Proportional representation in Italy: excessively ridiculed?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Italy#Chamber_of_Deputies


The present electoral system, approved on December 14, 2005, is based on party-list representation with a series of thresholds to encourage parties to form coalitions. It replaced an Additional Member electoral system which had been introduced in the 1990s.

The block voting system is nationwide-based for the House, and regional-based for the Senate. Italy is divided into a certain number of districts for the Chamber of Deputies, whereas each Region elects its senators. Each district is assigned a number of seats proportionate to its total of the population of Italy. The winning coalition receives at least 55% of the seats on national level in the House, and on regional level in the Senate, while the remaining seats are proportionally divided between minoritarian parties. For the House, seats won by each party are then allocated at district level to decide the elected candidates. Candidates on the lists are ranked in order of priority, so if a party wins for example ten seats, the first ten candidates on its list receive seats in parliament.

The law officially recognizes coalitions of parties: to be part of a coalition, a party must sign its official program and indicate its support for the coalition's candidate to the prime-ministership.

Chamber of Deputies
For the Chamber of Deputies, Italy is divided into 26 constituencies: Lombardy has three constituencies, Piedmont, Veneto, Latium, Campania, and Sicily each have two, and all other regions have one. These constituencies jointly elect 617 MPs. Another one is elected in Aosta Valley and 12 are elected by a constituency consisting of Italians living abroad.

Seats are allocated among the parties that pass thresholds of the total vote on a national basis:
Minimum 10% for a coalition. If this requirement is not met, the 4% limit for single parties apply.
Minimum 4% for any party not in a coalition.
Minimum 2% for any party in a coalition, except that the first party below 2% in a coalition does receive seats.

Also, parties representing regional linguistic minorities obtain seats if they receive at least 20% of the ballots in their constituency.

In order to guarantee a working majority, a coalition or party which obtains a plurality of the vote, but less than 340 seats, is assigned additional seats to reach that number, corresponding roughly to a 54% majority.

Inside each coalition, seats are divided between parties with a D'Hondt method, and consequently assigned to each constituency to elect single candidates.

Senate of the Republic
For the Senate, the constituencies correspond to the 20 regions of Italy, with 6 senators allocated for Italians living abroad. The electoral system is very similar to the one for the lower house, but is in many ways transferred to regional basis. The thresholds are also different, and applied on a regional basis:
Minimum 20% for a coalition.
Minimum 8% for any party not in a coalition.
Minimum 3% for any party in a coalition (there is no exception for the first party in a coalition below this threshold, unlike the lower house).

The coalition that wins a plurality in a region is automatically given 55% of the region's seats, if it has not reached that percentage already. As this mechanism is region-based, however, and opposing parties or coalitions may benefit from it in different regions, it guarantees no clear majority for any block in the Senate, unlike the national super-assignment system in the Chamber of Deputies.

Unlike the inherent top-ups of FPTP or AV, the top-ups used in Italy and to a lesser extent Greece aren't subject to the wasted vote argument.

In fact, one other top-up that isn't mentioned but should be: a single party not in a coalition that obtains 50%+1 of the votes should be entitled to enough seats to change the constitution without confederalist or federalist obstacles. [BTW, the Nazis never obtained this; their ascent to power was due to coalition maneuvering.]

Thoughts?

[Demogorgon]

The current electoral system isn't actually proportional at all due to the top up seats, the same goes for Greece, both countries have the further problem that they are awarded on a plurality basis, if bonus seats were given in a second round run off between the two largest parties it would be fairer, if memory serves, the regions of Italy actually do this.

The proportionality that is ridiculed in Italy is the pre-93 system, however there the problems were not caused by the proportionality as the switch to 75% fptp and 25% list with 4% threshold soon demonstrated. Besides pre-93 the problem wasn't really lots of parties but problems within the biggest party-the Christian Democrats. People in the UK seem to simply presume that the Italian parties were internally stable and it was fallings out between them that was the problem, but that was nonsense, the Christian Democrats almost always won enough seats to form the backbone of the Government, the trouble was it had no coherent ideology and its members were more keen to score points off each other than the opposition. The electoral system was partly to blame their in that the type of open list Italy was using actually encouraged that kind of behaviour, but the proportionality definitely wasn't to blame.

Italy's biggest problem in parliamentary terms is actually the perfect bicameralism, requiring a Government to maintain the confidence of both houses of Parliament is a recipe for disaster, particularly when one house is less democratic than the other-the Senate has a few life members and more importantly and incredibly in the modern world the voting age for it is 25-even though all other elections have the voting age at 18. If 18-24 year olds vote differently from other older voters then there is a real chance that the Chamber of Deputies and Senate will have a different composition. Even if it doesn't it is still very easy (and pretty regular) for defections to tip the balance in one house in a different way from the other.

[Dimentio]

In Sweden, we used to have bicameralism until 1970. In the Swedish case, this meant that the seats in the lower house were determined by the most recent election while the seats in the upper house were determined by the election before that (like if the Senate composition in the USA would be determined by the results of 2008 instead of 2010, etc).

Both houses were of equal size and a government needed to wield a majority in them combined.

In 1956, the Social Democrats lost the elections, but nevertheless continued governing due to the support from the Upper House.

[Demogorgon]

In Sweden, we used to have bicameralism until 1970. In the Swedish case, this meant that the seats in the lower house were determined by the most recent election while the seats in the upper house were determined by the election before that (like if the Senate composition in the USA would be determined by the results of 2008 instead of 2010, etc).

