The Constitutional Court and the porcellum
... The impossibility of giving, here, prejudging the constitutionality of this Court, however, does not exempt you from having to report to Parliament the need to carefully consider the problematic aspects of legislation that does not make the award of the majority to achieve, even at the regional level, a minimum threshold of votes and / or seats.
6.2. - It should also be excluded that the question is inconsistent with the constitutional principle of equality of the vote. Without going into details of the legislation is that, as mentioned above, can not be reviewed here, it must be said that a referendum that seeks to influence the technique of allocation of seats in order to encourage the formation of majorities and cohesive to decrease at the same time, the fragmentation of the political system is not, in and of itself, in contrast to either Article. With 48 or art. 49 Constitution ... (excerpt from the decision of a referendum on the eligibility of the national electoral law, better known as "porcellum" made by the Constitutional Court)
The porcellum (so called because its author, Sen. Calderoli, called it a real slut, and since the previous electoral systems-the Mattarellum, for example - had taken the name, Latinized, by the author, Sen. Mattarella in 'as-is to someone thought to indicate the author in porcus and then Latinized, porcellum; that someone who has saddled the nickname to the electoral system is Prof. Sartori, an expert international political science and constitutional law) is a system for allocating parliamentary seats.
Without the vote, it must then be attributed to each list MPs that belong to them. The
porcellum does just that: convert the number of votes obtained by a number of MPs to be allocated to each list. How does the
porcellum? The
porcellum attaches to the list or to the coalition (more lists) that takes the most votes, 55% of MPs (on a national basis for the Chamber and, in each region, for the Senate).
So far nothing wrong with, say, because it is a reward for the majority, whose goal is to get large parliamentary majorities and, for this reason that they have to feel more cohesive.
It is true that the majority porcellum creates larger, but it is true that for this reason alone the larger majority are more cohesive. Indeed.
Even when it resists a large majority for the duration of the term, the work that he does work if you can talk, is always short of expectations and of those who 'have voted and those who have been part of. This is because the vast majority contain within them cohesive elements to achieve unique results. Often each of the components of the vast majority, pursuing different results from those of other components and in some cases also pursues results totally opposed to those required by the other allies. This ends or to curb the activities of the majority, who prefer not to decide, rather than split, or to find compromise solutions frantumino not the majority but not necessarily completely satisfied with any of its components. And even fewer voters and their electoral sponsors (organizations and groups of economic, social, religious).
This is the analysis of the current situation with how the media explain it. Back to
porcellum.
addition to the majority of the premium is due by the same electoral law a series of dams. Dams and dykes to coalitions for the listings, dams and dykes in the Senate to the House, with exceptions.
the House coalitions must obtain at least 10% of the national vote and each of the lists that make up the coalition must obtain at least 2% of votes. Otherwise, the coalition or list that does not reach the minimum threshold is excluded from the distribution of MPs. The lists, which are not part of a coalition must obtain at least 4% of votes. Then, among all the lists that have not reached 2%, we fetch the one that got the most votes in proportion and this, therefore, participates in the distribution of MPs. The repechage knows so much about popular festival, the carousel, the greasy pole ... but never mind.
coalitions in the Senate must reach 20% of the vote and must have at least one regional list, a coalition between those that exceed 3%. The lists that are not part of a coalition should reach 8% of regional votes. Participate in the banquet also lists that are part of a coalition that did not reach 20% provided they have passed the fateful threshold of 8%.
Now, relax, take a deep breath and relax.
The most significant difference between the House and Senate is that a micro-party, a band, a condo, even a large family, which is in a coalition as a list, but Gaining zero zero zero something and participates in the distribution of seats if the coalition to which it belongs exceeds 20% of the votes and at least one regional list sister reaches 3% of regional votes.
Another difference is that the majority of regional awards may cancel each other between the different regions and in practice does not give any reward for the majority, and therefore no claim cohesion of the majority. So it can happen in the Senate to take the votes of a family-condo-list, pass the electoral threshold, catching even the regional prize and then they have no majority in parliament.
The thing that disturbs more but the dreams of the chief judges of the Constitutional Court is not this one.
The Court has noticed that is missing in the law specifying a minimum number of votes or seats that triggers the majority of the premium. In fact, if you 100 coalitions in the House and one took 10% of the national vote, this should be 55% of parliamentarians, in a nutshell, 340 Deputies, compared to only 61 payable by way of proportional representation.
Now, the court thinks that this is not a violation of the principle of equality of votes, because something else is voting and allocation of seats. And here, according to the Court, the problem is the rationality of the system of distribution of seats because the votes in and of itself, are counted one by one and each is worth one vote. The votes shall respect the principle of equality but the distribution of seats do not. In short it is like saying that selling the Trevi Fountain, I have not cheated on the money, but I cheated on the product. Subtle distinction, however, that the purchaser of the fountain may not affect much.
not too clear is the Court's statement that it was not determined by electoral law, a minimum of votes or seats for the prize of the majority. One could argue saying that the law establishing a minimum percentage for lists and coalitions for the distribution of seats is a political assessment, final, ending with the majority not to award a prize to anyone but only to those who have exceeded that limit, then that limit is implicitly also the lower limit of the majority premium. Indeed, so equipped, the mechanism provides more cohesion of the majority in the case of fragmentation of small parties of all types and levels.
And if the Court is a cohesion of the majority constitutional principle (but it's not clear what article of the Constitution the principle that child would be) this principle, of unknown authorship, triumph, with porcellum.
There is nothing illegal in a majority of the premium or election into a barrier or two things put together, for heaven's sake, no one reasonably could argue the opposite. But
"porcellum" is a monster who rewards and punishes without a uniform criterion, allowing the Senate that prevents the House and vice versa.
In Sicily, the system for electing MPs of the Assembly of the Sicilian Region, has two dams and a majority bonus: each list must be 5% of regional votes, and there may be lists of lists or coalitions that are not present in at least five provinces of Sicily. In the list that comes first, 54 incumbent MPs, plus the President who was also elected as leaders of law-then 55. The rest of the seats to be allocated, go to other lists. Here too, it seems, there is no minimum number of votes / seats on the list that comes first (and catch a prize not too clear majority of 10 MPs, not too clear because in reality the majority of the premium real more than 10) should be taken. And if the national system is unconstitutional, and also for the same reasons, the regional Sicilian. Or not? Think a list that mostly take votes in one province and almost nothing in others. If it were the first of the lists at the regional level, in competition with a myriad of lists, catch-all would be ace, representing all alone.
In these cases it would be good to reflect on the practical meaning of words like "republic", "democratic" and "democratic republic", as contained in the first article of the Republican Constitution (Italian, of course) that could well explain the link between direct and necessary vote by citizens and the number of seats to be allocated, explaining why a distortion of the system of distribution of seats will result in the distortion of equality of the vote. And that centuries have passed now since the vote could have a value of "plural" and therefore violate the principle of equality of votes, and that the principle of equality of votes may violate in so many ways: direct and indirect.
back to Home Page
