Italian Elections and Politics 2022 - Our Time to Schlein

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Oooh the King is back!!!

Thank you, Antonio.

Oh wow, do I really have such an illustrious reputation? I'm honored! I really haven't given this thread the attention it deserves, even before I left, but I'm hoping to change that in the next few days. It will be a useful distraction from what's happening here.

By the way, I am going to be a poll worker this year.

Oh, congrats!! That's a great commitment, especially right now.

What do you think of the election organization where you are? I've heard that in general things seem to be going fairly well, but it might feel differently on the ground.

There has been a small section of houses in my city which have seen their polling place get moved but I haven't heard of anything else.

Doing all the repetitive poll work while having a mask on the face all day is probably going to be extremely frustrating, but I can't know in advance.

[Former President tack50]

Well, I'm back! Couldn't miss such a momentous electoral cycle in my home country. Glad there's been a vibrant discussion going on without me, though! Battista, I don't think we've interacted much before, but it's great to have a fellow Italian (and one so knowledgeable) on board to discuss our country's perpetually messed up politics.

Anyway, like Edu, I recently sent out my No ballot, but I'm not getting my hopes up. There's going to be a hard core of right-wingers (and some disaffected anti-M5S lefties) who will bring now up into the 30s or even 40s, but I don't see it being enough to stem the tide of knee-jerk anti-political demagoguery. That's just how Italy rolls...

Seconded everything y'all said about De Luca. The man is a national treasure and I was incredibly relieved to find out he's likely to hang on. If any incumbent this cycle deserves reelection, it's him. I'm also hoping Emiliano can survive, I've always liked the guy. And obviously losing Tuscany would be a massive blow. Oh well. As usual with Italian elections, I'm not optimistic, but I don't want to be all doomer either.

Oooh the King is back!!!

Thank you, Antonio.

By the way, I am going to be a poll worker this year.

I am always surprised when countries rely on volunteers to run their elections instead of doing like where where poll duties are essencially random and mandatory if you get picked (and if you don't go you get a very heavy and easy to enforce fine)

You do get somme advantages though, notably being paid 60€. If you are one of the few people who work on sundays, you still have to be paid by your employer. If you work the next day, you get the right to get the first 5 hours of your workday off the next day.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I am always surprised when countries rely on volunteers to run their elections instead of doing like where where poll duties are essencially random and mandatory if you get picked (and if you don't go you get a very heavy and easy to enforce fine)

You do get somme advantages though, notably being paid 60€. If you are one of the few people who work on sundays, you still have to be paid by your employer. If you work the next day, you get the right to get the first 5 hours of your workday off the next day.

In Italy you can choose or not to enroll in "poll worker lists". Poll workers are picked from those lists. At least usually; I imagine that if a certain municipality has not enough people on the lists they just pick random citizens. I'll get paid somewhere around 130€ this year.

[jaichind]

When does the polls close on Sunday and any link to results ?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

When does the polls close on Sunday and any link to results ?

The polls close at 23 but they are also open on Monday from 7 to 15.

The results will be on a special page of the site of the Ministry of Interior that has not been opened yet.

[Velasco]

Well, I think that advocating seat reduction as the remedy for the diseases affecting the political system is a rather simplistic and demagogic approach. That sort of fetishism involving the reduction in size of parliaments or government institutions is not exclusive to the M5S. The seat reduction is not good or bad a priori, it's a matter of proportion. The question is: do 400 deputies and 200 senators ensure an addequate and proportional representation of all regions and territories? I tend to think the proposed size is too small. but I'd like to know the opinion of our Italian friends.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Well, I think that advocating seat reduction as the remedy for the diseases affecting the political system is a rather simplistic and demagogic approach. That sort of fetishism involving the reduction in size of parliaments or government institutions is not exclusive to the M5S. The seat reduction is not good or bad a priori, it's a matter of proportion. The question is: do 400 deputies and 200 senators ensure an addequate and proportional representation of all regions and territories? I tend to think the proposed size is too small. but I'd like to know the opinion of our Italian friends.

I think somewhat differently. I am not sure that 400 Deputies and 200 Senators is good or bad a priori - although I lean towards the bad side.
However getting there through a seat reduction without anything else, which is not going to cure the ailments of the Italian political system and means first of all making us the people less represented, is idiotic.
Having a round number of members of Parliament is probably the best part of the reform and I'm not joking (well yes, it is also going to save mayyybe 100 million euros each year, but that's literally crumbs for a state like Italy).

