Non-voting strengthens those in power, like the white card, the void and its restitution

The non-vote (that is, abstention), the white board, the void card or even the return of the card or its rejection, they serve to boycott the system of parties in power?

In reality, I present the accounts below, They do exactly the opposite!

As I will demonstrate, These proposals strengthen parties “more”, and below I will propose the real alternative solution to boycott them.

You know the Italian or European parliament? E’ made up of a certain number of elected people. For the Italian parliament they are 400 persons elected to the Chamber (they were 635) E 200 people elected to the Senate (they were 315). Let's leave aside the issue of senators for life who are not elected by anyone, especially since the candidates to be voted for are also chosen by the party secretaries, essentially even parliamentarians are nominees who will not be able to act freely if they want to be re-nominated.

As regards the European parliament, those elected in 2004 they will be 705, and of these 76 they will be elected by Italy.

Each country in the European Union has a different voting system, so we must refer to the Italian one.
For both the Italian and European parliaments, the candidates are not the free expression of the population, because those who represent parties already present in parliament do not have to collect voters' signatures, and therefore their lists are essentially the pre-packaged choice of power groups already in existence and mostly unknown to voters.

Now let's focus on the seating, the seats, that is, those 600 elected in the Italian parliament or i 76 in the European one, they will always and in any case be occupied by someone, a validly elected one is hoped, and this will happen regardless of how many voters turn out to vote. I explain.

In the political elections (for Parliament), but also for European or regional ones, there is no “quorum”, that is, elections are always valid regardless of whether they vote on 90% , THE 60% or 35% of voters: in any case those elected will be those expected, and the chairs will eventually all be occupied by someone.

The propaganda of “do not vote” it is based on the mistake of believing that for the elections to be valid there is a quorum to be reached, that the absolute majority of those entitled to vote be required to vote validly. However, for political elections there is no quorum to be reached, but not even for administrative ones (municipal, regional etc), and even for referendums a quorum is no longer always required.

Let's make the hypothesis, This is absurd, that they go to vote only 600 people for the Italian parliament, and let's assume that these 600 people each vote for a different candidate. In the end they will be had 600 elected with a single vote, and all the chairs will still be filled. Compared to an election in which millions of people vote, the difference is that the few voters will have had the weight of those millions, and they will have decided for themselves.

Put another way, those who don't go to vote leave their choice to those who go to vote because it will have greater electoral weight.

And since the seats are allocated based on the votes validly cast, Even invalid ballots do not count as non-voters, the white ones, those returned, those with writing “thieves” , and even those contested because there is no one we like. All votes not validly cast count for nothing, you might as well stay at home.

Those who call for abstentionism or various forms of protest to boycott the elections, he did not understand that abstentionism and other forms of non-voting actually strengthen those who are already in the building.

And this explains why the first to suggest abstentionism are the partitucoli , with their few affiliates they could count for something if many do not go to vote while their loyalists go to vote.

In general, the number of personal votes today are a shadow of those of 20 Years ago, and even more than those of 40 Years ago. Fewer and fewer people trust the person, and at the same time they don't understand that to send them home it is necessary to give the vote to others.

In recent years we have seen sudden rises in 40% and then falls to 5%. Disappointed voters voted again, and then they voted differently because they were disappointed again.

There are those who say that great abstentionism determines who the elect are “politically” weak, but I reply that if so “can be” seen like this, in reality nothing changes, the elect will be validly elected, legally, and the TVs will pretend that those elected representatives really represent the 100% of the will of the people. with a little’ of propaganda, even non-voters will be convinced, especially the vaccinated ones who bought the epidemic lie.

Let's do another count right now’ litmus test.

Suppose all the voters (ie the 100% of eligible voters) go and vote and vote as follows:

Bianchi 20%
Detective stories 20%
Rossi 20%
Blu 20%
Neri 20%

They will sit in the Italian parliament 80 Deputies and 20 Senators for each color, namely 80+20 Bianchi, 80+20 Detective stories, 80+20 Rossi, 80+20 Blue and 80+20 Neri), Total 400+200 . circa, because there are special reserves for some regions, and also it depends on the provincial and regional dimension, etc. etc. but never mind the details.

Same thing in the case of the European parliament.

Let's now see what changes if a portion of voters doesn't go to vote (or is blank or nothing, or makes a declaration of rejection of the vote ….. etc, as mentioned, the final count does not change because only the votes validly cast count).

Suppose the 50% of those entitled DO NOT go to vote, and that voters vote with the same percentages as above: in parliament the representation will be identical to that of before, that is, the results will be the same as before despite half of the voters having voted. In practice nothing will change except for the fact that those who are visible in the media will have had to work less hard to remain in parliament!

Instead, let's now make a different hypothesis. Suppose that because of a scandal all those who voted yellow do not go to vote. The result will be that the other groups that will have greater parliamentary presence and in detail will be benefited
Bianchi 25%
Detective stories 0%
Rossi 25%
Blu 25%
Neri 25%

Here it is demonstrated that those who don't go to vote let the votes of others count more.

But also those who have a blank ballot, who does nothing sheet, and even those who “return the card” nothing will change in the final result, because if the remaining voters are distributed among the various colors as in the previous case, the result will be the same in percentage terms.

In other words, who does not validly exercise the vote, for whatever reason, leave it to others to decide for him or her. I've been saying it for years.

So let's ask ourselves the question of how to change parliament.

If those who are disgusted by everything are not voting, in reality they are the ones who could vote for something new, for example a new party.

To send home the current occupants of the seats in Parliament there is no other option than to go and vote and vote for a new party or a new person. if there are any barriers, those that have the prospect of exceeding the necessary quota should be voted on.

