Reading the newspapers of the day after the referendum defeat for the left, there are few commentators – even among the many friends of friends who had taken part in the rain dance of the duty of participation – willing to endorse the Boccia/Schlein doctrine on the analysis of the vote. Maurizio Landini he saw democracy in danger because of abstentions, but at least he admitted defeat, without cheating at the game and without citing the de Coubertin doctrine. Maybe he should have drawn the consequences by resigning. But that's his business and that of the CGIL.
The most serious commentators (in the sense of those concerned about not being ridiculed) have thrown the ball into the grandstand of the highest systems in an attempt to transform the quorum rule (at 50% + 1) in an old tool that is now obsolete and inadequate to provide a reliable result. The super defeated one has distinguished himself in this theory Riccardo Magi, as if the rules were not the same when – together with Quattro Horsemen of the Apocalypse (the Screamer, the Cicisbeo, I love Tesla and Green with Rage) and the father/master of the Cgil – had committed to collecting signatures (I give you a hand, you give it to me) on the citizenship question, without having anything else in common. Too bad that the ghost that was wandering around Montecitorio did not realize that he was in bad company. And that he was hatching a snake in his bosom.
The Cattaneo Institute's analysis dismantles illusions
In fact, analyzing, a few days later, the outcome of the vote the authoritative Cattaneo Institute has put the secretary of + Europa in "cloth pants". "The supporters of the Yes have obtained a better result - it is written in the note - than would have been foreseen by hypothesizing a perfect alignment between the positions of voters and parties in the case of the referendums on work and a significantly worse result in the case of the referendum on citizenship. This alone - the note continues and we will see the importance of such a consideration - is sufficient to indicate that the results of the referendum round cannot be interpreted as proof of confirmations or changes in the electoral balance between the parties". Much caution is needed - as both have underlined Augusto Barbera and Giovanni Amoroso – in questioning the rules of a direct democracy tool used – not always appropriately – a good 78 times.
The structural problems of the referendum in Italy
And there is not only the problem of the quorum, but, first of all, the number of signatures to be collected to promote the questions because the legislative activity of a country cannot be in the hands of active and aggressive minorities; then the practice of cutting and sewing has become widespread, which allows a question to manipulate a rule to the point of overturning its content. Not to mention, then, another deviant aspect that also emerged in the last referendum round: it is a deformation of the functions referred to in Article 75 of the Constitution. which is defined by jurists as the "plebiscite effect", which occurs when a referendum, rather than being a mechanism for repealing a specific law or part of it, turns into a consultation on trust of the electorate towards a party or a political leadership, as if it were a plebiscite on their conduct. The opposition, unsuccessfully, tried to use the referendum for these purposes, distorting the discussion.
Because when you put forward propaganda slogans such as "greater protection in dismissals", "fight against precariousness", "greater safety at work" you force those who intend to reply to give real complex lessons in labor law, because it is not enough to deny without putting forward arguments. It is a a disadvantageous position that is difficult to recover from, so much so as to recommend the choice of abstention.
Cattaneo data: no electoral breakthrough, stable balance between parties
THECattaneo Institute, finally, after a careful data analysis of the two main referendums, the one on the Jobs Act and the one on citizenship, denies the lucubrations of those who see in a resounding defeat the dawn of a new beginning. "In conclusion, it is rather risky to project - it is written in the note of the Bologna Institute - the vote recorded on the occasion of this referendum round on possible future electoral balances between parties and political areas. The misalignment between the vote for the parties recorded in the most recent elections and the choices on the two themes of the referendum consultation present very different trends. The small increases in their historical electoral basin recorded on the referendum position they supported regarding work by the PD, AVS and M5S are contradicted by the large losses suffered on citizenship. In any case - the document adds - neither one nor the other derive from flows of votes that seem destined to replicate. The impression that one gets on this level from the data we examined continues to be that of a substantial stability of electoral alignments registered for the 2022 political elections and the 2024 European elections". In essence, for revenge we need to review.
Percentage ratio between the number of Yes votes and votes for the “Campo largo” parties in the 2024 European elections
