It is of little use that the pollster Ghisleri goes to great lengths to explain that out of almost 50 million Italian voters on October 4 only 12 million were called to vote, that only half of the voters actually voted and that on Sunday many of the voters went to the polling stations. less, not even 5% of the electorate: the perception (correct) is that the Democratic Party has won and the others have lost.
Letta can therefore rightly rejoice, but not only for the results as much as because the ballot box confirms that – if you went to vote with a united center-left – the Democratic Party could win the next political elections and (after putting one of his men to the Quirinale) Letta could lock up Italy for the next five years.
Suddenly the possibility of early elections previously strongly supported on the right now seems to agree with the left, also because the opponents seem KO with the risk of further fractures in the same center-right where, above all, a leader capable of acting as a stable guide of the potential coalition does not emerge.
The divisions on the right have not paid despite the polls because one account is to run each on their own following the electorate of the neighbor, an account converging on a single candidate when it is perceived of “competition”. Among other things, although there are no 5-star candidates in the ballots, what happened five years ago towards the M5S candidates who won by also collecting votes to the right of voters decided first of all to beat the Pd candidates has not been repeated in the grillino electorate. Failed the pentastellate junctions here are now the Grillini votes return home Pd, a party still able to keep more or less its votes. If the others remain at home, with skeptical or disinterested voters, victory is assured.
Sunday’s vote confirms that Pd-M5S relations are potentially improving by embracing the positions of Conte, now specialized in the role of bridge builder.
And to think that the center-right (now subscribed to the defeats in the ballots because their electorate is historically unwilling to go and vote in the second round) would only need a codicil to the administrative electoral law to mix up: “If in the ballot the winner still gets fewer votes than a another candidate in the first round, the latter and then elected mayor. ” It seems trivial, but it is now a widespread case that those who win the first half lose the second due to a sharp decline in voters. Basically, it would be a more correct form of democracy, avoiding dispersion of votes on meaningless candidacies in the first round, preventing potential winners from repudiating alliances in the ballot, thus winning by themselves the majority prize to which to add other seats on only informally related lists,
It soon ends up in electoral technicalities, but these are important issues for municipal elections where less than 40% votes by now with the result of elected mayors with even less than 20% of the votes compared to the electoral body.
Meanwhile, the center-right finds himself in a corner from which it will be very difficult to get out because the problem and especially Draghi. If there were a Pd Premier leader, a breakdown of government would be plausible, but how to put oneself against the national Mario, interpreted as a lifeline by
the electorate. plausible.
This is why Letta could agree – in the spring – to try the coup of going to new elections, even if at the same time the chances of Draghi immediately drop at the Quirinale, because the certain point of reference as premier would fail.
If I were the leader of the Democratic Party, I would therefore work for an extension of Mattarella to then immediately go to the vote with Draghi as premier, win, put his own man of trust in the government and then change the tenant on the Hill guaranteeing Draghi the golden armchair. Possible that the leaders of the Democratic Party are not thinking about it
