Italian Electoral Laws Case Study

Italian Electoral Laws: A Case Study

• Introduced in 2005, Legge Calderoli implemented a proportional electoral system with a substantial majority bonus for coalitions securing a relative majority in each chamber. This aimed to enhance governmental stability.

• The law faced major criticism for restricting voter influence in candidate selection through closed party lists, potentially distorting representation.

• Significant controversy surrounded the constitutionality of the law, leading to a partial invalidation by the Italian Constitutional Court in 2014. The court criticized the disproportionate majority bonus and lack of voter preference options.

• The court's decision rendered portions of the law obsolete, prompting subsequent electoral reforms. Referendum initiatives are ongoing.

• The center-right opposes a referendum, viewing the law as already deemed unconstitutional. The center-left, conversely, advocates for a referendum to repeal it.

• Article 75 of the Italian Constitution outlines inadmissible legislative topics such as tax laws, amnesty, pardons, and treaty ratification authorizations.

• Italian sovereignty rests with the people but is limited by the Constitution, making a referendum on EU departure impossible without constitutional change. Referendums are restricted to single, non-heterogeneous questions.

The Scottish Independence Referendum

• The 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum, while neutral on the surface, faced critiques for the potential for influencing voter decisions.

• Critics contended that questions framed in an affirmative sense can subtly nudge voters towards the affirmative answer.

• This triggered electoral commission review, recommending adjustments to ensure impartial and clear wording.

Electoral Systems

• An electoral system dictates the rules regarding elections and how votes translate into parliamentary seats (or president).

• Key components include: electoral laws, franchise rules, oversight mechanisms, electoral campaigns, and electoral formulas.

• The Italian Constitution does not delineate the precise parliament electoral system but mandates its regulation through ordinary laws.

Italian Electoral System (1948-1993)

• Prior to 1993, Italy's system was predominantly proportional.

• Proportional Representation uses multimember districts and a quota or divisor to determine seats based on votes won.

• The 1953 "Legge Truffa" attempted majoritarian reforms but was soon repealed.

1993: The Referendum and Mattarellum Law

• A 1993 referendum resulted in the Mattarellum, a mixed electoral system.

• 75% of seats were allocated via a plurality system (FPTP), while the remaining 25% were assigned proportionately.

Plurality Systems (FPTP)

• FPTP systems utilize single-member districts with voters selecting a single candidate.

• Successful candidates receive the most votes, not necessarily an absolute majority.

2005: Proportional Representation with Majoritarian Correctives

• The 2005 electoral law brought back proportional representation with block lists compiled by party leaders and majoritarian correctives.

• This ensured a bonus for coalitions obtaining a significant vote share.

Constitutional Court Intervention (2014)

• The Constitutional Court invalidated contested aspects of the 2005 electoral law, eliminating closed lists of candidates and a bonus system without a minimum threshold.

2016: The Italicum Law

• This law, effective in 2016, primarily applied to the Chamber of Deputies.

• It utilized a proportional distribution of seats with national-level voting and 100 constituencies.

• Key features included tiered vote thresholds, a first-preference vote, and gender quotas.

Explore the complexities of the Italian electoral laws introduced in 2005, focusing on the Legge Calderoli's implications for voter representation and governmental stability. This case study highlights the criticisms regarding closed party lists and the subsequent judicial actions that led to reforms. Engage with the ongoing debates surrounding its constitutional status.