One Vote, Several Parliaments: An Empirical Analysis of the Algorithmic Ambiguity of the Italian Electoral Law on the 2022 General Election Data

Paolo Coppola

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2607.11676

One Vote, Several Parliaments: An Empirical Analysis of the Algorithmic Ambiguity of the Italian Electoral Law on the 2022 General Election Data

Paolo Coppola

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Crafa's algorithmic analysis of the Italian electoral law (the "Rosatellum") showed that the statutory text describing the territorial distribution of proportional seats (Art. 83(1)(h)) admits at least three different algorithmic interpretations, which may elect different people from the same votes. We test that conclusion empirically: we implement the full seat-allocation pipeline of the law (Arts. 77, 83, 83-bis, 84, 85) and run the three interpretations on the complete open data of the 2022 Italian general election (Chamber of Deputies). The implementation reproduces the official national apportionment exactly, matches by name 389 of the 391 seats it models (99.5%), and agrees step by step with the official minutes. On these validated data, the sequential interpretation (Algorithm A) is order-dependent: reversing the processing order of the constituencies replaces 6 deputies with 6 others, and 1,000 random orders produce 560 distinct outcomes; a near-exhaustive sweep of 15 million orders closes the set of order-contingent deputies at 140, while 764 of the 1,139 candidates of the admitted lists (67%) are elected under no order at all. In 29% of the sampled orders A also strands seats it cannot assign by any rule stated in the text, and in a further 9% it fills the Chamber with a different party composition. The interpretation applied in practice (Algorithm C) is order-independent, provably so in the absence of ties, but differs from A by 8 deputies. Under the Mattarella-style interpretation (Algorithm B) the documented order leaves two seats unassignable, and 46% of sampled orders strand one to three seats. A Monte Carlo analysis shows the named differences robust to input noise well beyond the residual uncertainty of the data: the ambiguity changes which persons are elected and in which territories, and leaves party strength untouched only where the text's procedure completes.

Explore related subjects

cs.CY cs.GT

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Paolo Coppola. 2026-07-13. One Vote, Several Parliaments: An Empirical Analysis of the Algorithmic Ambiguity of the Italian Electoral Law on the 2022 General Election Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.11676

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Work, Wellbeing, and Choice: Empirical Lessons for AI Futures

Advances in AI-driven automation have raised questions about how humans might find wellbeing in a world where paid employment is less necessary or less available than before. Paid work has been variously characterized as both a contributor and an impediment to human wellbeing. What is already known about the relationship between paid work and wellbeing? What factors influence wellbeing among people who do not work---or who do not need to work? And how might these factors bear upon prospective AI-induced economic transformations? To help provide empirical grounding for these questions, we survey the psychological, sociological, and economic literature that investigates the relationship between wellbeing and work. We draw on evidence from multiple populations, including the unemployed, retirees, lottery winners, and financially dependent spouses. This comparative review draws from studies across OECD countries, China, India, and Gulf states. We identify three key factors that mediate the relationship between work status and wellbeing: (1) agency and choice---whether the exit from work is voluntary or involuntary, as well as long-term agency; (2) the availability of alternative sources of work's latent benefits---such as volunteering, hobbies, or state-provisioned employment; and (3) social and systemic context---including cultural norms around work and the robustness of social safety nets. We draw on these three factors to derive specific implications for different AI automation scenarios, connecting the empirical evidence to concrete policy considerations.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

From Digital Accountability to Accountable Digitality Through Needs-Aware Information Systems: The Case of Auditable Child-Welfare Judgments

Digital accountability research asks how digital systems can, among other aims, be made transparent, explainable, auditable, contestable, and supportive of ongoing learning and improvement. This paper reverses the question: how can digital transformation make established human institutions more accountable? It theorizes this reversal as accountable digitality and specifies needs-aware information systems as the mediating mechanism. The hard and paradigmatic case is child-welfare judgment, where best-interest procedures must protect children, preserve confidentiality, and respect judicial independence while enabling aggregate learning about needs, reasons, exceptions, and disparities. The case is used diagnostically and illustratively to derive and examine the design logic, not as empirical evidence or validation. Conceptual design-oriented analysis decomposes and recombines digital and legal accountability under child-rights constraints, deriving a canonical theory-to-design chain, contingent mechanisms, implications, and safeguards. It advances IS responsibility and ethics research by showing how privacy-preserving, co-created, needs-aware information systems can support institutional self-knowledge and auditable justice.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

(Whose defaults?) Is artificial intelligence reorienting archaeological methods?

Generative AI and the practice of "vibe coding" are changing how archaeologists carry out computational research, but their effects on the discipline's range of methods is still understudied. In this paper, we evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) are narrowing the variety of methods archaeologists use. We first analysed approximately 119,000 archaeology abstracts from Scopus, covering publications from 2010 to 2025. Using a locally run LLM, we identified the computational methods reported in each abstract and organised them into 25 broad categories (L2) and 241 finer clusters (L3). A Bayesian Dirichlet-multinomial model of method composition within sub-disciplines found a small but credible shift in method use after 2023. However, this shift was smaller than the variation already present across the full study period. No individual technique showed a significant change, and overall methodological diversity increased rather than declined. We then ran a controlled experiment to see whether LLMs recommend a narrower set of methods than archaeologists have used in practice. Two different open-weight models were asked to suggest methods for 28 archaeological research problems, with prompts providing three levels of methodological guidance: novice, intermediate, and expert. Recommendation diversity was much lower than in the published literature, particularly without methodological guidance. The models also tended to favour methods that were widely used before 2023, and their recommendations more closely resembled the post-2023 literature. Taken together, these results are consistent with LLMs pushing methodological choice towards convergence, although our study cannot establish a causal effect. They raise a broader question: how can archaeology retain methodological diversity as LLMs become more involved in research?

cs.CY↗