Electoral reform has always been a hot topic in Albanian politics. Journalists and politicians clash fiercely on various television shows over the reasons why this or that system is better, often using technical terms that the Albanian in front of the screen does not even understand. But how can we understand which is the best solution? To understand this, we must start from what matters most to Albanians on the day they go to the polls.

Citizens are asking for a very simple thing: for their vote to have real weight. They are tired of seeing how the vote becomes ineffective, how it is lost or distorted, and how it often does not translate directly into political representation. An electoral reform cannot be built on ideal theories, but must reflect the complexity of the nation and society where it is implemented. Albania is a small and relatively homogeneous country, and therefore has neither the luxury nor the ability to adopt systems built for countries of completely different sizes and realities.

The Dutch electoral system fits well into this scenario and, with its pure proportional system, could offer Albanians some valuable insights. First of all, in the Netherlands there is only one electoral district. This means that every vote, no matter where it is cast, has the same weight. In a small country like Albania, the division into several electoral districts is not only unnecessary, but also harmful, because it makes the vote of one citizen more valuable than another, simply because of residence.

The voting method is also very simple. The citizen receives a ballot paper where the parties and their candidates are listed. He chooses a candidate from a party's list and this vote goes directly to that political force. There are no split votes, no artificial combinations and no calculations that the citizen does not understand. Every vote goes into the same national account and directly affects the distribution of mandates.

The open list mechanism also works in this system. In the Netherlands, a citizen can vote for the candidate he prefers within the party he is voting for, and based on the votes received, candidates advance in the ranking until they are elected. This creates an even stronger connection between the voter and the candidate, while also increasing the level of responsibility of each politician, who at the end of his mandate must be accountable to every voter who voted for him.

Mandates are distributed proportionally to the votes received at the national level. If a party receives about 20 percent of the votes, it receives approximately 20 percent of the seats in parliament. This means that very few votes are lost and that the election result is understandable to the citizen. There is no artificial majority in favor of the current government, nor are there any distortions created by territorial division.

Another obvious advantage of this system is perceived legitimacy. In effect, this system makes it clear that an individual's vote carries real weight. Proposing such a system could combat abstention and encourage citizens to vote and trust politicians more, not because politicians will magically become more honest, but because they will be more easily punished in future elections.

This system creates a direct link between the vote and power. The citizen knows that his vote has real weight and that it is not "burned" along the way. For this reason, in the Netherlands, governments are usually coalitions, because the parliament better reflects the pluralism of society and the real relations of political forces.

Overall, this system guarantees real political representation, a low electoral threshold, and higher political participation. In Albania, such a system could mean more accountable MPs, more political dynamism, a fight against gridlock, and mafia-type local government centers.

For Albania, such a system should not be seen as a model to be blindly copied, but as a clear example of how equality of vote and simplicity of rules can increase confidence in elections. Ultimately, an electoral system is not measured by how complex it is, but by how accurately it translates the will of citizens into political power.