Well, of course, is not a great law, even the high-level politician who gave the name, the Hon. Calderoli, called it a "crap" from which "porcellum," a term now used by all peacefully to indicate (a term coined by Giovanni Sartori). But it's there and nobody talks about.
What sends me crazy, in fact, is the manner by which deboluccio and approximate talk about it on the left. All admit that it sucks, which should be changed, which is anti-democratic, which basically takes away the right to vote in person, but in the end and there is no point wasting too much time fighting it. In fact, the political leaders (I laugh) the so-called left (I'm bulging with laughter), this topic is relegated to "changes and possible", subject to the second level, second floor, just breath political.
What I would say to all these abuses that you improvise with words "Italian politicians, is that there are other issues on the agenda. This is the theme. We must speak only of this up when you have not won the battle to restore democracy in this country no other battle sense. And the context in which this law has created a framework of democracy distorted drugged, sweetened, some say quasi-regime. In short, it is useless (or maybe it is helpful to you?) Repeat that when a man who already controls half of Italy wins the other half not to be tried inventing rules and electoral laws to exclude minorities from the parliament, the danger of a dictatorship is slightly more substantial than just paranoia.
And we watched the nose of the jacket, the hairline, to stigmatize work in economics and foreign policy, on justice and health, to write the dossier on his past and long monologues about his alleged involvement in judicial proceedings. Attention. The point is not that. Only the Italians can get rid of Berlusconi's right and who says that the prime minister must be defeated in regular elections and erased an ugly memory of our history by a return to the policy of government. Because what we have seen and sorbitol in recent years has nothing to do with politics.
But if this is true then returns compelling and dramatically present the theme of democracy and opportunity for people to go to the polls and exercise their right to vote really addresses everywhere they want but with real consequences in the composition of the Italian parliamentary classrooms. Why, if it were not for those who noticed, this does not happen today.
explain, then, to those who make policy or idea to start practicing, what states, what and what distorts introduces this law, the No 270, December 21, 2005.
First, the provision in question shall eliminate the single-member constituencies. Who could vote with the old system will remember that you could vote on two cards for the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate on a card. On the second board of the Chamber shall be assigned seats in proportion, namely 25% of the seats, with the option to choose a list and the Senate there shall be a recovery on a regional basis among the non-elected all'uninominale. Today there are only two cards.
The second and most terrifying amendment by 270/05, which basically reflects the pattern in place for the proportionate share under the previous electoral system (cd Mattarellum), lies in the elimination of preferences for which the voter can cast its own vote only lists of candidates without the possibility, as is the case today for the European elections, regional and municipal authorities, to indicate his preferred candidate. The election of members of parliament, therefore, the composition of parliament from the point of view of the prestige of Representatives, the respectability of cultural, della preparazione giuridica, dipende solo ed esclusivamente dalle scelte e dalle graduatorie stabilite dai partiti. Qual'è la conseguenza di questa riforma è abbastanza agevole comprenderlo. O forse no, è meglio spiegarlo. Se io sono un partito con un capo che si presenta alle elezioni ed è in grado di raccogliere un buon numero di voti, allora sono nelle condizioni di cooptare uomini e donne il cui spessore politico è assolutamente irrilevante divenendo al contrario fondamentale l'aspetto della fedeltà agli impegni assunti con la candidatura. Ma se è il partito che decide chi va in parlamento e se nelle liste conviene metterci persone fidate piuttosto che persone in gamba, allora è evidente che in parlamento siederanno non, come vuole the constitution, representatives of the people but the representatives of political parties loyal to the line.
In this case the consequences are very evident but, in this case is the case, to explain better. In our constitutional legislative power belongs to the parliament as a member of parliament the power to grant or revoke the trust executive. Without trust, which is a vote cast by a majority of both houses of parliament, the government falls, and if you find a different majority in the House and Senate, you must return the word to the voters. But if all MPs are loyal to the candidate for prime minister, it is clear that there will be parliamentary dialectic and that the government will have a confidence that comes from the goodness of his actions but by the loyalty of his henchmen entered the electoral roll. Not if it is deserved, but if you bought before being appointed by the Head of State.
Also, if the parliamentarians are men of faith of the head of government, it is clear that they will ratify it without even questioning (because in most cases they do not have the capacity) measures of the government including the decrees law slavishly will be converted into law. This means that the legislative function will no longer be done by the parliament but by the government.
we analyze the third major innovation of law in question, the so-called "majority bonus". In practice, receive a minimum of 340 seats in the Chamber of Deputies to the coalition that wins a majority of the votes. In the Senate, however, the majority premium is identified on a regional basis, and guarantees the winning coalition in a given region at least 55% of the seats assigned to it.
The "porcellum", then, makes it compulsory, at the exact moment they are presented the symbols of the election deposit by any coalition of its program and the particulars of his head. Think I'm kidding? Andatevela reading. Says exactly that. All right, then you do not believe the rewrite: "At the same filing of that mentioned in Article 14, the organized political parties or groups that are candidates to govern the deposit election program in which state the name of the person they named as head of the political force. Organized political parties or groups linked together in a coalition candidate for governor who settles in a single election manifesto, declaring the name of the person they named as sole head of the coalition. Remain firm due to prerogatives of the President of the Republic under Article 92, second paragraph of the Constitution.. " Think about how these funny guys have been magnanimous. Even the prerogatives belonging to the President of the Republic, namely the power to appoint the prime minister and ministers remain "firm". That's nice, no? As if in an ordinary law you could change the powers of the highest office in the State. The problem is that I think we have thought well to avoid misunderstanding and eventually decided to write it because in fact the content of the standard we are dealing with empty so the power of the President of the Republic also unnecessary to make the act of appointment of the Government. To recap: the Parliament useless, useless President of the Republic.
