Sunday 8 and Monday June 9, 2025 Italian citizens entitled to vote are called to participate in 5 Referendum abrogativethat is, those referendums that allow you to eliminate in part or completely of the laws. The referendums in question concern the Work and obtaining the Italian citizenship. In the last period, whoever is against the referendum is doing Campaign for abstentioninviting citizens not to go to vote. This strategy, however critical, is quite common and has been used several times by parties Of different political orientation.
Invite to abstention if you are against the referendum, however, in addition to making democratic participation useless and waste public money, can lead to paradoxical situationsfavoring the victory of the “yes” if the quorum was still reached. We see it in this article.
What is an abrogative referendum and what the quorum is for
The abrogative referendum is a tool of direct participation provided for by the Constitution. Through the referendum, those who have the right to vote can ask to eliminate (or “repeal”) totally or partially one law Voting “yes” to eliminate it and “no” to keep it in force.
In order for the result to be valid, however, the “quorum“, That is, it must vote more than half of those entitled to vote, or 50% plus a person. In Italy, this means that at least 25 million votes are needed to consider the result of the referendum valid. If the quorum is reached and the majority voted “Yes”, The law he comes gate. In any other case, everything remains exactly how it is.
THE’intention Behind the quorum is of do not allow to one minority of the population of cancel a law Approved by Parliament, which in representative democracies like ours, represents the will of the majority of the population.
Precisely for the presence of the quorum, however, in the last 28 years Almost all the repeal referendums established have not had any effect. From 1997 to today, in fact, the quorum was Once only once: in 2011, with a turnout of 55%, with the vote on nuclear power and public water, two very felt themes.
Precisely because it is so difficult to reach the quorum, the more used strategy from opposite the elimination of the law is of invite toabstention: not voting, you do not reach the quorum and the referendum is not valid. The problem of this strategy is that it could lead to a paradox. Inviting the “no” to abstention could make “yes” win even if they are in the minority in the population. Let’s see how.
Suggesting abstention can win the yes: the paradox
Let’s imagine an abrogative referendum for which the 45% of the population would vote “Yes“And the 55% it would vote “No“. If everyone went to vote, the referendum would reach the quorum and the result would represent exactly the will of votersbecause the “no” would win decisively.
Let’s imagine now that an intense is made countryside For suggest To anyone who wants to vote “No” Of abstain from the vote. This campaign is so convincing that, of 55% of the population that would vote “no”, the 49% actually decides to refrainwhile the il 6% still goes to vote.
And it is here that the paradox takes place: the day of the referendum will go to the polls 45% Of “Yes“And the”6%” Of “No”, Leaving out 49% of” No “. I voterstherefore, will have reached the 51% (49% of “yes” and 6% of “no”) of the populationthus overcoming the quorum e making the result valid of the referendum. Among those who went to vote, however, the “yes” are the overwhelming majority (even 88.2% of the voters) and therefore the law will be repealeddespite the majority of the population, he would have liked to keep it.
Suggest abstention as a valid alternative to “no” leads us to a paradox! Abstention can reduce The Total number of votersbut if the turnout exceeds the quorum anyway, they will win the “yes”, exactly the opposite of what the abstentions wanted to obtain.
So why do you campaign for abstention?
The abstention makes the referendum useless
Despite this paradox, suggesting abstention is theeasier alternative For whom it is opposite to the referendum. This is because, for issues that involve a minority of the population or that are perceived as more “technical” (as has occurred in the last referendum), the percentage Of uncertain And abstains will already be very high leaving. So, we often find ourselves in a situation in which the percentage of “Yes“It is around the 30% of the population e Not al 45% as in our example of before. By inviting the “no” to abstain, therefore, you can be sure that the quorum is not reached. Those who are against the referendum will not even need to campaign to assert their reasons: just limit themselves to make the referendum useless.
All this, however, has a cost. The Ministry of the Interior has estimated that indirect and manage an abrogative referendum has costs that may vary between 100 and 400 million euros. Just to avoid making this investment of public money useless, you have been discussing for some time on the need for vary the quorum thresholdor even of remove it. This discussion is not illegitimate, nor antidemocratic. In fact, not all democratic countries in the world use our own quorum, and, for some, the quorum does not even exist. In Europe the countries that, like us, have a quorum between 30% and 50% are only: Netherlands, Bulgaria, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia, Hungary, Latvia. In addition, a 2009 research showed that, in countries where there is the quorum Of participation, abstention is well higher that in those in which it does not exist.
According to this research:
The participation quorums induce the voters that oppose the changes of the status quo (…) to refrain rather than vote. Consequently, i quorum Of participation have theparadoxical effect Of diminish there electoral participation.
