One of the most common arguments against
proportional representation is that it potentially allows extremist groups or
parties to gain a foothold in elected bodies.
That is undeniably true; to the extent to which an extremist party
enjoys public support, it will gain representation in a fair voting system. But designing an electoral system around the
need to exclude certain viewpoints from winning seats doesn’t strike me as
being either a legitimate design criterion or the best way of countering
extremism. It is the ideas which need to
be confronted and dealt with, not the electoral expression of those ideas.
Current political circumstances also cast
considerable doubt about whether it’s only a proportional system which allows a
platform to extreme groups. What the Brexiteers
have shown is that if a small faction manages to seize control of an existing
political party, they can impose their will on the majority by gaining only
around 30-35% of the vote. Even better
(from their point of view), using such an approach means that they are likely
to ‘inherit’ a fair proportion of the existing vote for that party as a result
of electoral inertia, so they don’t even need to win the argument for their
viewpoint.
What the Brexiteers in the Tory Party have
shown us is that we need to change the system which gives total power
on the basis of a minority of the votes, as can all too easily happen with
first-past-the-post; gerrymandering the system itself to exclude extremists doesn’t
always work.
Posts
1 comment:
Mrs Thatcher built huge majorities on a minority of the vote, she realised early on that you don't need a majority of votes, just the largest minority. With the opposition divided its easy to secure a 100 majority in the commons on as little as 32% of the vote. Boris divide and rule while claiming to unite and heal is a well trod path.
Post a Comment