25 Judgment No. CCZ 3/18 Constitutional Application No. CCZ 15/18 The current s 3(3) of the Act is a direct result of the judgment in the United Parties case supra. The applicants have not asked the Court to revisit that judgment. The judgment states that a scheme of entitlement to State funding based on a reasonable threshold of votes received by candidates of political parties, being a fairly low percentage of the total votes cast in the most recent general election, would be constitutional. There is no doubt that setting the minimum threshold for entitlement to State funding for a political party as the votes received by its candidates which should be at least five percent of the total votes cast in the most recent general election promotes multi-party democracy. Political parties do not have to secure representation in Parliament. Under the current legislative scheme for entitlement to payment of State funding, small political parties that fail to win a seat in Parliament but have candidates who manage to receive the five percent of the total votes cast in the most recent general election are entitled to receive payment. Multi-party democracy is not defined in terms of seats political parties have in Parliament. Multi-party democracy is promoted by encouraging political parties to compete for funding by seeking to reach the minimum threshold for entitlement to payment of monies appropriated for funding political parties. The political parties are encouraged to use freedom of speech during campaigns in the general election to persuade voters to vote for their candidates so that they meet the minimum threshold and get funding. The voter becomes the decision-maker. The requirements for entitlement to payment of monies from the public funds appropriated in terms of the Act for funding political parties ensure the effectiveness of the funding as a means of promoting multi-party democracy as required by the Constitution.