3 ms·
That's the wrong way around, I don't think any conventional analysis of voting systems concludes that. FPTP forces parties to the center, because they have to
by nvm0n2 3y ago
That's the wrong way around, I don't think any conventional analysis of voting systems concludes that.
FPTP forces parties to the center, because they have to be pre-formed coalitions before going to the polls. Single issue parties and fringe parties end up with nothing in FPTP.
That's why the usual argument for PR is that it allows smaller (fringe/extreme) parties to exist and have influence, so represents minorities better.
In practice this is what we see. Countries with PR often have very powerful fringe or single issue parties (often the Greens), whereas in countries with FPTP the main parties are all big tents that just represent the centre-left or centre-right.
- schneems 3y ago> with FPTP the main parties are all big tents that just represent the centre-left or centre-right. FPTP by itself might not be so bad, but combine it with primaries and you’ve got a recipe for extremism and scorched earth politics. Now throw in gerrymandering and we’ve got a wildly unrepresentative election process. Don’t get me started on the electoral college either. I’m for a national popular vote.
- tremon 3y agoFPTP essentially means that the actual government is operated as a time-limited dictatorship, since it's a winner-takes-all system. That means that once the elections are over, there is no need for actual politicking and bridge-building, the reigning champion or party can do whatever they like (according to some, even including killing their rivals /s). In multi-parliamentary systems, the politicking does not end when the elections are over.