3 ms·
That argument would apply equally well to discarding FPTP and retaining a monarch (or a dictator) at the top. A strong leader is definitely stable, so if that'
by elyobo 7y ago
That argument would apply equally well to discarding FPTP and retaining a monarch (or a dictator) at the top. A strong leader is definitely stable, so if that's the key metric an FPTP system is still not a winner.
PR certainly increases the power of minorities (but only in proportion to their support among voters) vs a FPTP system in which those voters are not represented at all; this can be both positive or negative (if NZ's system was implemented here in Australia, both the Greens and One Nation would have far more representation here, and the two major parties would be far weaker).
I'm not convinced that this is a bad thing. Where there is no representation people may justifiably resort to other means and that's hardly stable either. NZ's experience with MMP has been largely positive.
> It is truly bizarre that this is always one of the things that people recommend when it is well understood it would have the opposite effect from intended.
It may be that it's often recommended because this is not necessarily the case at all; however, I don't know the specifics of the UK setup and so whether it would be helpful _now_.
I think it's hard to argue that a less representative system is not also less democratic, so hopefully whatever is holding you back over there can be sorted out somewhere down the line.
- hogFeast 7y ago> That argument would apply equally well to discarding FPTP and retaining a monarch (or a dictator) at the top. That is ridiculous argument. That is like saying you will cut your hair with a lawnmower if you can't find a pair of scissors. The difference between democracy and monarchy is voting. > NZ's experience with MMP Yes, there is almost a century of experience here buddy. I did not say, in fact I said the opposite repeatedly, that it doesn't work in every case (I am seeing that nuance is something you struggle with). It does work given certain conditions. The primary one being a homogeneous society (if you deign to crack open a book on this, this is taught in pretty much every politics class...even in high schools): that works in New Zealand, it works in Denmark...in Austria, it meant you had the far-right in govt. Not just people who were slightly to the right - it is common to call anyone on the center-right fascist these days - these were people who literally attended neo-Nazi meetings. Even in Denmark, a tremendously homogeneous society, you had people elected who called for mass deportation of Muslims...it is totally baffling that a society would actively choose to give oxygen to these people. Politics isn't optimised only for representation. That is just totally wrong. Representation is only goal amongst many (and, again, one feels that you are just totally missing the point...FPTP provides representation). Also, we understand PR perfectly. PR is used in some of our national elections. There is a very conscious understanding of FPTP though (ironically, the only time when we might have had PR was when an incumbent govt that had lost an election tried to make a deal with a smaller party to force through PR...democracy indeed).