Electoral laws in Italy are not conceived in the laboratories of scholars but in the back rooms of the parties. They are not abstract formulas: they are tailor-made jackets. The majority on duty takes measurements, consults the polls and concludes with satisfaction: “This is how it fits me.” In recent years we have witnessed a parade worthy of parliamentary fashion week: Mattarellum, Porcellum, Rosatellum. Now comes the latest model. There are those who baptize it Donzellumfrom the name of Giorgia Meloni’s lieutenant Giovanni Donzelli, Melonellumwho Stabilicum – a word that seems to have come from a creative with a (very) high fever. The text was deposited yesterday in the House and Senate. The novelty is simple, and for this reason substantial: proportional everywhere. That 25 percent of majority single-member constituencies in which whoever gets one more vote gets everything disappears. Goodbye dry duel. Back to accounting: many votes, many seats. Why does the Center-Right like this architecture? The reason is political, not arithmetic. The area that supports Giorgia Meloni’s government may appear in three or four different lists, but it remains a recognizable bloc. The voter knows who he is, what he wants, where he stands. Rivalries do not affect identity. We argue, maybe we growl, but always under the same roof. In proportional representation, programmatic differences come to light without pretense. Everyone runs with their own symbol, and negotiations are done later. But the centre-right voter does not fear the ally he votes for: he considers him part of the same family. In the On the centre-left, however, the picture is more fractured. The electorate is mobile, critical, sometimes inclined to abstain or vote to testify, or even to jump the barricade. Differences are not nuances but fissures. Thus the proportional system ends up rewarding those who are united while remaining divided and punishing those who remain divided even when they try to unite. Today the centre-right appears as an almost natural federation; the Center-Left as an alliance built around the table, often with toothache. The majority, on the contrary, does not forgive. You can’t afford three candidates from the same field competing against each other: you lose the college, without appeal. The current coalition is made up of parties of different weight: Fratelli d’Italia is the driving force, Lega and Forza Italia follow. In single-member constituencies it is necessary to establish who presents the candidate, and that’s where the skirmishes begin: there are few safe constituencies, and no one gives them away. The proportional system, on the other hand, allows everyone to compete with their own symbol, count the votes and only then sit at the table. With the proportional system the strongest party – today Brothers of Italy – collects until the last vote. It grows in consensus, it grows in seats. In the majority, however, he must distribute constituencies to his allies to keep them in coalition: an anticipated division of power. And whoever is hegemonic prefers to count the votes later, not give them up first. Let’s not fool ourselves, however: electoral law does not create power relations. He photographs them and, at most, enlarges them. If tomorrow the progressive camp found solid guidance and a clear line, even proportional representation could turn into an opportunity. The rules have their weight, but identity, coherence and political culture weigh more. And those cannot be improvised with an amendment at dawn. Then there remains the question of the blocked lists of the new law. The voter does not choose the person but the symbol. The secretaries decide the names. The citizen votes, the party nominates. This is nothing new, but it is a distance that continues to grow between elected and voter. Finally the majority bonus. The new law awards it to those who exceed 40 percent of the votes. If no one reaches that threshold, there is a runoff between the two parties over 35 percent. That’s where alchemy is attempted: transforming a robust minority into a self-sufficient majority. Each reform is heralded as the ultimate medicine against instability. But stability does not arise from an algorithm. It arises from an authentic consensus, from a shared vision, from a ruling class capable of assuming responsibility. The rest is tailoring. And clothes, sooner or later, change. The country remains.
