38 THE GEORGIAN LABOUR PARTY v. GEORGIA JUDGMENT 120. The Court cannot base its reasoning on the Government’s argument that the applicant party has failed to prove that it would have been able to receive from the Khulo and Kobuleti districts the number of votes sufficient to overcome the 7% legal threshold. It considers that an intention to vote for a specific party is essentially a thought confined to the forum internum of a voter and its existence cannot be proved or disproved until and unless it has manifested itself through the act of voting (see Russian Conservative Party of Entrepreneurs and Others, cited above, § 76). As to the Government’s argument that the applicant party had not been a popular candidate in the Ajarian districts during the two previous polls, the Court notes that a voter’s preference is not static but may evolve in time, influenced by political events and electoral campaigning. A sudden and sweeping change in voters’ intentions is a well-documented political and social phenomenon (ibid.). 121. In any event, what is at stake in the present case is not the applicant party’s right to win the repeat parliamentary election but its right to stand freely and effectively for it. The applicant party was entitled under Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to rely on the electorate of Khulo and Kobuleti, irrespective of its chances to obtain a majority of their votes (see also in this regard paragraphs 73 and 74 above). Disfranchisement of voters, especially if it is an arbitrary act, can impede the effective exercise of an election candidate’s right to stand for election. 122. The Court does not share the Government’s view that the votes of the disfranchised electorate of Khulo and Kobuleti could be considered to be “wasted votes”. The latter notion presupposes that, while all citizens must be given an equal chance to cast a ballot under any electoral system, no electoral system can guarantee that all the votes cast should necessarily have equal weight as regards the outcome of the election (see Bompard v. France (dec.), no. 44081/02, ECHR 2006-IV). In the present case, on the contrary, the very essence of the principle of equal treatment of all citizens in the exercise of their right to vote is at stake. Logically, one cannot argue about the legitimacy of “wasting” votes which have never been cast. 123. The Government further erred in claiming that, since the disfranchisement of Khulo and Kobuleti voters was allegedly compatible with domestic law, there is no need to justify it before the Court (see paragraph 115 in fine above). Although the Georgian State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in the sphere of elections, it is always for the Court to determine in the last resort whether the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 have been complied with (see Mathieu-Mohin, cited above, § 52). This is especially true when it is not merely an individual instance of a limitation on the right to vote or stand for election which is at stake, but when the State fails to remove impediments to maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of an electoral procedure aimed at identifying the will of the people through universal suffrage (see Hirst, cited above, § 62).