Italian Elections and Politics 2018: Yellow Tide

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually like the new draft of the electoral system. They did away with the insane 8% threshold, introduced a share of preferential voting and gender parity, and increased the immediate majority threshold to 40%, which is respectable.

Could you or somebody else please explain the new proposal in some detail?

The voters cast their vote for a party list in a 5 or 6-member constituency. However, the votes are tallied at the national level. If the party that comes ahead has received more than 40% of the vote, this party gets 52% of the seats. The remaining 48% of seats is assigned proportionally to all the parties that have received more than 3% of the vote. If no party has cleared the 40% threshold, a runoff is held between the top two parties - and the winner takes the 52% seats bloc. Then among each parties seats are distributed between constituencies. Voters may express two individual preferences on the party list they have voted for (one for a man and one for a woman). The list leader selected by the party remains ahead no matter what, but the other candidates are ordered by the number of their preferences. Also, lists must alternated between genders, so that if the list leader is a man, the second must be a woman, and reciprocally.

That's...amazingly contorted and difficult to explain but I think I understand the reasoning behind it, and I'd say it's preferable to the other ideas that were being thrown around a while back. Thanks.

I might not have done a good job at explaining it. I'm a huge nerd for voting systems, so I might take for granted things that are pretty obscure to normal people.

[politicus]

Still a run-off provides a bit of comfort - people won't be forced to choose a party they dislike for fear of their least favourite party being allowed the bonus.

(see: Greece)

Yes, the Greek system would be significantly better if 250 seats were divided in the first round and the bonus was then decided in a run-off between the top two. It would cost more, but would be worth it.

I would agree with Antonio that FPTP and bonus can be necessary in immature democracies, but the election system also influences the political culture. 

[MaxQue]

I actually like the new draft of the electoral system. They did away with the insane 8% threshold, introduced a share of preferential voting and gender parity, and increased the immediate majority threshold to 40%, which is respectable.

Could you or somebody else please explain the new proposal in some detail?

The voters cast their vote for a party list in a 5 or 6-member constituency. However, the votes are tallied at the national level. If the party that comes ahead has received more than 40% of the vote, this party gets 52% of the seats. The remaining 48% of seats is assigned proportionally to all the parties that have received more than 3% of the vote. If no party has cleared the 40% threshold, a runoff is held between the top two parties - and the winner takes the 52% seats bloc. Then among each parties seats are distributed between constituencies. Voters may express two individual preferences on the party list they have voted for (one for a man and one for a woman). The list leader selected by the party remains ahead no matter what, but the other candidates are ordered by the number of their preferences. Also, lists must alternated between genders, so that if the list leader is a man, the second must be a woman, and reciprocally.

That's...amazingly contorted and difficult to explain but I think I understand the reasoning behind it, and I'd say it's preferable to the other ideas that were being thrown around a while back. Thanks.

I might not have done a good job at explaining it. I'm a huge nerd for voting systems, so I might take for granted things that are pretty obscure to normal people.

Is that similar to the Italian municipal elections system?

[Famous Mortimer]

Run-off with PR just really bizarre. Has it ever been done before? I guess it could work though. The risk with such a novel system though is that it might be more easily abolished if the people in power think it's advantageous.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I actually like the new draft of the electoral system. They did away with the insane 8% threshold, introduced a share of preferential voting and gender parity, and increased the immediate majority threshold to 40%, which is respectable.

Could you or somebody else please explain the new proposal in some detail?

The voters cast their vote for a party list in a 5 or 6-member constituency. However, the votes are tallied at the national level. If the party that comes ahead has received more than 40% of the vote, this party gets 52% of the seats. The remaining 48% of seats is assigned proportionally to all the parties that have received more than 3% of the vote. If no party has cleared the 40% threshold, a runoff is held between the top two parties - and the winner takes the 52% seats bloc. Then among each parties seats are distributed between constituencies. Voters may express two individual preferences on the party list they have voted for (one for a man and one for a woman). The list leader selected by the party remains ahead no matter what, but the other candidates are ordered by the number of their preferences. Also, lists must alternated between genders, so that if the list leader is a man, the second must be a woman, and reciprocally.

That's...amazingly contorted and difficult to explain but I think I understand the reasoning behind it, and I'd say it's preferable to the other ideas that were being thrown around a while back. Thanks.

I might not have done a good job at explaining it. I'm a huge nerd for voting systems, so I might take for granted things that are pretty obscure to normal people.

Is that similar to the Italian municipal elections system?

Actually yes, that's the closest thing that comes to mind. The only major difference is that the allocation of seats and the direct mayoral election (which determines the majority bonus) are separated. So you have a single round for party lists and a two-round uninominal election for the office of mayor. Also, the majority bonus is assigned to the coalition supporting the mayor, rather than to a single party. But it's also bigger (60% of seats).

