Clash between currents on CSM electoral reform, exchange of accusations between the Area and the Independent Judiciary

Clash between currents of the judiciary on the electoral reform of the CSM after the steering committee of the ANM, which met on Saturday and Sunday and had the issue on the agenda, failed to express a unitary position and vote on a common document . What happened during the meeting makes it clear how the independent judiciary “basically wants to keep the current single-member and majority-based electoral system unchanged, operating a mere image operation”, the accusation of the Democratic Area for Justice, which recalls to have “always reiterated that the distortions highlighted by the events of the Champagne Hotel and the disclosure of some conversations between members of the CSM, were partly determined by an electoral system that leads to the presentation of few candidates and therefore gives a scarce possibility of choice to the voters and it allows the expression of a single preference vote, which becomes highly conditioned by the current membership mechanisms “. That of Mi is “an unacceptable position that must be opposed with great firmness”, denounces the group of progressive robes, in favor of the proposal of the ministerial commission wanted by Minister Marta Cartabia and chaired by Professor Massimo Luciani. “We are convinced that the only system capable of significantly reducing the weight of currents and restoring full freedom of choice to the voters, among those in question, is precisely the Luciani system”, underlines Area, which is “the only one, among those under discussion, which does not allow currents to predict and condition the outcome of the vote “. Reply of the independent judiciary which reaffirms the critical position towards the proposed one. “We remain firmly convinced that the system of single transferable voting, as outlined by the Luciani Commission, unfortunately facilitates the creation of pathological aggregations of interests, instead of hindering them, and this belief of ours is based on solid arguments”. According to Mi, “the system of single transferable voting, unfortunately, not only lends itself to the creation of solid ‘consortiums’, but can even constitute a means of controlling the vote”.