[Lord Halifax]

Well, I think that advocating seat reduction as the remedy for the diseases affecting the political system is a rather simplistic and demagogic approach. That sort of fetishism involving the reduction in size of parliaments or government institutions is not exclusive to the M5S. The seat reduction is not good or bad a priori, it's a matter of proportion. The question is: do 400 deputies and 200 senators ensure an addequate and proportional representation of all regions and territories? I tend to think the proposed size is too small. but I'd like to know the opinion of our Italian friends.

I think somewhat differently. I am not sure that 400 Deputies and 200 Senators is good or bad a priori - although I lean towards the bad side.
However getting there through a seat reduction without anything else, which is not going to cure the ailments of the Italian political system and means first of all making us the people less represented, is idiotic.
Having a round number of members of Parliament is probably the best part of the reform and I'm not joking (well yes, it is also going to save mayyybe 100 million euros each year, but that's literally crumbs for a state like Italy).

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

Why should we abolish the Senate? What's the argument for unicameralism in Italy?

[parochial boy]

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

Why should we abolish the Senate? What's the argument for unicameralism in Italy?

Presumably the usual arguments about gridlock, contradictory or confused mandates, tendancy to be dispropotionately conservative...

But also, in Italy, what purpose does the senate serve? In federal countries, the upper chamber generally represents the federal subjects against a lower chamber that represents the people; or else, it plays a clearly subordinate role like in France or the UK. But in Italy? what is the point of it? what is the use in having it as a separate institution to the chamber of deputies?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

Why should we abolish the Senate? What's the argument for unicameralism in Italy?

Presumably the usual arguments about gridlock, contradictory or confused mandates, tendancy to be dispropotionately conservative...

But also, in Italy, what purpose does the senate serve? In federal countries, the upper chamber generally represents the federal subjects against a lower chamber that represents the people; or else, it plays a clearly subordinate role like in France or the UK. But in Italy? what is the point of it? what is the use in having it as a separate institution to the chamber of deputies?

Gridlock exists. The other things you mentioned do not apply at all to Italy.

The purpose is having a separate deliberation from a body with different composition (the minimum age is higher; Senators for life exist) and "checks and balances". Also it gives us an opportunity to vote in two different ways when there are parliamentary elections.

To be honest, while many people seem to think "what's the point of having two chambers if they have roughly equal standing and competences?", my position is "what's the point of having two chambers if the upper one is clearly subordinate and has little power?"

[Alcibiades]

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

Why should we abolish the Senate? What's the argument for unicameralism in Italy?

Presumably the usual arguments about gridlock, contradictory or confused mandates, tendancy to be dispropotionately conservative...

But also, in Italy, what purpose does the senate serve? In federal countries, the upper chamber generally represents the federal subjects against a lower chamber that represents the people; or else, it plays a clearly subordinate role like in France or the UK. But in Italy? what is the point of it? what is the use in having it as a separate institution to the chamber of deputies?

Gridlock exists. The other things you mentioned do not apply at all to Italy.

The purpose is having a separate deliberation from a body with different composition (the minimum age is higher; Senators for life exist) and "checks and balances". Also it gives us an opportunity to vote in two different ways when there are parliamentary elections.

To be honest, while many people seem to think "what's the point of having two chambers if they have roughly equal standing and competences?", my position is "what's the point of having two chambers if the upper one is clearly subordinate and has little power?"

Well, the rationale for having two chambers is usually that they fulfil different roles or represent different bodies (usually one for the people and one for the states). Thus it follows that they must have different powers; even leaving aside the possibility for gridlock and the redundancy of having two chambers carry out the same procedures and functions, it is hardly fair that the one house, which will inevitably be less democratic (usually the upper house), should have equal power.

In Italy, though, notwithstanding the fairly minor differences you mentioned, both chambers broadly represent the people, which raises the question of why have two chambers fulfilling the same roles and representing the same bodies?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

In Italy, though, notwithstanding the fairly minor differences you mentioned, both chambers broadly represent the people, which raises the question of why have two chambers fulfilling the same roles and representing the same bodies?

