(Sistema Elettorale Plurininominale Ostracizzante all’Ateniese (1) con Sbarramento al NANO (2) e Premio di Maggioranza Variabile)
(1) del V secolo a.C.
(2) Non eletto in quanto Avente Numero Ostracizzante di voti.
In questi giorni si fa molto parlare di legge elettorale. L’attuale, la legge Calderoli (quella denominata porcellum per intenderci), sembra non piacere quasi più a nessuno: né a chi l’ha or written opposition or to the same coalition with the law won the 2008 election. The problem is that none or almost want to vote with this law, all they want change, but each has a different idea of \u200b\u200bhow the new law should be. Given that each of his opinion, even I, in my small, I give my personal contribution.
Speaking of the election law should be able to rise above those who have interests aside and look at what are the interests of the country. We should choose a formula that election rather than another, not so much by the benefits this can bring to the political faction membership but in terms of security which it can give in terms of voter representation and defense of democracy in the country. In the sentence you just read there are a number of concepts that are worth further before going forward in the description of my proposal for a magnificent electoral law.
Let's see: the fact that we are talking about voting, and here I add free, implies that relate to a democratic system (the totalitarian systems in general tend to avoid the elections and if they are not free but are still held only pro-forma). Now that democracy means government by the people etymologically speaking, is not it just that perfect form of government you normally do want to believe. Tyranny, for example, but only if I (and I say, just me and nobody else) I was a tyrant, would be a much better form of government! But I fear that would tend inevitably to conflict with the concept that each of us has to tyranny and would not be prosecuted so peacefully .... And then democracy is an inherently flawed concept that brings inherent in itself an awkward paradox. It is sufficient that the majority of people both in favor of a government anti-democratic because democracy would cease to exist by its very nature can not oppose the will of the majority without falling into a contradictory negation of itself. And here the emergence of other problems inherent in a form di governo democratico. Il primo che appare subito evidente nel paradosso di cui prima, è legato al fatto che tutti i voti hanno uguale peso e valore: pensare che il voto, che so io, di Umberto Eco valga quanto quello dell’ultimo dei tronisti della De Filippi fa oggettivamente accapponare la pelle. Ciò unito al fatto che la democrazia è pericolosamente in balia dell’emotività del popolo, per sua natura facilmente suggestionabile, porta a quegli eccessi di potere decisionale del popolo stesso che portano alle conseguenze antidemoicratiche del paradosso o per citare un esempio eclatante, alla crocifissione di Cristo e alla liberazione di Barabba.
Sul primo punto cioè sul fatto che tutti i voti hanno lo same value regardless of competence or incompetence of those who expressed them, you can not do anything, any attempt to give a different weight to the vote on the basis of culture, wealth or age easily pave the way for forms of discrimination not be tolerated in a modern and civilized country.
On the problem of the emotions of the people and the demagogic and populist tendencies that democracy can take much can be done, certainly much more than they do today. Let's say something more about it. Democracy is the power of the people but what people are talking about? Of the sovereign people or the people ox? And what are the differences?
I would say that is what the sovereign people informed and conscious choosing, if the electoral law so permits (but now not so), its representatives in parliament. But it is also what we choose not to vote because there is no political means of expression and not for this one should have fewer rights.
While the beef is what people are carried away by false promises and rhetoric of unscrupulous demagogues wisely leverage irrational feelings of fear and hatred of political opponents and minorities are often used in the role of scapegoat for problems that are unable to solve. The people ox is quello che cede alle lusinghe di moderni despoti che parlando alle pance dei sudditi promettono “panem et circenses” (oggi potremmo dire “magnum fratem”) sfruttando il potere mediatico di cui dispongono. Il popolo bue è quello che ha subito il rapporto diretto, risultandone poi manipolato, di leader quali Hitler, Mussolini e Péron.
