Italian Elections and Politics 2018: Yellow Tide

[Antonio the Sixth]

As I am too lazy to check the Italian constitution: What will happen now? (A presidential election, I guess, but what are the rules of nomination and election?)

The President is elected by an electoral college made of all the members of the Parliament (House and Senate) along with a handful delegates from the regions. A 2/3 majority is required onthe first 3 ballots, then a simple majority is sufficient.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What are the potential candidates for new president?

Everyone and no one. At this point, there is not much besides speculations.

[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. I've never got why people hate majority bonuses (even the Greek system is pretty OK to me - and it's basically the Italian system without a runoff), they're still fairer than FPP or their variants.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Anyway something rather unsettling is happening in Italian polling. An increasing number of polls are showing Berlusconi's outfit slip below or pegging the League of Evil. I mean don't get me wrong, it is funny to see the Don being shredded in the polls. But the League?? ugh

Yeah, Salvini's new-look Lega (which is basically a FN clone) has been on the rise for months now, and it's attracting a lot of disgruntled xenophobic/Europhobic populist voters. I guess it was bound to happen, especially considering the drop in M5S support. Still extremely worrisome, of course.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think there's still a special clause for regional parties.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What I'm not getting is for what exactly the two main blocs going to a runoff are running ? Will they be running for all seats, thus excluding every first round party from Parliament ? Or are the first seats given to every one who gets 3% in the first round, except the rest for which the two main blocs will be fighting in the runoff ? And will there be a majority bonus in the runoff as well ?

Yeah, the runoff is all about the majority bonus. Apart from that, the first round still determines the allocation of seats.

[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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think it's because they're sort of a Frankenstein of at least two different concepts for what an election should produce--'an election should produce an accurate representation of the votes cast' and 'an election should produce a stable governing majority for one political pole'. They just feel 'off' to people even though there's not really much objective reason to have a serious problem with them.[/quote]

But isn't trying to concurrently maximize two desirable goals the very essence of politics? 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. In Italy, full proportionality would have a catastrophic impact, and some correction is needed. But that doesn't mean we need to completely renounce to some degree of fair representation. I think that the current bill, though far from perfect, is a decent compromise in that regard.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio!

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)?

I have no idea, but I would assume the former.

[Antonio the Sixth]

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)...

Craxi as well!

Yes, actually he started his career in the PSI as one of Craxi's lieutenants. And when he was PM in 1992-1993 he tried a few tricks to save his friends' ass.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is there any chance of Pietro Grasso getting the gig full-time, and would anybody want him to?

Yeah, he's one of the second-tier candidates that I forgot to mention. He has good relationships both with Renzi and with the PD's left-wing, and Berlusconi surprisingly doesn't hate him either, so he might very well have a shot. But he's not talked about that much compared to the others.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is there any chance of Pietro Grasso getting the gig full-time, and would anybody want him to?

Yeah, he's one of the second-tier candidates that I forgot to mention. He has good relationships both with Renzi and with the PD's left-wing, and Berlusconi surprisingly doesn't hate him either, so he might very well have a shot. But he's not talked about that much compared to the others.

He seems pretty good from what I've read about him. I'd certainly rather him than Prodi or, God forbid, Amato.

Prodi would actually make an excellent President IMO. He has the stature, the international prestige, and is one of the most upstanding and honest recent political leaders I can think of. But Berlusconi hates his guts, Renzi might fear that he would be too "activist" a President, and he himself genuinely doesn't want it (who could blame him, after the backstabbing he got in 2013?). So his chances are slim. Grasso is definitely among the better candidates as well.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Italicum passed in the Senate: 184 Aye, 66 Nay, 2 abstaining, 63 absent.

And 9 new M5S parliamentarians left the group.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What's going on with Senate reform? Is that part of Italicum or is it being put through separately?

It is separate because it's a constitutional reform, which requires a much longer procedure. I doubt it will can realistically be completed before 2016. The electoral reform should be the law of the land by March or April.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fini burn too many center-right bridges to be viable for President?

What exactly is he up to these days anyway?

Oh don't be silly. Fini is politically dead and buried.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Renzi met with Berlusconi today. Reportedly, Renzi proposed Mattarella and Berlusconi said no; then Berlusconi proposed Amato and Renzi said no. So we still have no real candidate today and most parties will be casting blank ballots tomorrow.

[Antonio the Sixth]

...and it turns out the PD has just officially endorsed Mattarella. Go figure.

[Antonio the Sixth]

First ballot on 3PM CEST. Renzi seems determined to push for Mattarella, though the right isn't pleased.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Looks like nobody will actually be voting for Mattarella on the first ballot. The showdown will only come on the 4th, when a simple majority is sufficient. Theoretically, Mattarella already has the unanimous support of the left coalition (which has nearly 50% of the seats) and could get additional support from former M5Sers and centrists.