luca sofri
ilpost.it
August 25th 2019
This is how it works in Italian democracy and its rules. Elections are held; the people vote (if they want) and from what the people chose, the parliament is formed; at that point it is assessed whether majorities of any kind are reached among the elected (our Constitution and the procedures of republican democracy do not impose constraints: in fact governments are formed and undone even in total contradiction with the alliances and promises of before the elections: it happened, and also with the government of 2018 just fell). If there is no possible type of majority to give parliamentary strength to a government, the chambers are dissolved.
It's all very simple, and there are no exceptions. The elections are not repeated if a majority does not like those who are excluded; do not refer to the elections if the different elections - local or European - have given different results from those of the policies (it is normal that it happens, being different elections, local or European). If it were done, a precedent would be established whereby any party that won a round of local and European elections would then be entitled to ask to dissolve the chambers and make early political elections. And the result of the political elections would be betrayed, and the will of the voters as it was manifested. At the same time, it is not possible to exalt the need for the popular vote and to humiliate its official and regular expression.
And in fact it is not done and it does not work this way, even if a defect and a limit of Italian politics - the tendency to make and undo majorities for ineptitude and various interests - has infected and accustomed many Italians to the fact that early elections are the norm instead that the exception. To expect the exception when there are no conditions - or when there is a majority, a necessary and sufficient condition - means to be complicit in the continuation of that system of rogues and various interests. You can't come back every time someone is dissatisfied with the last result, or whenever someone thinks they will get better next time. And you can't give...
polls the same value as the elections or call them "new facts" or "changed conditions" (the facts are different, those are polls), and use them as if they reflected an official reality: if you did, every party would be interested in producing favorable surveys for themselves not only for propaganda but also for obtaining or discouraging new elections. And I would add: if the surveys were a recognized and objective fact, then why vote? Polls are enough, right?
Finally, since someone is unclear about this, in Italy we do not vote for coalitions or for prime minister, we vote for parties and candidates for parliament. To think that what each of us expects when voting (an alliance with that? A ruling against that other?) Must constrain the formation of the majority means not knowing the functioning of the Republic and our electoral system. That can be changed, but now they are like that.
Instead things are really simple: we voted just a year and a half ago, with an inadequate electoral law, a messed up country and litigious parties, and the three things risk preventing a government majority from being created. So if you don't create new elections, you set up, working so that the next time you go better - better, it means that you create a majority, not that my party takes a few more votes to bully you, but if you do create we are witnessing the regular and desired path of our normal democracy, as required by the Constitution, laws and rules, and by the best way to prevent everyone doing what they like every time. If this path does not convince someone, that someone can try to change it, but not to tell it differently to deceive the voters or to convince them of being victims of plots and deceit (which we voters like very much). They are victims of those who tell them these things, inciting them against democracy and the rules that have been chosen by the people, by the voters, by all of us, and despising the value of the vote regularly expressed just a year and a half ago.
So now things are in the hands of the elect (chosen by the voters, by the people, the rest of us), until they tell voters that they don't know what to do, and then things get back to the voters. In the meantime we bored or pounding voters are free to do a lot of things, including - if we want to - say at the bar, on the beach or on social networks that we need to vote again. God forbid. But it's a lie.
August 25th 2019
This is how it works in Italian democracy and its rules. Elections are held; the people vote (if they want) and from what the people chose, the parliament is formed; at that point it is assessed whether majorities of any kind are reached among the elected (our Constitution and the procedures of republican democracy do not impose constraints: in fact governments are formed and undone even in total contradiction with the alliances and promises of before the elections: it happened, and also with the government of 2018 just fell). If there is no possible type of majority to give parliamentary strength to a government, the chambers are dissolved.
It's all very simple, and there are no exceptions. The elections are not repeated if a majority does not like those who are excluded; do not refer to the elections if the different elections - local or European - have given different results from those of the policies (it is normal that it happens, being different elections, local or European). If it were done, a precedent would be established whereby any party that won a round of local and European elections would then be entitled to ask to dissolve the chambers and make early political elections. And the result of the political elections would be betrayed, and the will of the voters as it was manifested. At the same time, it is not possible to exalt the need for the popular vote and to humiliate its official and regular expression.
And in fact it is not done and it does not work this way, even if a defect and a limit of Italian politics - the tendency to make and undo majorities for ineptitude and various interests - has infected and accustomed many Italians to the fact that early elections are the norm instead that the exception. To expect the exception when there are no conditions - or when there is a majority, a necessary and sufficient condition - means to be complicit in the continuation of that system of rogues and various interests. You can't come back every time someone is dissatisfied with the last result, or whenever someone thinks they will get better next time. And you can't give...
polls the same value as the elections or call them "new facts" or "changed conditions" (the facts are different, those are polls), and use them as if they reflected an official reality: if you did, every party would be interested in producing favorable surveys for themselves not only for propaganda but also for obtaining or discouraging new elections. And I would add: if the surveys were a recognized and objective fact, then why vote? Polls are enough, right?
Finally, since someone is unclear about this, in Italy we do not vote for coalitions or for prime minister, we vote for parties and candidates for parliament. To think that what each of us expects when voting (an alliance with that? A ruling against that other?) Must constrain the formation of the majority means not knowing the functioning of the Republic and our electoral system. That can be changed, but now they are like that.
Instead things are really simple: we voted just a year and a half ago, with an inadequate electoral law, a messed up country and litigious parties, and the three things risk preventing a government majority from being created. So if you don't create new elections, you set up, working so that the next time you go better - better, it means that you create a majority, not that my party takes a few more votes to bully you, but if you do create we are witnessing the regular and desired path of our normal democracy, as required by the Constitution, laws and rules, and by the best way to prevent everyone doing what they like every time. If this path does not convince someone, that someone can try to change it, but not to tell it differently to deceive the voters or to convince them of being victims of plots and deceit (which we voters like very much). They are victims of those who tell them these things, inciting them against democracy and the rules that have been chosen by the people, by the voters, by all of us, and despising the value of the vote regularly expressed just a year and a half ago.
So now things are in the hands of the elect (chosen by the voters, by the people, the rest of us), until they tell voters that they don't know what to do, and then things get back to the voters. In the meantime we bored or pounding voters are free to do a lot of things, including - if we want to - say at the bar, on the beach or on social networks that we need to vote again. God forbid. But it's a lie.
https://www.wittgenstein.it/2019/08/25/e-giusto-che-decidano-gli-elettori/
translated by google translate
translated by google translate
