Next weekend we vote for change (if possible at least) an electoral law terrifying. I limit myself here, to illustrate what you vote for.
The current Italian electoral system, which came into force in late 2005 and with whom you voted in the recent elections, proportional representation is a (heavily) correctly. The fix is \u200b\u200bessentially the introduction of a majority bonus and a minimum threshold.
Both the House and Senate lists competing coalition may appear to compete for the allocation of the majority premium. Regarding
the election of the Chamber of Deputies the coalition at the national level, reaches the greatest number of consents automatically entitled to 55% of the total seats. With regard to the Senate, however, the majority of the premium is attributed to the regional level, in every region, therefore, the winning coalition will be entitled to 55% of the seats allocated to it in that college.
In both cases, the electoral lists drawn up and are barred from contending parties. This means that, once established, the number of seats allotted to each list in each district, the parliamentarians will be selected according to their position in the lists. It is permitted by law, moreover, the mechanism of multiple applications, so a candidate may appear in more than one constituency.
The thresholds are variable barrier. As for the House to allocate seats involved only the parties who have reached 4% of the national vote in the case, in which, however, exceed 10% of breakfast, all parties will enter Parliament in a coalition of over 2% and the first of the parties under this threshold. In the Senate
the system is similar but calculated a regional barrier to 8% for the listings apparent breakfasts that exceed 20% of the vote, however, the minimum threshold is set at 3%.
Both the House and Senate for the system is not completely homogeneous with respect to foreign colleagues, Valle d'Aosta and only in the Senate, Trentino Alto Adige.
The three referendum questions suggests changing the allocation of the majority premium, with the consequent change in the system of the dam, and the prohibition of multiple applications.
Proceeding to order: The
first question is related to the Chamber of Deputies and relation to the abolition of the mechanism of coalition lists in the race. The majority of the premium, then, it will be attributed to a single list that receives the most votes nationwide. The abolition of the breakfast also leads to uniformity in the minimum threshold of 4%.
The second question is aiming to introduce the same mechanism for the Senate. The abolition of the coalitions would award prizes for most voted most regional lists in each region and a minimum threshold of 8% regional. The third question
aims to abolish the multiple applications.
About the first two questions, the promoters of the referendum argue that these changes would ensure greater stability, by promoting coherence and cohesion, reducing the number of parties and facilitating the transition to a two-party system. Opponents complain that a further reduction of the representation of politicians elected to Parliament would be accompanied by a substantial immobility of the political landscape. The problem of poor cohesion of the parties of any majority would be moved in terms of compiling a common list instead of the apparent coalition, moving further away from reality the composition of the Parliament of the country and exacerbating the distorting effect that a list earns the majority of seats regardless of the percentage of votes obtained. This reform also would not affect two latent problems in the electoral system: the instability due to the fragmentation of the premiums of majority in the Senate and the growing hostility of public opinion on the mechanism of the blocked lists.
preventing the same candidate to show up in most colleges, the third question is defended by the promoters to eliminate the mechanism by which the elect in most colleges are able to arbitrarily choose which place to maintain, and decided, in fact, except among the first of those colleges, future Parliamentarians. If someone is elected in the colleges (where the first non-elected Gaius) and B (where the first unelected and Sempron processors), it will only decide who to Tom Dick and Harry will become the Parliamentary Assembly of the Republic.
