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 card void or even the return of the card, they serve to boycott the party system or power?

In reality, on balance, They do exactly the opposite! These proposals strengthen parties “more”, and here's why, done the calculations, and here is the alternative solution.

You know the Italian parliament? E’ made of 400 persons elected to the Chamber (they were 635) E 200 elected to the Senate (they were 315) . Forget now that life senators are not elected by anyone and that the candidates are chosen by the parties also, that is, the parliamentarians are in some way nominated as well, and they are not the free expression of the population, but a prepackaged choice from mostly unknown power groups.

The fact to focus is that those 600 chairs will be occupied by someone (elected) Anyway, regardless of how many voters will vote.

namely, nothing changes if all the voters go to vote, or only the 70%, or even less than 50% , they will always be there 600 elected.

In fact, there is no elections quorum, even if only the 35% or not of the voters, elections are always valid, and the result are anyway 600 elected, the chairs all filled.

So a first mistake in the non-voting propaganda is to believe that elections have a quorum, that is, they require an absolute majority of those entitled to vote, and instead for the political elections there is no quorum to be reached, not even for the administrative ones, and for referendums the quorum is not always required.

Here, if people do not go to vote en masse, it follows that those who go to vote will have electoral weight. Making an absurd assumption, suppose they go to vote alone 600 people, and these 600 people each vote for a different candidate. The result will be that those 600 voted with a single vote they will all be elected, and each voter will have had the weight of 100.000 people.

Those who invite abstention to take away the legitimacy of the system did not understand that abstention strengthens those who are already in the building, the first to want abstention are the small parties that condition power and that with few affiliates seem to count a lot, but is not so .

If we count the number of personal votes, we will realize that today's parties are the shadow of those of 20 Years ago, and even more than those of 40 Years ago, fewer and fewer people trust them, but they do not even send them home giving representation to others.

To those who say that the great abstention “politically” determines that the elect are weak , I answer that “can be”, but legally nothing will change, the elect will be validly elected, TVs will pretend that the elect represent the 100% of the will of the people, and after a short time even non-voters will be convinced.

Now let's do another count. Suppose all the voters (ie the 100% of eligible voters) all go to vote and vote as follows:

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

They will sit in parliament 80 Deputies and 40 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.

Let's see’ What changes, essentially, whether a slice of voters do not go to vote (or is blank or nothing, or makes a declaration of rejection of the vote ….. the final count does not change because only the votes validly cast count).

Suppose the 50% of those entitled DO NOT go to vote, while the voters vote with the same percentages above: in parliament the representation will be the same as before, the results will be the same as before despite having voted by half of the voters, in practice nothing will change except the fact that those who are visible in the media will have had to struggle less to stay in parliament .

That those who do not vote, who does white card, 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. This mechanism has obviously not been understood by those who propose non-voting, or else it has been understood and whoever proposes it works for the established system.

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%

Those who do not go to vote let the vote of the others count more.

Now let's ask ourselves this question. Not to vote are those who are disgusted by everything, but they are also the ones who could vote for something new, for example a new party.

THE NON-VOTING IN SHORT DOES NOTHING BUT TO FAVOR THE CURRENT ELECTED AND THEIR POWER STRUCTURES

To send home the current occupants of the chairs in Parliament, there is no other option than to go and vote and vote for a new party, if there are any barriers, those that have the prospect of exceeding the necessary quota should be voted on. Going to vote even for a new party that bothers us is the only thing that favors political turnover, not voting favors parties in power.

Go and vote for new names in current parties , or women, it is no longer an option, at least until the candidates are chosen by the secretaries and not by the electors.

The mechanism is simple: only the votes validly cast will be those that determine the elected, and the parliament will in any case be filled.

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, and in doing so, votes are lost, 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.

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 is the only variable that scares them, for them it is unpredictable . In fact, the elections are well pre-packaged with propaganda and with the pre-electoral laws, and the only surprise that can come from the vote is that those who do not normally go to vote suddenly decide to do so by changing the vote unexpectedly. This is why it is best to respond to surveys with made up statements, in order to confuse them. If for example 5000 people scattered throughout Italy declared in polls that they would like to vote Communist, one can rest assured that a regime communist party would be present in the elections.

Also in the 2022 there is the no vax vote race, because the combined slaughter of the whole parliament, fake opposition of Meloni included, it's incredible. So don't be fooled, do not vote for any party already 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 is full of them at the top.

The propaganda of the pink quotas has gone so far as to create an unjustified barrier, there are many cases of incapable women put 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 understand this then explain why they are not there, in addition to the pink quotas, the quotas also for trans, etc.

Finally, the count that I have done over the elect, on abstentions etc., also it applies to the regional elections, municipal, and European.

Net of all the speeches, the most democratic electoral system is actually the proportional system with an adequate barrier, which is usually the 5% by name, but a system without quotas except for national minorities .

The current Italian electoral system is, on the other hand, unconstitutional because it is the draft of what 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, he got himself elected President of the Republic by those who were not elected, therefore illegally.

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 them to be arrested, nothing will happen.

I no longer believe in Italy, born of fraud and living in fraud, and I am also sure that Italy no longer exists, those who claim to be the Italian institutions are simply elected with fraud and illegal laws.

And since Italy no longer exists, I work only for the Plan Z.