4 ms·
I don’t think that necessarily follows; you could argue that rather it’s because states are so different that the best (national) strategy is to have a broad un
by pimlottc 3y ago
I don’t think that necessarily follows; you could argue that rather it’s because states are so different that the best (national) strategy is to have a broad uniform national platform that can appeal to the most voters. Our political (electorally and procedurally) system does not favor having a multitude of regionally distinct parties.
- hash872 3y ago>Our political (electorally and procedurally) system does not favor having a multitude of regionally distinct parties We use FPTP, which famously does favor having regionally distinct parties. Smaller parties can get outsized seats in the legislature by running up the vote in just a few districts, whereas if they had the same number of voters nationally but were spread out they'd get 0 seats. If you looked at all of the electoral systems globally and said 'pick the 1 that favors regionally distinct parties the most', it'd be FPTP. In the UK which also uses FPTP the Lib Dems got 11.5% of the vote nationally and 11 seats in the last election. The SNP got 3.8% of the vote and 48 seats