3 ms·

A proportional system, I suspect, would be extraordinarily damaging to the UK. It's true that the current system is unfair, but it does have one critical redee

A proportional system, I suspect, would be extraordinarily damaging to the UK. It's true that the current system is unfair, but it does have one critical redeeming quality: it tends to reduce the race to a two-party system. Two-party systems are stable and generally moderate, as the winning party will be the one which successfully captures the center. Much of the historical success of the US government can be attributed to the stability afforded by its two-party system. On the other hand, consider the proportional system parliaments in other countries which are outright disasters, unable to form stable coalitions and thus unable to govern successfully for any significant length of time. Italy is the canonical example.

rwmj 11y ago
Naming 3 countries doesn't count as evidence.
- SeanLuke 11y ago
  Actually, I don't think I'm saying anything that isn't common wisdom in political science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Advantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Advantages
vidarh 11y ago
My counter-example: Norway. Coalition governments, often still minority governments, have been the norm for half a century. All of Scandinavia for that matter. For my part, I see reducing the race to a two-party system as exactly what should be avoided. It leaves the opinions of a large proportion - often a majority - of society unrepresented or overruled. As an example: The Tories now has a majority in parliament despite gaining only 36.9% of the vote. The majority of British voters does not want Tory policy. Yet it's what Britain will get. Yes, the rest disagree on what the differences should be. But a proportional system forces the parties to negotiate and find solutions that actually has majority support - the least bad solutions. I would take that over stability any day, if that was the choice. But it isn't. Unless you're going to claim that the Scandinavian countries are unstable.

rwmj 11y ago

Naming 3 countries doesn't count as evidence.

SeanLuke 11y ago
Actually, I don't think I'm saying anything that isn't common wisdom in political science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Advantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system#Advantages

vidarh 11y ago

My counter-example: Norway. Coalition governments, often still minority governments, have been the norm for half a century. All of Scandinavia for that matter. For my part, I see reducing the race to a two-party system as exactly what should be avoided. It leaves the opinions of a large proportion - often a majority - of society unrepresented or overruled. As an example: The Tories now has a majority in parliament despite gaining only 36.9% of the vote. The majority of British voters does not want Tory policy. Yet it's what Britain will get. Yes, the rest disagree on what the differences should be. But a proportional system forces the parties to negotiate and find solutions that actually has majority support - the least bad solutions. I would take that over stability any day, if that was the choice. But it isn't. Unless you're going to claim that the Scandinavian countries are unstable.