Italian Elections and Politics 2022 - Our Time to Schlein

[Antonio the Sixth]

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.

He is an avowed neoliberal, the "Downsizing Democracy" ideology par excellence. I'm not surprised.

But no, 1 MP for 200K people is not nearly enough. Even 1 per 100K is not enough. The ideal would be 1 every 1000 or so (which is of course impracticable in Italy, but there's no excuse for not having 600-700 MPs at the very least).

I mean I get why you are not surprised, but I found that ironic because I guess the closest Italian equivalent to neoliberals is the muh city centre bobo "PD is the party of ZTL's" crowd and they went pretty hard for No.

The Italian liberal center still has more reverence for old-fashioned concepts of democratic representation. It has fully been neoliberalized when it comes to economics, but still holds a bit more of a traditionalist bent based on the values of the 1948 constitution. By contrast, American (and British, and honestly, probably the French too) neoliberals couldn't give less of a sh*t about meaningful democratic representation. To them, democracy just means voters get to "buy" a government as a product and get to passively "consume" the policies for the rest of the term.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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

[MaxQue]

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.

Thank you Bankerite to tell us again and again what the technocrats want.

[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.

[parochial boy]

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.

And I suspect most of those posting in this thread would agree that the US has a uniquely, um, awful system of generally failing to function as a representative democracy

[Hatman 🍁]

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.

[Hatman 🍁]

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.

[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.

[parochial boy]

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.

Erm, overall I would far prefer a government agenda to be set based on the input of a legislature representing a cross-section of opinions that are broadly refelctive of society as a whole. I would find that eminently more democratic than a party being able to push its entire policy agenda through unopposed on the basis that a plurality of the population deemed it the least worse option. I think the first is an eminently more democratic practice.

I mean, the satisfaction of the French in their political leaders is uniquely low. That is in no small part due to the fact their system was designed essentially to the advantage of one man who quite popular 50 years ago.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In practice the old Italian electoral system - the one used before 1994 - did allow for local representation, because it used open lists. Candidates would tend to focus their efforts on particular parts of the constituency that they ran in (these were huge) and if they were elected would concentrate constituency services in them as well. This extended to nationally prominent politicians: indeed, it was rather difficult to progress far in the DC without having a secure geographical base. So, Giulio Andreotti, who regularly topped the DC poll in the Rome-Viterbo-Latina-Frosinone constituency, always focused his efforts on the towns of the Valle Latina to the east of the city, rather than on the capital itself.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

In practice the old Italian electoral system - the one used before 1994 - did allow for local representation, because it used open lists. Candidates would tend to focus their efforts on particular parts of the constituency that they ran in (these were huge) and if they were elected would concentrate constituency services in them as well. This extended to nationally prominent politicians: indeed, it was rather difficult to progress far in the DC without having a secure geographical base. So, Giulio Andreotti, who regularly topped the DC poll in the Rome-Viterbo-Latina-Frosinone constituency, always focused his efforts on the towns of the Valle Latina to the east of the city, rather than on the capital itself.

Yes. One of the main problems of the last national electoral law, and of the previous one, is that they don't allow for preference voting, which creates all sorts of problems.
Whereas European Parliament uses open lists (three preference votes) and I think almost all regions do (it probably depends - in Liguria there are two votes).
Sadly a sizable chunk of voters do not care about expressing preference votes even when they can, though.
Of course, well, European Parliament constituencies are HUGE, so at that level there is a bit of luck involved (like, I wouldn't be surprised if there were currently 0 MEPs from Basilicata). I guess I am lucky because there is a MEP from La Spezia - whom I voted for by the way.

[Antonio the Sixth]

To me, the ideal electoral system would be PR in small constituencies (5-10 seats) with preference voting and a tiered compensation system like Denmark's to ensure overall national proportionality. I would ideally still hope for no more than 10k people per constituency, but of course that wouldn't be feasible in Italy. You could have at most probably 150 constituencies (for a parliament of around 1000) which would therefore represent around 400k people, and hopefully within those constituencies some degree of local representation. That would be far from perfect, but probably the best we can get right now.

Of course I would get rid of the Senate, so 1000 total MPs wouldn't be much of an increase from the 950 or so we currently have. Having them work together in a single house would require logistical changes, but Italy already has a strong committee system, so the infrastructure is already there.

[MaxQue]

In practice the old Italian electoral system - the one used before 1994 - did allow for local representation, because it used open lists. Candidates would tend to focus their efforts on particular parts of the constituency that they ran in (these were huge) and if they were elected would concentrate constituency services in them as well. This extended to nationally prominent politicians: indeed, it was rather difficult to progress far in the DC without having a secure geographical base. So, Giulio Andreotti, who regularly topped the DC poll in the Rome-Viterbo-Latina-Frosinone constituency, always focused his efforts on the towns of the Valle Latina to the east of the city, rather than on the capital itself.

