Spain's PP won't change the Constitution even with a majority, forum analysis finds

Voting for the PP to change the Constitution? The analysis that debunks that hope

The question many people are asking ahead of Spain's general election is whether it makes sense to vote for the Partido Popular (Spain's main conservative party) to secure a large enough majority to change key laws, including the Constitution, and block projects such as the confederal republic or the left's policies. The premise is that the PP, with enough power, would change the legal framework to serve the interests of those who oppose the current government. However, the analysis drawn from the forum posts points in the opposite direction: the PP has shown no willingness to change anything substantial in decades, and its track record contradicts that expectation.

The PP has never changed the Constitution or major laws

The idea that the PP, with an absolute majority, would amend the Constitution or fundamental laws is met with skepticism. One participant recalls that the PP already had an absolute majority and did nothing: "The PP, with its solemn fool, had AN OVERWHELMING ABSOLUTE MAJORITY AND DID NOTHING." Another adds that "The PP has shared power with the PSOE for 45 years and has never been seen to do or even attempt ANYTHING in that direction." The conclusion drawn is that voting for the PP guarantees no change, only continuity.

The D'Hondt law isn't the problem: it's the constituency system

Several posts agree that the D'Hondt law is not unfair in itself, and that the real problem lies in the system of provincial constituencies. "If there were A SINGLE CONSTITUENCY with the same D'Hondt law, and not the current provincial one that allocates seats to provinces, THAT'S WHERE THE DAMNED INJUSTICE LIES," one participant points out. Another sums it up: "The D'Hondt law isn't unfair; what is unfair and absurd is the constituency system, which makes some Spaniards' votes worth far more than others' simply because of where they live." This distinction is key: changing the electoral law doesn't depend on the PP alone, but on an agreement affecting all provinces.

The tactical vote for VOX and disillusionment with the PP

Given the lack of expectations placed on the PP, part of the analysis leans toward VOX as the only option for real change. "VOX IS THE ONLY OPTION LEFT," one post repeats, arguing that the PP will do nothing. Another participant notes that in small provinces VOX may fail to win a seat, but in the large ones "vote for VOX without any antiestéticar." The discussion reflects a divide: between those who believe the PP is the lesser evil and those who argue that voting for the PP perpetuates the status quo.

Weariness and abstention as a response

Fatigue runs through several posts. "We've been talking about the same thing for years, the same scenario repeats every three years, I'm exhausted, I can't take it anymore," one participant confesses. Abstention emerges as an option for those who see no difference between the choices. Others, however, warn that not voting also has consequences: "The people are the architects of their own misfortune. After the elections, the very ones who appointed the magistrates marvel at having appointed them," quoting Seneca.

Conclusion: the hope for change runs into reality

The forum analysis leaves one idea clear: voting for the PP expecting it to change the Constitution or major laws has no basis. The PP has shown no initiative in that direction in 45 years, and the electoral system is not changed without broad agreements. The initial question —whether it makes sense to vote for the PP to advance one's own interests and block the adversary— goes unanswered. As one post sums it up: "If you do THE SAME THING, you get the same thing."