Both houses were of equal size and a government needed to wield a majority in them combined.

In 1956, the Social Democrats lost the elections, but nevertheless continued governing due to the support from the Upper House.
Wasn't the Swedish upper house elected by local government like in the Netherlands though?

Also wasn't the 56 election down to the right wing parties deciding there was no point in trying for a Government if they couldn't pass their legislation rather than the Government having to take a confidence vote in the upper house? As I understand it the Social Democrats were able to form a coalition in the lower house having their control of the upper house as a bargaining chip. That is a bit different from the Italian situation of having to simultaneously hold the active confidence of both chambers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The current electoral system isn't actually proportional at all due to the top up seats, the same goes for Greece, both countries have the further problem that they are awarded on a plurality basis, if bonus seats were given in a second round run off between the two largest parties it would be fairer, if memory serves, the regions of Italy actually do this.

Yeah, you got my support for some sort of top-up system.

I would modify the requirements above to 1% for pro-coalition parliamentary parties, 3% for non-coalition parliamentary parties, and 20% for coalition caucuses. Generally speaking, there's a government coalition and a main coalition opposition. I'm not aware of any third-party or fourth-party coalition oppositions.

The top-up system I have in mind might be more complicated. For example, if there's a plurality winner that is a single parliamentary party, and the runner-up is a coalition, I would be more inclined to award the entire top-up to the single party.

In short, the suggested PR system would encourage coalitions and discourage them depending on the circumstances.

[ComradeMan]

Some issues with the Italian political system are that the "PR", the "nature of disagreement" and the number of parties and factions leads to a situation in which coalitions are always fragile and the whole damn country is in a constant state of election. Policies and laws are rushed through to appease one group or another and then alienate another which thus leads to the vitreolic and negative level of attack, attack, attack and the politics of criticism that can prove so negate and unconstuctive.

The article neglects to metnion that ouit of ther twenty regions of Italy five are autonomous- namley Sicily, Aosta, Friuli-Venzia-Giulia, Sardinia and Trentino Alto Adige. The level of autonomy varies however and the Trentino regional government si actually divided, in a sense, by two "powerful" provinces- namely Trento and Bolzano.

[Demogorgon]

Yeah, you got my support for some sort of top-up system.

I would modify the requirements above to 1% for pro-coalition parliamentary parties, 3% for non-coalition parliamentary parties, and 20% for coalition caucuses. Generally speaking, there's a government coalition and a main coalition opposition. I'm not aware of any third-party or fourth-party coalition oppositions.

The top-up system I have in mind might be more complicated. For example, if there's a plurality winner that is a single parliamentary party, and the runner-up is a coalition, I would be more inclined to award the entire top-up to the single party.

In short, the suggested PR system would encourage coalitions and discourage them depending on the circumstances.As it happens I do not believe it to be necessary to have top up seats, at least in all systems. Such a system that I would suggest would be that if a party or pre-arranged coalition won a majority it would form a Government but otherwise a run off between the top two-without bonus seats on offer. The winner would get to form the Government with the protection of only being brought down by a constructive vote of no confidence ratified by referendum.

In order to be able to pass their programme as a minority Government, the French system of making bills confidence motion. That is if they cannot get a bill they consider vital passed, they can make it a confidence motion where unless an absolute majority vote against becomes a law. If an absolute majority does vote against it however, there must be an immediate election.

[Demogorgon]

Some issues with the Italian political system are that the "PR", the "nature of disagreement" and the number of parties and factions leads to a situation in which coalitions are always fragile and the whole damn country is in a constant state of election. Policies and laws are rushed through to appease one group or another and then alienate another which thus leads to the vitreolic and negative level of attack, attack, attack and the politics of criticism that can prove so negate and unconstuctive.

I think that is more a reflection of the way that Italian politics work than the electoral system. Most proportional representation does not work like that and non proportional system (including the '93 Italian system) do have it if their political situations lead to it.

[ComradeMan]

I think that is more a reflection of the way that Italian politics work than the electoral system. Most proportional representation does not work like that and non proportional system (including the '93 Italian system) do have it if their political situations lead to it.

I think it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation- one situation provokes the other which then in turn provokes the other etc.

The political situation is created by inasmuch as it creates the electoral system.

[Demogorgon]

I think it's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation- one situation provokes the other which then in turn provokes the other etc.

The political situation is created by inasmuch as it creates the electoral system.
Probably yes, but you'll tend to find certain political situations happen regardless. Japan for instance has had much the same corruption and infighting problems as Italy-maybe even worse- and its system before the reform in the nineties was nothing like Italy's (or anyone else's come to that). In the mid nineties it also made a change to a system very like the '93 Italian one and the problem continues.

In other words electoral systems actually have less effect than you might think as to how the political system operates. Non proportional systems seeking improvement by changing to proportionality and proportional systems seeking improvement by shedding it are both left disappointed. The difference is that at least the ones becoming more proportional are also becoming more democratic.

[ComradeMan]

The difference is that at least the ones becoming more proportional are also becoming more democratic.

I disagree, I just think it's a case of old wine in new bottles all the time. I can't speak much for other countries, but here it's not like the people choose who they elect, it's like they elect who's chosen for them- if you see what I mean?
:crying: