Italy’s proposed electoral reform is advancing quickly through Parliament, with the government aiming for an initial approval before the summer. The bill, strongly associated with majority figures including Galeazzo Bignami, is designed to replace the current electoral system with a proportional model corrected by a significant “majority bonus” intended to improve governmental stability.
At the heart of the debate is the so-called bonus mechanism, which would grant up to 70 additional seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate to the winning party or coalition. The bonus would be triggered if a political force reaches at least 40% of the vote. If no party reaches that threshold, a runoff between the top two coalitions could take place, provided both exceed 35%. Otherwise, seats would be distributed proportionally without any bonus.
Supporters of the reform argue that the system is compatible with constitutional principles and designed to avoid excessive fragmentation in Parliament. According to constitutional scholar Giovanni Guzzetta, the proposal broadly remains within the framework set by Italy’s Constitutional Court, especially because the threshold requirements help prevent disproportionate outcomes. Government representatives also claim that the actual impact of the bonus is smaller than it appears, since part of the seats would already be allocated proportionally to the winning coalition.
However, criticism from other constitutional experts is significant. Some argue that the size of the bonus may be excessive and could reintroduce concerns previously raised by the Constitutional Court in past electoral laws.
A particularly sensitive issue is the election of the Senate, which the Constitution requires to be based on regional representation. Critics question whether a nationally allocated bonus can be legitimately redistributed at regional level without violating this principle.
Additional concerns relate to potential inconsistencies in outcomes, where the system could either fail to produce a clear majority or, conversely, grant an overly large parliamentary advantage depending on vote distribution.
This uncertainty has fuelled debate over whether the reform truly enhances democratic stability or risks distorting representation, balancing the desire for governance with fairness.