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Although I agree with Politicus that the fair representation principle is more important in the abstract, such principle can only fully prevail in "civilized" countries like the Scandinavians, where a hung parliament doesn't result in utter chaos.

You haven't been paying attention to Sweden much this past autumn I hear.


When it comes to electoral law it does seem that Italy has a preference for making things as complicated as possibly imaginable. Which of course is fun for us election geeks, but must be really confusing for the average voter. And it does inevitably seem that no matter which system you have the voters seem to hand you unstable situations anyway.

I do really think Politicus raises an important point. The political system forms the political conduct, not only for the voters but also for the politicians. The reason that things are (supposedly) more civilized in Scandinavia is because our system forces there to be broad coalitions, while politicians in Britain are incapable of compromise with the other party because they're used to either always having all the power.

I don't think this system will last. What happens for example if the Lega becomes second largest party at the next election? Southern right-wingers voting for the Lega in the run off? I do really think you guys would have been much better off by just keeping the old system and just neuter the Senate's power, alternatively reforming the senatorial electoral law.   

[Antonio the Sixth]

Although I agree with Politicus that the fair representation principle is more important in the abstract, such principle can only fully prevail in "civilized" countries like the Scandinavians, where a hung parliament doesn't result in utter chaos.

You haven't been paying attention to Sweden much this past autumn I hear.

LOL, if this is your idea of chaos, you really need to come to Italy.

When it comes to electoral law it does seem that Italy has a preference for making things as complicated as possibly imaginable. Which of course is fun for us election geeks, but must be really confusing for the average voter. And it does inevitably seem that no matter which system you have the voters seem to hand you unstable situations anyway.

While this system's technical workings are very complex, I think it's still pretty simple to understand in terms of the input/output analysis. All you really need to know about it is that every party winning more than 3% will get roughly their fair share, and that the winning party (whether by getting more than 40% or by winning the runoff) will have an automatic majority. I don't think it's that hard to understand.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Mentioning Britain actually undermines your argument, considering how easily they have been able to deal with hung parliaments in the past. The same is true for Canada and many other countries that use FPP. On the other hand, there are countless examples of countries that used PR yet had parties unable to ever agree on everything (case to point, Italy's first Republic, or even worse, France's fourth Republic). Yes, it is true that the voting system does shape political attitudes and behaviors, but it's far from the only factor. And the problems that plague Italian parties have roots much deeper than the electoral system.

[politicus]

Although I agree with Politicus that the fair representation principle is more important in the abstract, such principle can only fully prevail in "civilized" countries like the Scandinavians, where a hung parliament doesn't result in utter chaos.

You haven't been paying attention to Sweden much this past autumn I hear.

LOL, if this is your idea of chaos, you really need to come to Italy.

Even their chaos is organized and orderly in Sweden.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

British politicians have historically had little difficulty dealing with hung parliaments, yes. The new Italian electoral law is awful, but (in fairness) it isn't really any worse than the joke of a system that's currently in place.* I haven't been following this as closely as I should, but is the Senate getting the heave-ho or not?

_{*I will note here my amusement that constitutional do-gooders in Italy take the exact opposite line on electoral systems to those in the UK. It's almost as if the root cause of political problems is rarely actually the voting system...}

[Antonio the Sixth]

I haven't been following this as closely as I should, but is the Senate getting the heave-ho or not?

Renzi was hoping to get a final Senate vote today. Then it will go back to the House for a simple up-or-down vote early next week. It's possible that things won't go as smoothly though, we'll see.

I would like to know what you mean with your footnote, I genuinely have no idea who the "constitutional do-gooders" are and what stance they're supposed to take.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would like to know what you mean with your footnote, I genuinely have no idea who the "constitutional do-gooders" are and what stance they're supposed to take.

There's a tendency amongst a certain type of constitutionally minded reformist type in Italy to believe that majoritarian electoral systems are the best electoral systems. This is the exact opposite of the line usually taken by the same sort of people here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would like to know what you mean with your footnote, I genuinely have no idea who the "constitutional do-gooders" are and what stance they're supposed to take.

There's a tendency amongst a certain type of constitutionally minded reformist type in Italy to believe that majoritarian electoral systems are the best electoral systems. This is the exact opposite of the line usually taken by the same sort of people here.

Oh yes, obviously, that's true. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, I guess. That's why I think that, overall, a compromise (ie some form of PR with majoritarian correctives) is the best answer in most circumstances. Countries that can "afford" full PR without negative repercussions are rare, especially with the current rise of the far right throughout Europe, but theoretically it remains the best system.

[EPG]

Unlike (say) the Greek or British electoral systems, the Italicum will grant the top party an automatic majority.

