How did the coalition vote? Consistency in 12 key acts
We scrutinized 156 ballots from the last 47 days of the Sejm's work. Instead of listening to political declarations on TV, we checked how MPs' fingers pressed buttons on the 12 most important acts concerning taxes, energy, and the economy.
Discipline in taxes – hard data from October
In October 2024, the Sejm processed three key changes to the tax system, including the high-profile amendment to the VAT Act for small businesses. Our team analyzed the behavior of 248 MPs forming the current majority. The numbers don't lie: in vote No. 34, which took place on October 12 at 11:15 AM, coalition consistency was exactly 97.2%. Only 7 people decided to break rank, choosing the 'abstain' option. These were mainly individuals from the faction representing local government interests, suggesting that local budgets carried more weight than the national party line.
It got interesting two weeks later, on October 26, during the excise tax amendment. Here, the deviation from the norm was already 4.8%. We checked this in the tables, and it shows that 12 MPs voted against their own government. This was neither an accident nor a technical error – each of these votes was cast after a short, 3-minute consultation break in the hallways. Such data shows the real friction within the power camp, which is rarely discussed at press conferences.
Analyzing these 12 key acts, we noticed a certain pattern. The more technical the act, the higher the discipline. On topics that can be easily described on a bar chart as a specific cost for the citizen, MPs start calculating. For example, in the energy price freeze act of November 14, only 2 people from the coalition did not support the project. This shows that the fear of voters' reaction to high bills is stronger than any internal disputes.
Only 7 people decided to break rank in the key VAT vote in October.
Economic issues vs. regional interests
The second half of November 2024 was marked by acts on supporting energy-intensive industry. This is where our activity charts showed the greatest anomalies. In the November 21 vote regarding subsidies for the steel industry, consistency dropped to 89.4%. We looked at the biographies of the 26 MPs who voted differently than the rest of their club. What do they have in common? As many as 21 of them come from constituencies where industrial plants are the largest employers, including the areas of Katowice, Legnica, and Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski.
This is the moment when politics becomes pure mathematics. An MP from a region where a steel mill employs 3,800 people will not risk voting for an act that could weaken the plant's condition. Even if the party leader asks for unity. At Sejmometr Media, we don't judge intentions; we look at the facts. Statistics show that in such acts, party discipline becomes a fiction, and the real power is local economic interest expressed in numbers.
To be honest, this is the most fascinating part of our work. We can predict the outcome of a vote by looking at the unemployment map and employment structure in a given county. If an act hits a specific professional group, the percentage of dissenting MPs grows proportionally to the size of that group in their district. Only specific data allows us to catch such dependencies that are not visible at first glance during the broadcast of proceedings.
Energy and climate – where do alliances break?
An analysis of 3 energy transformation acts from December 2024 brought surprising results. Everyone expected full unity on wind turbine projects; meanwhile, our summary indicates an 11% deviation in one of the smaller coalition clubs. Vote No. 89 from December 5 lasted only 42 seconds, but that was enough for 14 MPs to voice opposition to environmental amendments. Without political babble – it was about the distance of turbines from buildings, which directly affects land value in 32 municipalities.
It's also worth paying attention to the timing of the votes. Our systems register the moment the button is pressed with millisecond precision. In the power grid modernization act of December 12, we noticed that a group of 8 MPs delayed their decision until the last second. They waited until the counter on the screen showed a safe majority so they could vote according to their own conscience or lobby interests without risking the entire coalition's loss. This is classic 'statistical hedging'.
Summarizing this thematic block, energy is a battlefield not only ideologically but primarily financially. Each of the 12 analyzed acts carried budgetary consequences ranging from 450 million to 2.3 billion PLN. With such amounts, every 'mistake' during voting is worth a thorough investigation. At SM, we checked this in the tables, and it is clearly visible that coalition consistency in climate topics is 14% lower than in purely administrative topics.
Coalition consistency in climate topics is 14% lower than in administrative topics.
SM Methodology – how do we read these numbers?
You often ask us where we get all this data. It's simple – we use official parliamentary APIs, but we apply our own analytical filters. Processing 156 ballots took our system exactly 2h 14min. We don't count technical votes, such as those for a break in the proceedings or moving to the agenda, because they blur the picture. We focus only on the merits: acts, amendments, and resolutions that real change the law in Poland.
Heads-up: Not every abstention is an act of rebellion. Sometimes it's the result of a lack of knowledge or being late to the hall, which we also record. In our report for Q4 2024, we showed that the average delay of an MP for a voting block is 4 minutes and 12 seconds. It might not seem like much, but with the speaker's fast pace of work, one can 'miss' 3 important votes during that time. Our statistics show that 23% of MPs regularly miss the first two votes in each block.
Numbers don't lie. If an MP claims on social media that they are a great supporter of a given reform, but in our table there is a red square or no vote next to their name, the fact is simple. Transparency is key. Thanks to our charts, every voter can check if campaign promises overlap with the hard parliamentary reality. At Sejmometr Media, we provide the tools to understand this reality without intermediaries.
Ranking of the most active rebels
Finally, we compiled the names of those who most often voted against their party line. The leader of the ranking in the studied period is an MP from the Pomeranian Voivodeship, who broke rank in 9 out of 12 analyzed acts. Interestingly, in each case, he published an extensive explanation on his website 15 minutes after the vote. This suggests that his 'rebellion' was a planned element of personal branding rather than a spontaneous decision in the chamber.
Second place is held by a group of 5 female MPs who consistently voted together against changes in construction law. Their internal consistency was 99.5%, even though they belong to different factions within the coalition. This shows the existence of smaller, informal interest groups that are more disciplined than large parliamentary clubs. It's worth tracking these micro-coalitions, as they often decide the final shape of acts in committees.
When analyzing these data, it's worth remembering that politics is a team game, but individual statistics say the most about a person. We reviewed 83 different MP profiles for compliance with their election program. The result? An average of 67% compliance in key votes. The rest are compromises, absences, or deliberate decisions to reject the party line. We checked it in the tables – and that 33% difference is exactly where real politics happens.
The ranking leader broke rank in 9 out of 12 analyzed acts, suggesting a planned strategy.
