The first historic remontada was that of Valentino Castellani of the PDS who in 1993 in the municipal elections of Turin lost the first round with a gap, which seemed unbridgeable, from the former mayor Diego Novelli, who had collected 295 votes (equal to 36,1 %) against the 121 thousand of Castellani (equal to 20,3%). But everything changed in the ballot: Castellani collected 280 votes (equal to 57,3%) beating Novelli, who stopped at 208 votes, dropping to 42,7%. And so Castellani became mayor of Turin for the first time. But it wasn't the only time he got back on the ballot: he did it also in the following elections, losing in the first round against his centre-right opponent (43,35% for Costa and 35,4% for Castellani) and winning the ballot in the photo finish with 50,4% against 49,6% of the rival for only 4.700 votes ahead.
With the help of the co-founder of Youdem, Lorenzo Pegliasco, "la Repubblica" has reconstructed the story of the incredible ballots, which show that in fact the second round of the municipal administrative elections is a completely different story than the first. At the beginning, the vote enhances the identity of the list and of the candidate, while in the ballot the winner is the one who is best able to weave alliances. And if a candidate swept the ballot in the first round, it's no wonder they stumble on the ballot. So who will win between Raggi and Giachetti in Rome? And in Turin between Fassino and Appendino? And in Milan between Sala and Parisi? And in Bologna, in Trieste, in Naples and in the other municipalities where next Sunday we will vote for the ballot?
Of course, leafing through the pages of electoral history is not enough to understand who will win, but reflecting on past votes helps to understand. Meanwhile, it is worth remembering the most sensational results of the ballots and then the reasons that shift votes.
In addition to the double success of mayor Castellani in Turin, unpredictable results had four other ballots that completely overturned the result of the first electoral round. Clamorous was the victory on the woolen thread of Guazzaloca who conquered Bologna the red and became mayor in 1999, overtaking the candidate of the DS, Bartolini, in the runoff by less than 3 thousand votes, who came out with broken bones and caused a humiliating defeat of the left in the Emilian capital, despite the success in the first round (46,6% for Bartolini and 41,5% for Guazzaloca which then rose to 50,7%).
No less sensational was the turnaround in Rome in 2008 when the former Fascist Alemanno interrupted a long series of centre-left administrations by defeating the former mayor Francesco Rutelli in the ballot, who had won the first round with 45,8% against 40,7 %. Rutelli, who was convinced that he had victory in hand, lost over 80 votes in the second round and while increasing his percentage (46,3%), was inexorably overtaken by the incredulous Alemanno who gained more than 100 votes in the ballot and reached 53,6% by conquering the Campidoglio and becoming mayor of Rome. Now Raggi and Giachetti would do well to cross their fingers.
The other two famous reversals were those of Naples in 2011 and Venice in 2015. In Naples in the first round Lettieri of the PDL clearly won with 38,5% and over 179 thousand votes against De Magistris (then IDV) who stopped at 27,5 .128% with 783.725 votes. But the mood changed completely in the ballot: De Magistris obtained more than double the votes in the first round (65,3) and became mayor with 34,7% of the votes, humiliating Lettieri, who fell to XNUMX%. On Sunday De Magistris, who this time won the first round, and Lettieri will meet again in the electoral ring: how will it end?
The sixth sensational turnaround took place last year in Venice where the former magistrate Casson of the Pd won the first round with almost 10 percentages but was overtaken in the runoff by Brugnaro of Forza Italia who conquered 20 thousand new votes and won with 53,2 %.
How do you explain such sensational comebacks? What counts is the personality of the candidate and his ability to win approval outside his own backyard in the first round. But, as Pegliasco explains, other factors are also decisive, such as the so-called "aunt's trip", whereby candidates who have many lists in support and who have made use of the votes of relatives and friends of the many candidates can no longer hope for same effect on the second turn. Another element that can affect the ballot is the drop in turnout. But more intriguing are the treacheries, whereby a voter changes his vote between rounds. This was the case with Rutelli's defeat in 2008 when, according to the former mayor of Rome, "there was also someone on the centre-left who betrayed".
Finally, according to "la Repubblica", we have to deal with the so-called "shark syndrome" when many voters, "like a shark does when it sees blood, wake up from its torpor and bite its prey" and run to vote or moves to the candidate who initially seemed out of the running and who now seems to have a good chance of success. However, it is a good rule never to forget that each ballot makes its own story and that only the combination of many factors can explain the final outcome of a vote which, in many cases, will remain hanging by a thread until next Sunday. But that's democracy, honey.