Scusate la retorica alla Nichi Vendola ma mi è scappata…
Le moderne democrazie dovrebbero evitare le facili manipolazioni del popolo, dotandosi di organi di controllo (le authority di cui si parla tanto) che indipendenti dal potere politico impediscano il verificarsi di questi fenomeni e di un giornalismo libero (si pensi high risks for democracy that may arise from control of the policy or of the strong powers of what is known as the fourth power) that exposes the false, damaging and defamatory state political leaders.
Let's face now, however, for the avoidance of doubt, though deeply flawed democracy is the lesser of two evils can succeed and we need to keep close and defend it against those who want to attack it, the demagoguery and the people and the totalitarian tendencies that may result .
start talking rapprentatività also must ensure that the electoral law. In my opinion, should ensure representation of those who vote but also those who do not vote for this and do not have less rights. Let me explain with an example. At the last elections, which had a turnout of 77%, the PDL has been collecting about 38% of the vote. Now 38% to 77% is about 29% even on an Italian three. Here I think the fact that you have the consent of an Italian in three does not justify the fact that you have the country as you want just because you have a relative majority of votes.
It 'clear that enough is enough and should be a relative majority to govern but to change the institutions and laws which are the cornerstone of democracy and protection should be raprresentanza of an absolute majority of Italians. A little 'as in the Monthly Meeting to decide where maintenance work is necessary to have the most extraordinary vintages and not just a majority vote of those present meeting.
Established an electoral law that would ensure we come to my wonderful proposal.
How can mitigate risks that may result from abuses of democracy and populist demagoguery? Sometimes it makes sense looking back to look forward. And in fact in the history of ancient Greece and more precisely in fifth century BC, this was the institution of ostracism that seems to be the answer to the question before. Ostracism was a mechanism by which you voted, recording the name on pieces of earthenware, those individuals who thought they could represent a potential danger to democracy. Who obtained a simple majority of votes was punished with a ten-year exile even though he had done nothing criminally prosecuted. It is sufficient for the chance to become tyrants in order to be potential ostarcizzati and then exiled.
the modern day stigma as it was practiced in Athens, it is objectively difficult to implement if only because of the lack of debris and not least because of the difficulty to put them in a ballot box ...
So I thought to release revised dell'ostracisno. During the vote in the ballot you can express a preference (ie, indicate that the person I want to be elected in the constituency of ownership among those indicated in the party list) and at the same time also a negative vote "ostracizzante" (ie you can specify that person who does not want to be elected because I think it might be a danger to democracy or otherwise for the country in general). Can be expressed clearly just voting against. In this way you can give a voice to those people who do not vote because they feel that there is no party or candidate to represent them but that they would know very well who would never want to govern them.
Clearly it would vote against a vote that should hit the individual candidate and not party affiliation. The vote that otherwise would be reduced by the amount of votes received by candidates ostracized but not to punish the party's vote, however, should be given on the listing of the candidate redistributed among the other members of the list in proportion to the votes received by each. This is positive as long as the votes for each candidate received outweigh the negative. If the negative votes of a candidate exceed the benefits the surplus between the positive and negative votes should not be reassigned to the list but permanently lost. This is to penalize those lists che presentassero rappresentanti “impresentabili”. Chiaro no?
Il sistema da me ideato prevedrebbe collegi plurinominali, per garantire una certa proporzionalità e rappresentatività dei partiti minori, ed il turno unico per risparmiare sulle spese elettorali.
Per garantire una maggiore governabilità si garantirà un premio di maggioranza che avrà un tetto massimo, diciamo del 15%, ma che non sarà fisso ma attribuito in proporzione ai voti positivi ottenuti da tutti i rappresentanti della lista sul totale dei voti di lista (positivi + negativi).
Cioè se per esempio, la lista che ha ottenuto il maggior numero di voti has recorded 70 positive votes but 30 negative (ie a 70% positive votes) asseganto you will see a majority of the premium will be only 70% of the maximum 15% premium. This in the aim to persuade the parties not to submit the "monsters" in the elections
Yeah I know: that system is not wonderful that I promised you but it seems to me anyway, after all, a rather imperfect and complicated electoral system they can be easily applied in our country ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment