Following the latest political developments in Italy, we're hearing a lot of talk about electoral law (again) . This has been one of the most debated issues in Italy in recent years and will likely be one of the tasks the new government will have to address.
Seeking consensus
The electoral law is, in itself, a very delicate and important issue since the vote is the main feature of the democracy: if you don't vote, you certainly aren't in a democracy and as we know the electoral law regulates the transformation of votes into useful seats to form parliament and therefore the government. However, it also influences the way parties conduct their electoral campaigns and the criteria by which they choose candidates. There are two main types of electoral systems: majority and those proportional, which can be adjusted and retouched depending on the context and objectives. The main aim is (or should be) to improve the performance and quality of public policies, although unfortunately too often it is the governing party, or others, who seek to increase their own consensus in parliamentHowever, an electoral system cannot be implemented without considering the country's political and social composition, and the various fractures within society. This can lead to significant distortions, a decline in the quality of public policies, malfunctions, or strong protests from the electorate.
The plurality
In the single-round majoritarian electoral system, called plurality, the candidate who obtains the most votes in the constituency wins. Usually without reaching any type of threshold. This system is typical of Anglophone contexts and the candidate who obtains the most votes wins the elections. relative majority among the candidates (“winner takes all"). The plurality It therefore has the characteristic of favouring greater governability since the leader of the winning party is generally appointed Prime Minister and has a solid majority in parliament that allows for greater ease in enacting policy, but in exchange for less representativeness given the penalization suffered by medium-sized and smaller parties. This electoral law, according to political scientists such as Duverget, tends to simplify the parliamentary system over time, leading to a situation of bipartisanshipAccording to the Rae-Riker proposition, however, this is true but only if there are no strong local minorities. Other authors such as Lipset and Rokkan maintain that the type of party system is influenced more by the social fractures within that society than by the electoral law. In fact, in Italy in 93, despite adopting a substantially majoritarian system with the Mattarellium (proposed by the current head of state) the parties in parliament did not decrease but rather increased.
The majority
The two-round electoral system, also called majority, is instead typical of the French case and represents a singularity. In the majority, the first round is obviously open to all lists that wish to run, and whoever obtains 50% of the votes +1 will be directly elected in the first round (provided that the votes obtained correspond to at least 25% of the voters registered on the constituency lists). Therefore, the election also depends on thevoter turnoutIn the absence of the scenario described, those who have obtained a number corresponding to at least 12,5% of the registered electoral lists in the constituency advance to the second round. (Example: with 80% of the valid votes, each party must obtain at least 15,6% of these.) This case has several implications: in the first round, the voter will cast a vote defined as "sincere”according to their preferences, in the second round instead several parties that did not make it through the first round can join forces with one in the runoff, which will include their requests in the government program (in case of victory) in exchange for the support of its voters.
The Australian case
Australia , however, represents a very special case with regard to electoral law. Besides representing, in part, a fusion of the two different systems, it is distinguished by the fact that voters must also indicate the order of their party preferences . Whenever a party is "eliminated" from the executive race, its votes are distributed among the remaining parties based on their order of preference until the party that is "on average" preferred by citizens is ultimately elected. Therefore, the party that initially has the majority of first-preference votes may not be the same as the party that ultimately "wins" the election.
The proportional
The proportional system consists of a percentage correspondence between votes and seats , ensuring electoral representation and guaranteeing minority rights, but at the expense of governability. These systems are typical of countries with diverse social and political constituencies. To increase the governability component, majority bonuses , electoral thresholds , and access thresholds can be introduced.
The formulas
Another important dimension of the electoral law is the dividers and quotientsThese formulas actually decide the distribution of seats within each constituency based on the votes obtained. In one case, the votes obtained by a certain list are subsequently divided by 1, 2, 3, 4 (via the Hondt's formula) or for 1.4, 3, 5, 7 (Sainte-Laguë formula modified). Seats are allocated based on a ranking derived from the results of the various divisions. Hondt's formula gives more power to the large coalitions, while Sainte-Laguë favors medium-sized coalitions. Alternatively, a quotient is calculated beforehand, which derives from the ratio between the number of valid votes and the seats up for grabs in the constituency (Hare's method). Each party's votes are then divided by the quotient. This latter case favors the "small" ones.
Valerio Adolini
