Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T10:01:15.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GLI EFFETTI DISTORSIVI DEL NUOVO SISTEMA ELETTORALE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2018

Alessandro Chiaramonte

Introduzione

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

L'introduzione dei nuovi sistemi elettorali in Italia è stata accompagnata da un serrato dibattito in sede politica e scientifica sul grado di corrispondenza di tali meccanismi con gli obbiettivi insiti nella campagna e nel risultato referendario del 1993. L'interrogativo di fondo era se – alla prova dei fatti e, quindi, innestandosi nella reale situazione politica – le nuove regole si sarebbero rivelate idonee a produrre «esiti maggioritari». Ossia se, mediante i vincoli imposti alla competizione, avrebbero incentivato una logica di aggregazione, premiando ampi schieramenti contrapposti e scoraggiando invece i free riders, in vista di una possibile futura alternanza di governi.

Summary

Summary

The new Italian electoral systems for the election of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate can be examined on a number of dimensions. The purpose of this article is to analyze one of those dimensions: the relationship between seats and votes; and, more specifically, the degree of (dis)proportionality and the weight of each feature of the electoral system in determining it.

Type
Il Voto
Information
Italian Political Science Review / Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , December 1994 , pp. 687 - 714
Copyright
Copyright © Societ Italiana di Scienza Politica 

References

Riferimenti bibliografici

Balinski, M.L. e Young, H.P. (1982), Fair Representation: Meeting the Ideal of One Man, One Vote, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bartolini, S. e D'Alimonie, R. (1994), La competizione maggioritaria: le origini elettorali del parlamento diviso, in ‘Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica’, in questo stesso numero, supra, pp. 631–686.Google Scholar
Blais, A. (1988), The Classification of Electoral Systems, in ‘European Journal of political research’, vol. 16, pp. 99–109.Google Scholar
Cox, G.W. e Shugart, M.S. (1991), Comment on Gallagher's ‘Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems’, in ‘Electoral Studies’, vol. 10, pp. 348–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Alimonte, R. e Chiaramonte, A. (1993), Il nuovo sistema elettorale italiano: quali opportunità?, in ‘Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica’, XXIII, pp. 513–547.Google Scholar
Fry, V. e McLean, I. (1991), A Note on Rose's Proportionality Index, in ‘Electoral Studies’, vol. 10, pp. 52–59.Google Scholar
Gallagher, M. (1991), Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems, in ‘Electoral Studies’, vol. 10, pp. 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, M. (1992), Comparing Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Quotas, Thresholds, Paradoxes and Majorities, in ‘British Journal of Political Science’, vol. 22, pp. 469–496.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1983), Sul grado di proporzionalità di alcune formule elettorali, in ‘Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica’, XIII.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1984), Democracies. Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries, London, Yale University Press; trad. it. Le democrazie contemporanee, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1988.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1985), The Field of Electoral Systems Research: A Critical Survey, in ‘Electoral Studies’, vol. 4, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. e Gibberd, R.W. (1977), Thresholds and Payoffs in List Systems of Proportional Representation, in ‘European Journal of Political Research’, vol. 5, pp. 219–244.Google Scholar
Loosemore, J. e Hanby, V.J. (1971), The Theoretical Limits of Maximum Distorsion: Some Analytic Expression for Electoral Systems, in ‘British Journal of Political Science’, vol. 1, 467-477.Google Scholar
Nurmi, H. (1987), Comparing Voting Systems, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
Petit, J.L. e Terouanne, E. (1988), Proportional Methods, Extremal Values and Manipulability, in ‘European Journal of Political Research’, vol. 16, pp. 339–356.Google Scholar
Rae, D.W. (1971), The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws, New Haven, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Rae, D.W., Hanby, V. e Loosemore, J. (1971), Threshold of Representation and Threshold of Esclusion: An Analytical Note on Electoral Systems, in ‘Comparative Political Studies’, n. 3, pp. 479–488.Google Scholar
Rokkan, S. (1968), Electoral Systems, in International Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, New York, Macmillan-The Free Press, vol. V; o in S. Rokkan, Citizens, Elections, Parties, Oslo, Universitetsforlaget, 1970; trad. it. Cittadini, elezioni, partiti, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1982.Google Scholar
Rose, R. (1983), Elections and Electoral Systems: Choices and Alternatives, in V. Bogdanor, D. Butler, Democracy and Elections: Electoral Systems and Their Political Consequences, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, R. (1984), Electoral Systems: A Question of Degree or of Principle?, in Lijphart, A. e Grofman, B. (a cura di), Choosing an Electoral System: Issues and Alternatives, New York, praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. (1984), Le ‘leggi’ sulla influenza dei sistemi elettorali, in ‘Rivista Italiana di Scienza Politica’, XIV.Google Scholar
Taagepera, R. e Laasko, M. (1980), Proportionality Profiles of West European Electoral Systems, in ‘European Journal of Political Research’, vol. 8, n. 4, pp. 423–446.Google Scholar
Taagepera, R. e Shugart, M.S. (1989), Seats & Votes. The Effects and Determinants of Electoral System, New Haven and London, Yale University Press.Google Scholar