Referendum, but without a quorum would win Yes or No? – Daily fact

To be a recall referendum in ‘ Italy of the twenty-first went well. The problem is that we had not quite realized that the quorum was and is an illusion. We were dazzled by the exceptional results of 2011 on water and nuclear power, and we did not realize (at least, I speak for myself) that average other previous referendums ranged between 23 and 25% participation despite of fairly obvious issues such as ‘ Article 18 or assisted reproduction . A quorum when it 25% of the electorate (even more if you consider Italians abroad) is structurally and permanently abstention is almost impossible.

This can be achieved if the majority agrees and if the campaign is active and clear for some time. Conditions that were not there, this referendum as it is known was born of a contrast between the regions and government , more than from activists committees. I do not agree with those who consider technicist or insignificant the question: in essence it came to deciding whether or not we want to really engage in the energy transition . If we believe it or not priority start the era of fossil output. As one 24-year-old student, staunch supporter of Yes, if you want to put 20 or 40 years to get out of the oil. Obviously he, looking to the future, was for Yes, for a short transition. (I do not know the statistics, but I think this time the youth turnout was a little ‘less than the elder).

Perhaps for many this was not at stake, and other arguments have prevailed. Perhaps the Yes campaign was not clear enough oil , fossil, transitional climate. But according to me – maybe I say to instinct rather than by evidence of data- feelings in substance the conflict there was fossil. A little ‘covered a bit’ cloaked by pseudo autonomy national energy considerations. But not neghiamolo: millions of our fellow citizens would prefer to exploit the fossil to the last drop. They think so to live more comfortably. There is a antiambientalismo , a verdofobia. There is not just politically correct inconsistent or false ecology. There are millions of people offended or irritated or annoyed by environmentalism (like maybe we are the constraints and rules in general?) Of course I do not say so, say they oppose fundamentalism or irragionevolezze.

But this feeling exists, and is also existed in this referendum. In the case of nuclear accident we won because prevailed fear, drills do not so afraid . The real question to ask is: what would happen if the same question had been put to a referendum without a quorum? I do not know. There have been polls in this sense? Certainly in a referendum with the No quorum they would not win, because we are now accustomed to reject a repeal referendum refraining from voting. If it had been a referendum without a quorum, in which abstentions do not count, I believe there would be a very harsh and an uncertain outcome contrast. Maybe they would have won the Yes because at draw substantial merit which would have added some votes “anti-government” more than “pro-government”. In any case, given that the drills have a direct impact on a very limited population, the result was remarkable. Remove a couple of millions (maybe, but I would say less) of votes dictated by pure anti-renzismo , eleven million Environmentalists are a good basis for the conflicts and transitions that lie ahead.