My rationale is there is more and different deliberation and we get two votes, as I stated.

I don't understand the purpose of most imperfect bicameralisms - especially in non-federal nations.

Anyway I am going to count, sign and stamp ballots for the next two hours. To the next update!

[CumbrianLefty]

Well, I think that advocating seat reduction as the remedy for the diseases affecting the political system is a rather simplistic and demagogic approach. That sort of fetishism involving the reduction in size of parliaments or government institutions is not exclusive to the M5S

Just cutting the numbers of seats, without any other significant "anti-corruption" measures, looks like a way to increase public disaffection with things rather than the opposite.

[Antonio the Sixth]

In Italy, though, notwithstanding the fairly minor differences you mentioned, both chambers broadly represent the people, which raises the question of why have two chambers fulfilling the same roles and representing the same bodies?

My rationale is there is more and different deliberation and we get two votes, as I stated.

I don't understand the purpose of most imperfect bicameralisms - especially in non-federal nations.

Anyway I am going to count, sign and stamp ballots for the next two hours. To the next update!

The technical benefits of getting more deliberation (fixing mistakes, making sure that a law is considered carefully) can be achieved without giving the Senate a veto power over legislation that potentially leads to a situation of total gridlock. Admittedly, this is less of a problem now than it used to be because the voting systems for the House and Senate are pretty closely aligned (it was the electoral discrepancy of the Porcellum that created such a complete mess in 2006-2008 and 2013-2018). Still, perfect bicameralism is generally a terrible idea. It's no coincidence that the countries that practice it tend to have the most dysfunctional politics.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As for flatly cutting the number of MP, it is indeed a pointless, demagogic move. It is true that the "quality of representation" argument is a little dulled by the fact that we have a voting system that doesn't really allow voters to choose their MPs, but that's no excuse to make matters even worse.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

In Italy, though, notwithstanding the fairly minor differences you mentioned, both chambers broadly represent the people, which raises the question of why have two chambers fulfilling the same roles and representing the same bodies?

My rationale is there is more and different deliberation and we get two votes, as I stated.

I don't understand the purpose of most imperfect bicameralisms - especially in non-federal nations.

Anyway I am going to count, sign and stamp ballots for the next two hours. To the next update!

The technical benefits of getting more deliberation (fixing mistakes, making sure that a law is considered carefully) can be achieved without giving the Senate a veto power over legislation that potentially leads to a situation of total gridlock. Admittedly, this is less of a problem now than it used to be because the voting systems for the House and Senate are pretty closely aligned (it was the electoral discrepancy of the Porcellum that created such a complete mess in 2006-2008 and 2013-2018). Still, perfect bicameralism is generally a terrible idea. It's no coincidence that the countries that practice it tend to have the most dysfunctional politics.

"Porcellum" was absolutely nonsensical - and it showed in 2013 when the coalition that won took only 30% of the votes.
I like perfect bicameralism instead. I can concede that unicameralism may be better but having a half-assed Senate would make me puke.

In any case, stamping ballots is pretty cool for such a repetitive task. The hammering noise of the stamp feels good. We have almost finished for today I think now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Porcellum" was absolutely nonsensical - and it showed in 2013 when the coalition that won took only 30% of the votes.

Yeah, no disagreement here. Although I despise the Rostellum almost as much - such a disingenuous system that pretends to be something it's not and ends up with the worst of both worlds. The Mattarellum was tolerable I guess, but tbh at this point I'd be willing to go back to the First Republic (not that it was perfect, far from it).

I like perfect bicameralism instead. I can concede that unicameralism may be better but having a half-assed Senate would make me puke.

I don't understand why you're so opposed to imperfect bicameralism. There are some forms of it that are pretty silly (like the British version, lmao) but I think in Germany for example it works pretty well. I certainly don't mind plain old unicameralism, though (as long as it's with a sufficiently proportional system).

In any case, stamping ballots is pretty cool for such a repetitive task. The hammering noise of the stamp feels good. We have almost finished for today I think now.

Congrats!

[SPQR]

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

Why should we abolish the Senate? What's the argument for unicameralism in Italy?

Not abolish, but rather change its functions.
A "regional Senate", such as the one of the 2016 constitutional reform.

