On a political and electoral level, "Italy today is worse off than Greece". This was claimed in today's Sole 24 Ore by one of the most accredited political scientists and scholars of electoral flows such as Roberto D'Alimonte, full professor at Luiss.
"There is a problem that many protagonists of Italian politics and the markets have not yet fully focused on" and that is: in Greece it was enough to revote after a few months to form a government that the first electoral result did not allow. But in Italy it would not be like this. Why? D'Alimonte explains it: "Voting again without changing the electoral law of the Senate is equivalent to betting on roulette".
The past shows that in three elections with the Porcellum only in one case (in 2008, when Berlusconi won) the system has produced a real winner in the Senate. The regional bonus system is terrible and so – D'Alimomte wonders – “on what basis can one imagine that the vote produces a different outcome” from that of the elections of 24 and 25 February.
What's the conclusion? That without reforming the Porcellum and providing for a majority bonus in the Senate on a national basis rather than the many bonuses on a regional basis, the result of new elections would not change much from the current one or would be highly uncertain. In addition to modifying the system of prizes at Palazzo Madama, according to D'Alimonte it would also be necessary to give the vote to eighteen-year-olds for the Senate (but be careful: it is a constitutional reform that requires time and qualified majorities, choosing the French electoral model and overcoming bicameralism perfect.In short, it is not stuff that can be done in a few weeks.
