Talk:2020 Italian constitutional referendum

Party positions should be updated
Democratic Party and Forza Italia should switch positions on the table will more current reporting Bergmanucsd (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)bergmanucsd

Abstentionism and quorum
The article doesn't underline the absence of a quorum and that the referendum passed with an affluence to vote of a scarsely 53.84%. A half of the having right to vote didn't presented to the polling stations or gave up to their to vote for the the most relevant Constitutional reform in the Italian Republican history.

And we can define as "the most important", given that it introduces a blunt cut of more that 30% of the number of the elected member of the Parliament in what the Constitution defines to be a Parliamentary Republic. There are very few sources available to cite it in the WP article, because the Italian press is presenting that 53.84% as a positive data, in an unidirectional way.Philosopher81sp (talk) 22:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. With 53% it would have passed the "quorum". --Ritchie92 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That, and it honestly is a tiny change compared to the huge consequences the Renzi referendum would have had on the italian system. --Aréat (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * the impact of the reform has eventually to be seen in the next months. There wasn't a quorum and the referendum passed with a percentage of astensionism of around 50% of people having the right to vote. The official data for the affluence to vote was 53.84% (source: 'Corriere della Sera). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philosopher81sp (talk • contribs)


 * And so? I don't understand: a majority of Italians voted at this referendum, not too many, but not too few (the 2001 referendum had a turnout of 33%). There was no quorum needed, but if there was one, the referendum would have also be valid because 53% is larger that 50%, and it's not a "scarce" percentage. So what is your objection? If the rule says that there is no quorum for such referendum, it means that even if only one person had voted, it would have been legally valid. Based on this, could you explain what is the change that you want to make to the article? --Ritchie92 (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

"This was the second time in Italian history a constitutional referendum was successful"
what about 1946? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.196.12.156 (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)