Italian Elections and Politics 2022 - Our Time to Schlein

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Okay I really don't get the argument for "no" on the referendum. Anything more than 300 representatives or so seems absurd. What's the point of having all of them?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Okay I really don't get the argument for "no" on the referendum. Anything more than 300 representatives or so seems absurd. What's the point of having all of them?

300 representatives can't possibly "represent" jack sh*t in a country of 60 million inhabitants. I mean, granted, it's not like 600 representatives were doing a great job to begin with, but this will just make it worse.

That's 1/200,000 residents. Which is absolutely fine. I'd target one rep per 200,000-500,000 people as ideal in most countries. Places like the UK, with more than one MP/100,000 people are just absurd.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Okay I really don't get the argument for "no" on the referendum. Anything more than 300 representatives or so seems absurd. What's the point of having all of them?

300 representatives can't possibly "represent" jack sh*t in a country of 60 million inhabitants. I mean, granted, it's not like 600 representatives were doing a great job to begin with, but this will just make it worse.

That's 1/200,000 residents. Which is absolutely fine. I'd target one rep per 200,000-500,000 people as ideal in most countries. Places like the UK, with more than one MP/100,000 people are just absurd.

You know that's funny, seeing Blairite of all posters taking the muh rash populist position. If GMac comes here too arguing for No we may as well lock the thread lmao.

I don't really care about whether or not the crazies in the five star movement agree with me for whatever reason. What I do care about is creating an efficient, functional legislature and imo that's usually easier when there are fewer members.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

That's 1/200,000 residents. Which is absolutely fine. I'd target one rep per 200,000-500,000 people as ideal in most countries. Places like the UK, with more than one MP/100,000 people are just absurd.

Italy and Great Britain do not have federal systems of government. Both countries also draw their ministries from the legislature.

True. That doesn't mean the extra hundred backbenchers actually help the government do anything.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Watching everyone flip out over my position and try to ascribe an ideological value to it is entertaining but also ridiculous. I definitely don't decide my opinions on Italian referendums based on what all the "centrist technocrats blah blah blah" are saying.

I just don't get the point of having 600 rather than 400 MPs. This is particularly funny considering many of my detractors presumably support PR while I always support geographic constituencies for the very specific reason of promoting local representation.

But when you talk about national legislatures in countries with any serious population, local representation means representing the interests of Puglia or Liguria or the entire city of Milan, not neighborhood-level constituencies. If you instituted a runoff system, I actually think the U.S. house is the model legislature. The implication of this, then, is that districts of 150,000 people or 200,000 people or 400,000 people are basically the same because they operate on the regional basis--not the local basis. Therefore, the most relevant question is which district size allows the operation of the legislature itself to be most efficient.

I think it's clear that the answer to that is a legislature of 300-400 people at most allows each member to have a relevant impact on policy and still allow effective and convenient coalition building. Beyond that point, each additional member doesn't actually help the body do anything.

Also, Antonio, your example of 1 rep/1,000 people is insane. That would be dumb on the municipal level, let alone the national level. In my neighborhood, that's like 1 United States representative/2.5 apartment buildings. Do you really not see how having 0.1% of an entire country's population serving full-time in national-level government would be problematic? That would mean like 1 out of every 50 people in the world are involved in politics on a professional level. It clearly wouldn't work.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

There's no reason a system with PR can't also have geographical representation. I dare say that most forms of PR use some form of regional constituency, be it the German MMP format or the multi-member constituencies you get in the likes of Spain or Switzerland or Sweden (albeit with top-ups in that case). The advantage of the latter form is that you are considerably more likely to also have a local representative who you actually voted for, and therefore probably more responsive to your concerns. So, you know, a PSOE supporter in Salamanca still has a PSOE deputy representating them. Good luck with that if you're a Democrat in Tulsa.

I get that, but I still don't think it's ideal.

Basically in electoral politics, you can come of with a model that forces coalition building at the ballot box or coalition building in smoke-filled rooms. By having single member districts with a runoff system, the voters as a bloc choose which of the top two candidates they want to represent them in parliament--basically, what the French do.

The usual outcome of this, of course, is that a single party that receives a minority of first-round votes but an overwhelming majority of second round votes has the mandate to lead a government directly from the people. In my view, a system like this forms a government that most people are at least somewhat happy with which seems more democratic than having party leaders hash some convoluted coalition out after facing the voters.

In a multi-party system, many of those Democrats in Tulsa may not have a local liberal representative, but at least they elect someone they can ultimately get behind. I'd rather that than having one liberal representing the whole state of Oklahoma that probably isn't part of any government on the national level.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I actually think the U.S. house is the model legislature.

Ah yes, the famously ideal US legislature. Where you need to raise millions of dollars just to be competitive.

I'm obviously talking about the general size of districts, the fact that it uses districts rather than PR, and the rules governing the body--not the electoral process itself. Campaign finance law is, of course, not inherently attached to one form of national legislature.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

fwiw the cube root "rule" would give the Italian population an ideal legislature size of about 392 members.

If you use the "Wyoming rule", which I prefer as it's not as arbitrary, you get 477 seats.

I suppose in this case, it would be called the Aosta rule. Regardless, I think it's clear that under most normal reapportionment guidelines 500+ seats is excessive.