L'Economist si schiera per il Mattarellum "all'inglese" ...

Yes or No?
Britain’s voting system has its flaws: the reform on offer on May 5th does not fix them
...
We would not support undiluted PR, which often means party barons choose who forms a government, and (as in Israel and Germany) hands too much power to small parties. But a dose of PR, to elect, say, a fifth of MPs, would go a long way towards correcting the current system’s unfairness—especially if the top-up MPs were selected on a regional basis. In Scotland, where over 40% of the seats are chosen this way, there has been a string of minority or coalition governments. We would stick with FPTP for all but 20% of the seats to increase the likelihood of strong, accountable governments. Call the combination “FPTP Plus”.

For supporters of constitutional reform, such as this newspaper, these are good times. The previous government introduced a freedom of information act. An overhaul of the House of Lords is under way. But this referendum is a disappointment. AV would not be a disaster, but it would not be an improvement either; and although we are reformers by instinct, we do not believe in change for change’s sake. The Economist would therefore vote No.
http://www.economist.com/node/18621028?story_id=18621028