Direct speechVyacheslav Volodin, the vice-president of the State Duma, the first zamrukovoditelja fractions “ an United Russia “:
- Yes because the society can supervise more effectively a course of elections, and the power to make more responsible. Has not put, when the deputy was selected under lists “ an United Russia “ has then left to communists, and then has moved to LDPR. It all the same that “ promised to marry, and has gone to the neigbour “. And certainly, definiteness is necessary: either pledge, or signatures. Besides, it is good that the percent of marriage of subscription lists to 5 % is lowered. How it is possible to be selected, if every fourth signature appears marriage?
Boris Nadezhdin, the secretary of federal political council of Union of Right Forces:
- democracy, and marasmus Grows stronger not. Innovations are favourable to bureaucrats and those who wants to eliminate a political competition. Will lock to pass to deputies from fraction in fraction it is necessary that any rat has not run away from “ United Russia “.
Gennady Seleznev, the independent deputy of the State Duma, the chairman of the State Duma of the second and third convocations:
- Amendments to the selective legislation do not strengthen democracy. For example, the impossibility fact to be selected on one-mandatory districts is the roughest infringement of democracy, actually deprives of the citizen to be selected and be the selected works. For this purpose he should enter party and to remain in it almost for life.
Ivan Harchenko, the deputy of the State Duma (fraction “ the Native land “) :
- Perhaps, yes, after all amendments give to opposition parties of more chances. From selective blocks it is necessary to leave. After party elections leave blocks, ducking out. With an interdiction of transition of deputies from one fraction in another we too agree - at majority party will be less chances to entice deputies from other fractions. If the law operated in 2003, “ an United Russia “ could not generate in the State Duma the majority in two third of voices. But we against decrease in percent of void signatures of voters.
Irina Khakamada, the co-chairman “ Committee - 2008 “ the party leader “ Our choice “:
- These innovations reduce democratic procedures. Political blocks forbid because they real threat of the party in power. After all in blocks many parties can unite, keeping the legal individuality. All these innovations are built with one purpose - to destroy competitors and opposition.
Sergey Ivanenko, the vice-president of party “ the Apple “:
- Not that word! After strengthening of a vertical of the power the centre was engaged in strengthening of a vertical of elections. All it not that other, as vyholashchivanie ideas of democracy and creation next potemkinskoj villages.
Ivan Melnikov, the first vice-president of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation:
- Democracy puts things, without having had time to unpack them. The suffrage is adjusted to momentary interests of the party in power. The interdiction for creation of blocks will sharply limit number of participants of elective process and will strike on cooperation of opposition forces not under control to the power. Reduction of quantity of admissible poor-quality signatures will give the chance to get rid of the objectionable.
Leonid Ivanchenko, the independent deputy of the State Duma, the vice-president of Political bureau VkPb:
- At what here democracy? All becomes in advantage “ United Russia “ in which the fermentation connected with aversion by its members of existing dictatorship of leaders is noticed. Knowingly Putin does not want to connect itself membership in this party.
Gleb Pavlovsky, the president of Fund of an effective policy:
are very liberal amendments. As to a choice between pledge or signatures let choose initially to go on elections rich or popular. Amendments give criterion on which the society can check up a transparency of elections. If the candidate brings pledge, ask: whence money?