ISFED Says Election Changes Tilt System in Favor of Georgian Dream
By Liza Mchedlidze
Wednesday, August 27, 2025
Georgia's leading election monitoring group, the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED), has accused the ruling Georgian Dream party of reshaping electoral rules to secure an advantage ahead of the October 4 local elections.
In a detailed review published on August 25, ISFED said the government had adopted the amendments "in three stages and with violations of international standards." The group argued that every change served the interests of Georgian Dream, from abolishing runoffs for city council races to increasing the weight of majoritarian seats and altering how proportional mandates are distributed.
The watchdog highlighted five major shifts. Among them, the May 2024 decision to scrap the 40 percent threshold for majoritarian races in city councils. Under the old rule, candidates who fell short of 40 percent faced a runoff. Now, the candidate with the most votes wins outright. ISFED said this favors Georgian Dream in fragmented opposition races, allowing the ruling party to capture council seats with limited support.
In December 2024, parliament increased the number of majoritarian seats at the expense of proportional ones. Tbilisi's council was changed from a 40-10 split in favor of proportional mandates to a 25-25 balance. Other large cities, including Kutaisi, Batumi, Rustavi, and Poti, saw their councils shrink from 35 to 25 members, while majoritarian mandates rose from seven to ten.
The same amendments set a uniform 15 proportional seats for all municipalities, with one majoritarian seat for every settlement. ISFED said this tilted many councils heavily toward majoritarians, in some cases raising their share to 70 percent of seats. "Such a dominant share of mandates in the representative bodies of self-governing units will significantly increase the disproportionality between votes and seats, favoring the first-place party," the watchdog said.
Thresholds for entry into councils were also raised: from 2.5 to 4 percent in Tbilisi, and from 3 to 4 percent elsewhere. ISFED noted that this would hurt smaller parties while benefiting larger ones. The Venice Commission criticized these amendments in March, warning that they risk entrenching the ruling party.
The final stage of reforms, passed in March 2025, changed how leftover proportional mandates are awarded. Previously, seats were distributed to parties with the largest remainders of votes. Now, they go to the party with the most votes overall. According to ISFED, this means a party with 45 percent of the vote could secure 53 percent of proportional seats, compared to 47 percent under the old system.
ISFED announced on August 21 that it will not carry out a standard monitoring mission for the upcoming election, citing conditions that "largely do not meet" standards for free and fair competition. The group said it would continue observing the political environment.
The October 4 vote is already being boycotted by 8 opposition parties, arguing that participation would only lengthen the Georgian Dream rule and help legitimize Georgian Dream amid ongoing protests. Fourteen parties remain on the ballot, including the Lelo/Strong Georgia coalition and former Prime Minister Giorgi Gakharia's For Georgia, both of which cleared the 5 percent threshold in the last parliamentary elections but refused to take up their seats in protest.
Lelo and For Georgia have joined forces for Tbilisi, nominating Irakli Kupradze as their candidate for mayor. He will face incumbent Kakha Kaladze of Georgian Dream, who is seeking a third term, as well as Zurab Makharadze of the far-right conservative movement Alt-Info. Georgian Dream has pledged to win every municipality and, for the first time, has declined to invite an OSCE/ODIHR observation mission.
Concerns over transparency have been compounded by the Georgian Charter of Journalistic Ethics, which announced on August 26 that it will not be able to conduct its usual pre-election media monitoring. The group blamed what it described as "repressive laws" and ruling party pressure that had cut off donor funding.
"At this stage, the Charter continues to carry out its basic functions voluntarily, including reviewing citizens' complaints about violations of professional standards. However, it is no longer able to implement projects or provide this and other essential services to the public and the journalistic community," the organization said.
