP and placing full blame on the PSOE. The report, however, was defeated in the full House vote, in which the two AMs (who could not then be barred from participating) joined the left-wing coalition in their "no" vote even though they kept defending their innocence.

Fresh elections were held on October 26, 2003, with the Socialists centering its campaign on the "stolen elections". Tamayo and Sáez created a new political party called New Socialism, gathering about 6,000 votes and no seats. The new result, with a slightly reduced turnout, was a majority for the PP, which ironically gained two seats (up to 57) from the PSOE (down to 45), while IU raised its voter share and fell just short of getting one more seat (but finally repeated its previous result of 9). About a month later, PP leader Esperanza Aguirre won the investiture vote and was sworn in as the 3rd President of the Autonomous Community of Madrid.

Investiture

Investiture processes to elect the President of the Community of Madrid required for an absolute majority—more than half the votes cast—to be obtained in the first ballot. If unsuccessful, a new ballot would be held 48 hours later requiring only of a simple majority—more affirmative than negative votes—to succeed. If such majorities were not achieved, successive candidate proposals would be processed under the same procedure. In the event of the investiture process failing to elect a regional President within a two-month period from the first ballot, the Assembly would be automatically dissolved and a snap election called.^[2]

References