Presentation of the questions if you answer YES
ask to cancel if you answer NO get to keep the law as it is.
- The first question (green card) covers the award of the majority in the House;
- The second question (blank ballot) concerning the award of the majority in the Senate;
- The third question (red card) covers multiple applications, both the House and the Senate.
The 1st and 2nd question: majority of the premium to the list as voted on and increase in minimum threshold:
question (valid for the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate) is proposing the repeal of the link between lists and the possibility of awarding the prize to the majority coalition lists.
If successful referendum, the result is that the majority of the premium is attributed to a single list (rather than the coalition list) that has received the largest number of seats.
A second effect of the referendum is the following: repeal the rule on coalitions would also raise the thresholds for the dam. To obtain parliamentary representation, that is, the lists must still reach a consensus in the House of 4% and 8% in the Senate.
In summary
the most votes gets the prize list that ensures the majority of seats up for grabs, the lists get smaller, however, adequate representation, provided that exceed the barrier.
The 3rd question: repeal of applications and multiple co-opting
oligarchic political class:
hits another aspect of the scandal.
Today the possibility of candidates in several constituencies (even all!) Gives enormous power to the elected candidate in several places (the "plurieletto). These
, opting for one of several seats obtained, allows the first of the candidates "not elected" their own list in that constituency's polling station at which they experience in the resignation. He
so, in fact, have the fate of the other candidates whose election depends on your choice. If you chose for herself the seat "A" favors the election of the first non-elected in the district "B", if you choose the seat "B" supports the first non-elected in the district "A".
legislative term, this phenomenon of truly pathological, involving about 1 / 3 of parliament. In other words: 1 / 3 of parliament are chosen after the elections by those who already has been elected and become MPs for favors received.
A glaring example of co-option!
's inevitable that such a discipline inevitably leads to attitudes of subservience and subordination to the availability of cooptandi, attitudes that harm the dignity and the very nature of the parliamentary function. Moreover, the parliamentary successors (1 / 3, as stated above) do not owe their election to their ability, but fidelity a notable, that rewards them choosing to replace it.
In summary
with the approval of the 3rd question the possibility of multiple applications will be repealed in the House and the Senate.
------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
It 's true that does not change the whole law "bullshit" in force, but with the current government, and who knows how many more years, the law will never be changed, then
to make at least some change is not that this Referendum.
Oh well, we all know that the quorum of voters to reach, is the host, and then I wonder ..... is in good faith who says ... I to vote and write YES / NO or those who do not indicate the vote ?.....
What is the old way of doing politics and what is the future of this way of doing politics?, Indicate that the turnout?
I vote YES, after all how long I lose my life ?.... 30 minutes?
who knows maybe even meet someone with whom to chat .... about DEMOCRACY!
PS: the colors of the cards offered in the post does not correspond to reality.
Hello everyone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment