PR and Italy: Not What You Might Think
In April 2000, CVD staff Steven Hill traveled to Italy to observe
its April 16 regional elections and conduct interviews of Italian
political scientists, political leaders and citizens. He also
conducted research about Italy's ongoing electoral reforms of their
voting system and public financing of elections, which culminated in
a series of referendums on May 21, 2000.
Both referendums failed due to low voter turnout (in Italy,
referendums automatically fail if voter turnout is below a majority
of eligible voters), with the 'No' side urging voters to stay at
home. Given that the measure to eliminate the use of proportional
representation received the most attention, the low turnout (two in
three eligible voters did not vote) was seen as an indication that
support for conversion to all-winner-take-all elections is waning.
Last year a similar measure came much closer to winning
approval.
Based on his research, Hill wrote the following commentary that
was published in Italy Daily (the largest English-speaking daily
newspaper in Italy, a collaboration between the International Herald
Tribune and Corriere Della Sera) a few days before the
referenda.
"Winner-take-all" May Not Be a Winner for
Italy
by Steven Hill
Italy has been a dynamo of electoral change these last seven
years. Electoral systems designers like myself are always eager to
study politics and reform in action. Consequently I was pleased to
travel to Italy for two weeks to observe their regional elections on
April 16. I also interviewed political scientists, politicians and
average citizens about the upcoming May 21 referendum on electoral
reform.
The goals of the May 21 referendum are certainly praiseworthy: to
change the electoral conditions that have caused 58 short-lived
governments since World War II. But Italy should beware the "law of
unintended consequences." Strong evidence suggests that the proposed
referendum may not achieve Italy's desired goal.
The May 21 referendum seeks to complete the conversion of Italy's
national elections to a winner-take-all, district-based system. This
electoral change, it is assumed by many, would decrease the number
of smaller political parties that buzz around the Italian landscape,
creating something closer to a stable, majoritarian, two-party
system.
But this assumption may be flawed. For instance, as a result of
past reforms Italy already elects 75 percent of its national
legislative seats by a winner-take-all method, and the remaining 25
percent with a proportional system. And guess what? In the last
national election, *more* small political parties won seats under
the winner-take all method than under the proportional method.
Winner-take-all elections don't always lead to the stability that
Italy rightly seeks, and don't always produce stable, two-party
government. In India, for instance, winner-take-all elections have
led in recent years to a proliferation of regionally-based smaller
parties and collapsing governments. In Canada's bizarre
winner-take-all elections, regionally-based smaller parties have won
numerous seats and nearly fueled secession. The Bloc Quebocois Party
became the third largest party in parliament, despite running no
candidates outside of secessionist-minded Quebec. Another party
benefited in the west, where in one province it was able to win a
lopsided 92 percent of seats with only 54 percent of the vote due to
"split votes" among numerous small parties. Italy, with its own
regional splits and secessionist threats in the north, should take
note.
It's true that winner-take-all has not led to such regional
balkanization in France and Britain. But in those countries, it has
contributed to extreme disproportionality. In France's two-round
system, the Socialists turned only 24% of the first-round vote into
a majority of seats in the runoff with support from candidates from
the smaller parties. In Britain, Tony Blair's Labour Party won 65
percent of the seats in the House of Commons with barely 43 percent
of the popular vote.
In the United States, winner-take-all elections are dogged by an
utter lack of competition and choice at the polls. For instance, a
startling 41 percent of district races in state elections were
uncontested because the parties save their resources for close
races, and 90 percent of district races are not close. This has
greatly contributed to plunging voter turnouts -- around 40 percent
of eligible voters, sometimes less -- because voters have few
choices and little enthusiasm. While Italians have too many choices
at the polls, American voters are begging for more choice.
Unfortunately, the results of winner-take-all elections around
the world are not exactly encouraging. And it doesn't seem to be
working that well in Italy either, where voter turnout has started
to decline. In the April 16 regional elections Italy experienced
another frequent byproduct of winner-take-all -- excessively
negative campaigns devoid of issues. Debates between leaders of the
center-right and center-left coalitions were used as opportunities
to attack each other rather than discuss issues. Such behavior is
very familiar to American and British audiences. Can the ubiquitous
political consultants, polling and divisive wedge issues that haunt
American politics be far behind?
Given the severe drawbacks of winner-take-all elections, it may
be helpful to know that there are several other ways that Italy
could reduce the number of political parties and produce
majoritarian government. These include using smaller-sized
constituencies of 3 to 7 seats like the Irish use, with
corresponding higher victory thresholds; reducing the
overly-generous public financing given to smaller parties; increased
ballot access requirements that would make it more difficult for
smaller parties to be placed on the ballot.
Italy could even adopt a version of its new regional governmental
structure, guaranteeing a majority of seats to the first-place
political party. The French do this for their regional governments,
and it accomplishes the goal of majoritarian government.
It is unfortunate that the drafting of the electoral reforms was
left in the hands of the political parties themselves. This is a lot
like leaving the fox to guard the chicken coop. Far better, it seems
to me, would have been to form a national blue ribbon commission of
experts, like was done in New Zealand and in Britain, to study
electoral reform and make an unbiased determination about the best
methods to achieve the goals.
Whether the May 21 referendum passes or not, I'm afraid that
Italy's political difficulties are not likely to end anytime soon
without reforms better targeted at the desired goal.
[CVD western regional director Steven Hill is based in San
Francisco, California, USA. He is co-author of "Reflecting All of
Us" (Beacon Press 1999). For more information, see www.fairvote.org, phone (415)
665-5044 or write to: PO Box 22411, San Francisco, CA
94122] |