The only thing that favors political change is going to vote for a new party, even if it bothers us, but because not voting favors the parties already in power.

Going to vote for new names in the current parties is also a no-brainer,because the candidates are chosen by the secretaries and not by the voters.

If you understand the mechanism, then it is understandable why the major leaders stigmatize the vote to the minor formations, therefore they push to vote “versus”, they try to “polarize” (deploy) the electorate in opposing factions, in order to play it with each other, and it happens more and more often that the electoral enemy was their ally until recently.

There must always be a great enemy, a party not to vote for, because otherwise we need to talk about programs. party representatives only make general speeches, devoid of actual content except those that serve to polarize. The less you are exposed, the less votes you lose . Those who are convinced will vote anyway, the unconvinced will not become so after a few more speeches

So here is the reference to the useful vote, so that the vote of the disgusted, The vote “useless” do no damage, because the vote of the disgusted people is the only variable that can change something: it is unpredictable and therefore scares them.

However, let it be known that elections are pre-packaged in the result with propaganda that has lasted secretly for many months before the vote, and through pre-electoral laws that give sops to their electorate.

Then there are also various frauds in the polls which it is useless to report, as well as ineligibility, nor politics, nor do the judiciary do anything to fix the system because they are ordered to do so by higher powers, the bankers and the Epto-Billionaires.

The only surprise that can come from voting comes when those who normally don't go to vote suddenly decide to do so by voting irrationally.

To boycott the system you could also answer surveys with invented things, in order to confuse them, but there is no electoral conscience for this. Furthermore, if the polls reveal a desire to vote for a certain new ideal, you can rest assured that a new party would be created specifically for the elections, exempt from signatures, as has recently happened with environmentalists who are not even voted for by the candidates' families.

In recent years the parties have raced for anti-vax votes, but given the slaughter combined with the vaccines, things seem different this year, but don't be fooled and vote for one of the parties that has already strengthened or coexisted with the slaughter in parliament.

Having said this on a formal level, it must be said that, unfortunately, elections are often illegal, a fraud. for example, someone should explain to me why a new party has to collect thousands of signatures just for nominations, while parties already in parliament are exempt from it: this violates the equality of conditions dictated by the Constitution and by reasonableness. And again: because some parties that have never been present in parliament have a lot of media visibility while other equally new parties are almost completely obscured ? This makes you learn to compare and undistorted competition.

in conclusion, As I say since 1999, If you want to change go to vote and vote a party that you've never heard before.

One last thought on the choice of candidate. If you go to vote for change and then choose to vote something new, don't even be fooled by the question of “quote rosa”. Personally I consider women equal to men, and I think they should be voted on, like the males, when the person deserves it regardless of the genital organ possessed. Also because the world is full of bad women who have waged wars everywhere, and Europe at the moment, at the top it is full of them .

The propaganda of female quotas has reached the point of creating an unjustified barrier for males, there are many cases of incapable women , of poor preparation, placed on the list because they are obliged by law, they are not candidates for their qualities and on the contrary they take away space from capable males.

We have to ask ourselves: we want the elections to elect the most competent and second most valuable content, or we elect him as long as he has a specific genital organ? E’ It is clear that the quotas are discriminatory to the detriment of males. If you don't even understand this, then it is stated that pink quotas are discriminatory for trans people, etc. Or is this exactly what you want, that is, guaranteeing seats for each LGBTQ+ and perhaps even pedophile component? Candidates should not be chosen based on their sexual practices or organs!

Net of all the speeches, the most democratic electoral system is actually the proportional system with an adequate barrier, like the 5% or even less, but with a system without quotas except for national minorities .

The current electoral system in the Italian parliament is unconstitutional because it is a bad copy of what was in the 2014 the Constitutional Court demolished.

Judgment no. 1 of 2014 he had demolished the electoral law he called “Mattarel”, those elected in parliament with the majority prize and those elected in. were declared unconstitutional “locked price list”.

The thing to highlight is that for the Constitution, art. 136, “When the Court declares the constitutional illegitimacy of a law or act having the force of law, the law ceases to have effect from the day following the publication of the decision.“.

Instead, with the Sentence those elected were not declared lapsed, it was implicit in the Constitution, because the effects of the law cease from the publication of the Sentence.

The parliamentarians elected with unconstitutional law had to be forfeited and replaced by the first non-elected members voted in the proportional part . Instead what happened?

It happened that the President of the Constitutional Court, Mattarella, already inspirer of the law itself called Mattarella, it was done too “elect” as President of the Republic by those same non-elected people, therefore illegally elect.

And not happy, instead of ruling the termination of office of the illegally elected, as required by the Constitution, he again violated the Constitution by approving an electoral law substantially identical to the one that was demolished.

Do not you think, dear voter, that the elections are a televised farce?

Then vote or not vote ? If you believe in Italy, go vote for something new, it's the only thing you can do because even if you ask to arrest them nothing will ever happen.

However, I no longer believe in Italy, for decades, because it was born from the fraud of the plebiscites, lives in fraud and deception, and as mentioned, Italy no longer exists legally, all the institutions have decayed.

Those who claim to be the Italian institutions are nothing more than elected with fraud and illegal laws without representation. Italy is a de facto power, military, moreover a pawn of the Atlantic victors of the Second World War. Italy does not decide its own foreign policy, according to the Statutory Lists its policy is decided by the Allies. But it was already written in the Armistice!

And given that Italy, if it existed, it no longer exists, now I only work for the Plan Z.

This article has been written and edited recently 20 years.