E 'clear what follows from this rule, right? No? Okay then explain it to her going. In our legal system is the electorate, that is la gente, cioè noi, che elegge il parlamento, l'organo deputato a fare le leggi, ed è il parlamento che esprime una maggioranza. Il Presidente della Repubblica, infatti, una volta insediato il Parlamento, prima di questa “porcata”, si faceva un giretto tra i gruppi parlamentari per capire quale fosse il più gettonato tra i papabili Presidenti del Consiglio. Faceva i conti, cioè, dei voti che ogni possibile candidato avrebbe ricevuto. Quello che aveva la maggioranza veniva incaricato di formare il Governo. Una volta formato il Governo attraverso la nomina dei ministri sempre ad opera del Presidente della Repubblica su indicazione del Presidente del Consiglio incaricato, il Governo, finalmente composto, si presentava al Parlamento, that is, the assembly elected by the people, namely the representatives of the people, that is, the people, to earn the trust, ie permission to govern. Now it is .... quite the opposite. The leaders are selected from henchmen and push them to vote. None of the parliament is elected by the people. The elected parliamentarians have a duty "moral" support the government formed by the head, of course, the President instructs not even make the stroll between the parliamentary groups, carrying out an activity purely deed. The Prime Minister appoints ministers who want him so much because no one will dare not to vote for the trust, and the omelet is done. There is only one man in command. Un tizio, sia esso di destra o di sinistra può: scegliere i parlamentari, scegliere i ministri, fare le leggi. Uno e trino. Contemporaneamente Corpo elettorale, Parlamento e Governo. Se non è una dittatura questa... solo Ottaviano Augusto, in quanto anche pontefice massimo, ha saputo far meglio.
Proseguendo nel nostro viaggetto all'interno della legge elettorale che tanto piace ai nostri politici, ci dobbiamo occupare di due mostriciattoli mica da ridere: le “coalizioni” e le “soglie di sbarramento”. Guardate, queste due sembrano davvero questioni molto tecniche ma come è ovvio in una legge elettorale sono in realtà due questioni molto, molto politiche. Ed è importante non sottovalutarle perché are, I think the real reason why the opposition (ah ah) is not a real opposition to this law and become an accomplice in this retreat unquestionably substantial level of democracy in our country. However, by analyzing the details, the law provides for the possibility of apparently mutual between multiple listings that are grouped together in coalitions. Both the program that the "head" of political power where there is a coalition, must be unique. Obviously, in this case, the head becomes (even) Head of the coalition. The issue is not trivial when read in conjunction with the other element, the so-called "threshold barrier". Be very careful. To obtain seats in the House, any "coalition" must obtain at least 10% of the national vote but, as regards the lists do not enter into a coalition the minimum threshold is reduced to 4% and the same threshold is applied to those lists that are linked to a coalition that has failed to overcome the barrier. The lists linked to a coalition that has exceeded the threshold of 10%, then, can participate in the distribution of seats only if they exceed 2% of the vote, or if they constitute the largest of the forces below this threshold within the same (fastest loser). In the Senate, however, the electoral threshold (which however must be overcome at the regional level) are 20% for coalitions, 3% for coalition lists, 8% for non-coalition lists and lists that have occurred in coalitions that have not achieved 20%.
Now be careful with the fact that this method is virtually identical to that of the electoral law used in Tuscany, which includes the same barricades and that certainly was not conceived by the mind of a center-right.
Now, because of the disappearance, perhaps even shared view of the low returns of recent years, all those political forces that existed, so to speak, to the left of the Democratic Party and given the impact on the economic sphere and that of the visibility of these forces that, and it was easy to predict, at this point are buried and forgotten, not wonder if the current opposition had every interest in not countering this "bullshit" in a move to get rid of all those small parties that were buzzing around? The fact that these small parties represented at least three million people, of course, is not so important.
Behold, I see this in the fraud by Veltroni before and after its smaller predecessors. To become hegemonic and point to the duopoly of Berlusconi's political left to the possibility of undermining the democratic structure of our country. Personally I do not lose this political force that.
What I think, saving the part of the law that deals with linguistic minorities, is that today l'opposizione politica in questo paese debba avere un solo obiettivo: lavorare per costruire una alleanza politica tra i democratici, di qualunque estrazione essi siano. Questa è una precondizione per poter ricominciare a parlare dei problemi che affossano questo paese sui quali magari all'interno di questo fronte di uomini e donne che vogliono riaffermare i principi democratici, possono non essere condivisi. Questo, però, è un altro problema. Oggi siamo chiamati a fare una scelta precisa e ad impegnarci tutti quanti per risolvere un problema fondamentale del nostro paese. Quello della scomparsa della democrazia. Nessun altra questione, nessun altro appuntamento nell'agenda politica fino a quando non abbiamo risolto questo.
Personalmente mi will commit only to a movement that has as its main aim is to repeal the current electoral law and to return the word to the electorate. Otherwise, for all the reasons I explained above, abbaiamo the moon because the soil in which we face is distorted in a land where, however, people do not count for anything and when people do not count us find a place that I call " regime. " No one should accept the argument with the majority on any other subject be it economic, social, institutional. No comparison until we spoke up on its last legs, it has not solved the node is not democratic and has restored power to the people. 'SOVEREIGNTY' BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE WHO THE EXERCISES IN THE FORM AND EXTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION "(Constitution, Article 1, paragraph 2 °).
partisans, always.
Marco Guercio, Lawyer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment