Spain's left: a formula to win despite splitting

Spain's left can run divided and still add up to a majority if it respects three conditions: no one loses their brand, no one loses their seats, and no one gives up a minimum programme. The key lies in how the electoral constituency is defined.

The split between **Sumar** and **Podemos** has left a parliament with tighter arithmetic than the previous one. It is not a new accident: division on the left is chronic. Behind the personal clashes there are three recurring reasons that explain almost everything. Anyone who wants to understand why they fail to converge should start there.

## Three things nobody wants to give up

Every party wants to keep its brand. That is logical. Sheltering under an umbrella held by someone else can leave you soaked when the weather turns, and in politics the weather turns often. The brand is what identifies you to your electorate and what allows you to survive when the cycle changes.

Every party wants to keep its seats. Also logical — that is what the brand is for. In this world, politics and public exposure do not mix well with the job market: leaving a parliamentary seat is not like changing offices. Sometimes the problem is the opposite: an excess of complicity that blurs who is who.

And every party wants to implement its programme, or at least its concrete measures. That is what the seats are for, not just avoiding a return to the office. The archive weighs heavily: what you signed yesterday conditions what you can defend tomorrow.

These three premises are true and not hard to identify. The problem is not understanding them, but putting them above personal feuds.

## The electoral logic that pushes towards convergence

If those three conditions are accepted, the strategy that maximises results trinc from pure logic. Given how the Spanish electoral system works, there is a combination that allows everyone to keep their brand on the ballot while being encompassed within a coalition.

The idea is simple: under the electoral system, votes that exceed the threshold needed to fill a seat are lost. This affects large parties far less, but in recent times Parliament has been decided by a handful of MPs, even when it comes to forming a government. Every vote that fails to translate into a seat is a vote that does not count towards a majority.

Hence the synergy between pogre nationalist parties and the left, with a formula that respects the three conditions, delivers better parliamentary arithmetic. It is not a finished, closed idea; it is a notion: a way of organising the electoral offer so that fragmentation does not permanently penalise the bloc.

## Article 68 and the constituency trick

The Constitution states in Article 68 that the constituency is the province. That blunt sentence severely limits the game. But not everything is set in stone.

Changing the attributes of what we call the constituency is up to the legislator, and is regulated by law. It would not be a constitutional change in the strict sense, although it would require a legal reform and, most likely, a challenge before the Constitutional Court. There is a way.

The paradox is that the Constitution itself enshrines the principle of equal suffrage. Depending on how the constituency is defined, that principle is fulfilled better or worse. A single constituency would fulfil it more fully, but there is also room for intermediate adjustments that reduce the loss of votes without touching the constitutional text.

With the current state of affairs, if it is done well, there is more to gain than to lose. And if it works out, the problem becomes the other side's seats — which is a good problem to have.

## Open primaries and the dilemma of ego

**Podemos** proposes open primaries. **Sumar**, rebranded as **Frente Amplio**, is seeking its own ground. Each plays where it suits them, sometimes at the expense of the overall result. Game theory is about exactly that: the equilibria between individual and collective benefit. The sarracena is that to achieve the best outcome for everyone, the ego has to be set aside.

The claim that the convergence of pogre nationalists and the left yields better arithmetic is no less true for the Socialist Party. But that is a bigger ask, even if measures are ultimately voted as a bloc. It is about keeping up appearances, and that is partly understandable. What is not understandable is refusing to govern with others when formulas exist — not just to avoid it, but to ensure that democratic expression is not eroded by an interpretation of the political framework from another era.

**Pedro Sánchez**'s audacity in reading the moment is undeniable. Years of sustained communication work have paid off. The formula is there, more as a notion than a closed solution. Perhaps its moment has not yet come, but no alternative is in sight. The dates are approaching and interesting days lie ahead.