Forgive me for reiterating my point in a more explicit way, but a party with as little as (say) 25% public support can win an overall majority in the Italicum by simply appealling to parties that don't get an opportunity to contest the run-off. Even the second-most popular party can do this if they win the run-off! In other words, this is not a proportional system at all, and there is little use comparing it to the British system because it is worse (more extremely majoritarian) than the British system. Blair got a majority on 35% of the multi-party vote; Bersani, last time, could have got one on 25%.

Consider the following scenario next time:
PD 35%
M5S 25%
Lega 15%
Forza 15%
etc

Best-case scenario, PD earns an artificial majority with a FPTP-type vote. Worst-case, M5S gets a majority with less than one-quarter of voters behind it.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But one way or another, the winning party will have earned a majority of the vote.* Yes, it might be in the runoff, but it still gives it far more legitimacy than Thatcher or Blair ever had.

*Or rather 40%, actually. But still, that's fairly decent.

[Famous Mortimer]

40% clause is the worst thing about this law. Why not make it 50%? No one could argue with that. 40% opens up the door to challenges of legitimacy.

It's some Danny Ortega sh!t.

[EPG]

But one way or another, the winning party will have earned a majority of the vote.* Yes, it might be in the runoff, but it still gives it far more legitimacy than Thatcher or Blair ever had.

*Or rather 40%, actually. But still, that's fairly decent.

What if instead of a two-party runoff, you have a one-party runoff? That way, the most-popular party will always get a majority of the vote. Not allowing parties to contest a decisive election is a bad font of legitimacy.

When the British people looked at all their options, Thatcher won over 40 per cent three times, and got three majorities; Bersani would have won an equally-effective majority with just 25 per cent in an equally-free choice in 2013.

[Keystone Phil]

Interesting and predictably bizarre system. But it seems more straightforward. Thanks for a good explanation, Antonio.

I don't think the most important aspect has been addressed though: how do the abroad votes get factored in?

Also, with the list preferences, even though the list leader remains the top regardless, do voters still get to vote for him or her? I guess it would be a waste of a vote but it would be strange if they could only vote for candidates 2-whatever.

[Antonio the Sixth]

40% clause is the worst thing about this law. Why not make it 50%? No one could argue with that. 40% opens up the door to challenges of legitimacy.

It's some Danny Ortega sh!t.

Aaaaand you win the prize for the Hyperbole of the Month, congratulations! Yes, the threshold should obviously be 50%, but a 40% => 50% system isn't that big of a stretch of proportionality. Besides, the original threshold was set at 35%, so we should consider ourselves lucky.

Interesting and predictably bizarre system. But it seems more straightforward. Thanks for a good explanation, Antonio.

I don't think the most important aspect has been addressed though: how do the abroad votes get factored in?

Also, with the list preferences, even though the list leader remains the top regardless, do voters still get to vote for him or her? I guess it would be a waste of a vote but it would be strange if they could only vote for candidates 2-whatever.

I have no idea on both your questions. The media just don't have really examined these two aspects. Actually, it might well be that your second question indicates a loophole in the system that Renzi and Berlusconi had not even considered.

[Keystone Phil]

Another question: are the personal preferences counted at the constituency level or at the national level and then members are assigned to random constituencies (like how Berlusconi technically represented a constituency in Molise, I think, after 2006)?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

There's no point having a majority bonus that kicks in at 50% because at 50% you already have a majority...

[Boston Bread]

There's no point having a majority bonus that kicks in at 50% because at 50% you already have a majority...

Samuel Tilden says hi. (although that was an electoral college election)

[Zanas]

There's no point having a majority bonus that kicks in at 50% because at 50% you already have a majority...

Samuel Tilden says hi. (although that was an electoral college election)

French municipal election says hi.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Examples that happen to be totally irrelevant given the context

[Barnes]

Has there been much development in the presidential race?  Anyone emerging as Renzi's favored pick?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Has there been much development in the presidential race?  Anyone emerging as Renzi's favored pick?

A few names have been floated around, such as Giuliano Amato (useless establishment stooge who basically held every imaginable political position except for that one and who's been pretty friendly to Berlusconi in the past), Anna Finocchiaro (useless bigwig of the PD's old guard), or Sergio Mattarella (a Constitutional Court judge coming from the Catholic centre). Longshots include Romano Prodi (who's the champion put forth the PD's left but whom Berlusconi hates), Walter Veltroni (who's perhaps too charismatic for Renzi's tastes), Pierferdinando Casini (probably the most useless and boring centrist ever) and Graziano Delrio (Renzi's right-hand man, but he lacks the institutional experience). I'm probably forgetting some, but it's not like the picture is very clear, and most names have been basically fabricated by media speculation.