Has been the subject of appeals in the court of law and was one of the most discussed themes of the referendum campaign. "It is a scam to voters". "No, it’s just the title of the law." At the end, to put a definitive word on the fact that the question on 4 December is not a neutral, he thought directly of the premier Matteo Renzi. Two days from the Referendum, in an interview with the Corriere della Sera, Renzi said: "When the polls were still publishable, there were some that showed how the simple reading of the question – that can happen even in the cabin – he was making a batch of at least three percentage points from No to Yes. Let’s talk about that, please, let’s not change the topic." That is, in spite of the apparent lack of interest in the matter, the premier confirmed that there had thought of it. And long before the other. The title of the law, for the law, becomes the question. And in the phase of discussion and rebounds in the commission, the house and Senate, among the many observations to the contrary, it was imposed the theme of the title of the law.
To tell the truth, the polls have not shown the given tendency to the decision last minute and on the basis of the reading of the question. The premier perhaps, however, the analysis of rumours, like that, for example, de he helped.en, that on the 7th of October, in one of the periods in which raged the battle on the text of the question, interviewed the pollsters. Result? From the analysis of Anthony Noto (Ipr) emerged clearly that the wording on the card can have a effect on the many undecided and in a rate that fluctuates between 5 and 20%. "That can actually make the difference," said Nicola Piepoli, "because one or two million votes can decide the outcome of the referendum". The head of the Ipr marketing argued thus: I would say that a question is not neutral and can have definitely an impor tant effect on the 5% of the voters. Why the five? Because the experience on surveys political-election has shown us that this is the consistency of the electorate that decides what to vote only at the last, once that is entered in the cabin, on the basis of what she sees and reads: the symbols, the names. It is clear that the framing of questions so places has its own weight: why one should say "no"? Reading uncritically, that type of wording is clear, however, why one should vote yes".
And after the interview with the Courier, Renzi is back on the question in his appointment on facebook #matteorisponde. How to attract the attention of the electorate still undecided on precisely what. "I would have loved to have more ballot papers", the famous top, "and I would have preferred honestly. It would have been a Yes or a No is more aware of its citizens, but unfortunately we have not been able to do because the current law does not allow that. In '74 it is voted on divorce, not on Pannella, in the same way, this referendum is not about me, nor on the government but on the future of your children."
A demonstration that the government concentrates on the decision of the voters at the last moment in the voting booth, there is also the release of Maria Elena Woods, during a stormy meeting with the investigators of the Pd to Zurich on the 14th of November last. The minister called on the voters skeptics to "read the question", adding: "The question is very clear and simple, so much so that, many people that fill the mouth calling citizens and not honorable, they have made controversy because it was too clear".