Yes. One of the main problems of the last national electoral law, and of the previous one, is that they don't allow for preference voting, which creates all sorts of problems.
Whereas European Parliament uses open lists (three preference votes) and I think almost all regions do (it probably depends - in Liguria there are two votes).
Sadly a sizable chunk of voters do not care about expressing preference votes even when they can, though.
Of course, well, European Parliament constituencies are HUGE, so at that level there is a bit of luck involved (like, I wouldn't be surprised if there were currently 0 MEPs from Basilicata). I guess I am lucky because there is a MEP from La Spezia - whom I voted for by the way.

There is an MEP form Basilicata

Count by region:
Lombardy: 16
Lazio: 13
Campania: 8
Sicily: 8
Veneto: 7
Emilia-Romagna: 5
Puglia: 5
Piemont: 3
Tuscany: 3
Friuli Venezia Giulia: 2
Liguria: 2
Basilicata: 1
Calabria: 1
Molise: 1
Sudtirol: 1

0 for Aosta, Umbria, Marche, Abruzzi and Sardinia.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

There is an MEP form Basilicata

Count by region:
Lombardy: 16
Lazio: 13
Campania: 8
Sicily: 8
Veneto: 7
Emilia-Romagna: 5
Puglia: 5
Piemont: 3
Tuscany: 3
Friuli Venezia Giulia: 2
Liguria: 2
Basilicata: 1
Calabria: 1
Molise: 1
Sudtirol: 1

0 for Aosta, Umbria, Marche, Abruzzi and Sardinia.

Thanks for the research!

Well my point still stands (and even stands more, given that Umbria, Marche, Abruzzo and Sardinia have all larger populations than Basilicata).

Sardinia in particular kind of has it up the wazoo because the Islands constituency has only 8 seats, which means parties get at most 2 seats unless they make total slam dunks (by Italian standards), and Sicily having triple the inhabitants of Sardinia makes it very easy for the top Sardinian to be third of the list or so i.e. not elected.
I'd say the other constituencies work better though.

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Map Time!

Italian Constitutional Referendum 2020 - Provinces

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Italian Regional Elections September 2020 - Provinces

[margins of victory]

[Antonio the Sixth]

Fantastic maps, thank you!

Interesting to see No's strength in triveneto (aside from the Austrians) but not in the rest of the North, even in very right-wing areas. Not surprising that Yes' strongest areas were in the South, but some of the patterns within the South are interesting (weaker around the Gulf of Taranto and the Strait of Messina, stronger in more inland areas).

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Fantastic maps, thank you!

Interesting to see No's strength in triveneto (aside from the Austrians) but not in the rest of the North, even in very right-wing areas. Not surprising that Yes' strongest areas were in the South, but some of the patterns within the South are interesting (weaker around the Gulf of Taranto and the Strait of Messina, stronger in more inland areas).

Thanks!

Some other interesting things I noticed are:
Yes getting more in MI than in RM (whereas my gut feeling would associate Milan to muh "central" liberal big city more than Rome);
the almost zero correlation between left vs right leaning and Yes vs No strength in the Red regions and especially Emilia-Romagna (given that they normally have the most clear-cut and possibly the most polarized political geography);
the anti-Southernization of Sardinia (Yes getting only 61% in CA? wtf).

I also didn't expect such a sharp fault line where the South begins (which incidentally is also where M5S begins - and Lega fades), and Liguria is funny in that it almost seems like a displaced piece of Triveneto.

[CumbrianLefty]

Italian Regional Elections September 2020 - Provinces

[margins of victory]

That's a *lot* of narrow right wing wins (or am I actually misreading it?)

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Italian Regional Elections September 2020 - Provinces

[margins of victory]

That's a *lot* of narrow right wing wins (or am I actually misreading it?)

It depends on what you mean.
There were seven provinces carried by the centre-right candidate with a single-digit margin:
La Spezia in Liguria by Toti.
Massa e Carrara, Pistoia, Arezzo, Grosseto in Tuscany by Ceccardi.
Pesaro e Urbino in Marche by Acquaroli.
Brindisi in Apulia by Fitto.

Coincidentally there were also seven provinces carried by the centre-left candidate with a single-digit margin.

[CumbrianLefty]

So all those very light blue places actually didn't vote?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

So all those very light blue places actually didn't vote?

You mean the light grey places? Lol

Yes, they were regions which had no regional election this cycle.

[Oryxslayer]

So all those very light blue places actually didn't vote?

You mean the light grey places? Lol

Yes, they were regions which had no regional election this cycle.

Blue-Grey colorblindness is a thing...