Anyway, I fully agree that simply cutting the number of seats in the name of "politicians are bad let's get rid of them" is very bad, especially in the middle-long term.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

Why should we abolish the Senate? What's the argument for unicameralism in Italy?

Not abolish, but rather change its functions.
A "regional Senate", such as the one of the 2016 constitutional reform.

Anyway, I fully agree that simply cutting the number of seats in the name of "politicians are bad let's get rid of them" is very bad, especially in the middle-long term.

Oh no the regional Senate would be horrendous, I would have easily voted against the 2016 reform.
I don't think there has ever been any constitutional referendum where I would have voted Yes to be honest.
Most of my family is voting No this year except probably my maternal grandmother since she buys into "politicians are bad let's get rid of them" pretty heavily (although it's also possible she is voting No "to screw over M5S", I am not sure).

"Porcellum" was absolutely nonsensical - and it showed in 2013 when the coalition that won took only 30% of the votes.

Yeah, no disagreement here. Although I despise the Rostellum almost as much - such a disingenuous system that pretends to be something it's not and ends up with the worst of both worlds. The Mattarellum was tolerable I guess, but tbh at this point I'd be willing to go back to thw First Republic (not that it was perfect, far from it).

Yes, paradoxically (?) the First Party System had the best electoral law so far.

[Lord Halifax]

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

Why should we abolish the Senate? What's the argument for unicameralism in Italy?

Answering a question with a question is annoying so please avoid doing that.

Unicameralism is the default in a non-federal parliamentary system as it's cheaper and more efficient, so you need an argument for why bicameralism is necessary. In a federal system one of the chambers represents the states or provinces, but in a unitary state bicameralism essentially serves no valid purpose other than - ideally - making the legislative procedure more thorough, but that's often a bogus argument and it doesn't seem to apply to Italy.

So I'll repeat my question: "Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What is the argument against unicameralism in Italy?"

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

Why should we abolish the Senate? What's the argument for unicameralism in Italy?

Answering a question with a question is annoying so please avoid doing that.

Unicameralism is the default in a non-federal parliamentary system as it's cheaper and more efficient, so you need an argument for why bicameralism is necessary. In a federal system one of the chambers represents the states or provinces, but in a unitary state it essentially serves no valid purpose other than - ideally - making the legislative procedure more thorough, but that's often a bogus argument and it doesn't seem to apply to Italy.

So I'll repeat my question: "Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What is the argument against unicameralism in Italy?"

I am sorry if I was annoying, but the fact is I have never seen much discussion about unicameralism. I can't tell you what's the argument against unicameralism in Italy if no one is proposing unicameralism in Italy!

I think I have already explained what purpose I find in our system.
If you ask me why it was created this way in the first place, the honest answer is that I haven't read the works of the Constituent Assembly enough to know.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Voting has now officially started in Italy!

To the next update.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Voting has now officially started in Italy!

To the next update.

I have just finished my lunch break, during which I was able to go to Mass, vote at my precinct, and also actually have lunch.

To the next update.

[Velasco]

Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What's argument against unicameralism in Italy?

Why should we abolish the Senate? What's the argument for unicameralism in Italy?

Answering a question with a question is annoying so please avoid doing that.

Unicameralism is the default in a non-federal parliamentary system as it's cheaper and more efficient, so you need an argument for why bicameralism is necessary. In a federal system one of the chambers represents the states or provinces, but in a unitary state it essentially serves no valid purpose other than - ideally - making the legislative procedure more thorough, but that's often a bogus argument and it doesn't seem to apply to Italy.

So I'll repeat my question: "Why can't you just abolish the Senate? What is the argument against unicameralism in Italy?"

I am sorry if I was annoying, but the fact is I have never seen much discussion about unicameralism. I can't tell you what's the argument against unicameralism in Italy if no one is proposing unicameralism in Italy!

I think I have already explained what purpose I find in our system.
If you ask me why it was created this way in the first place, the honest answer is that I haven't read the works of the Constituent Assembly enough to know.

I might be wrong but I think Italian 'perfect' bicameralism was a compromise solution adopted by the constituents in 1948, since the right rejected the unicameral model proposed by the left and the latter rejected the idea of a corporative Senate. I know little about these complex matters, but I think the constitutional text left some room for the creation of a regional senate, although the idea was never developed as Italy hasn't gone too far along the road to a decentralized state.