New answers tagged

1

A first past the post voting system mathematically guarantees a two party system. The people in charge of deciding how voting happens are the people in power. Assuming you're one of the two biggest parties, you have no reason to want to remove the means by which your power is perpetually ensured.


8

This may be a ridiculous suggestion, but it's possible that not all politicians are cynical. 😉 The question's premise is that Proportional Representation would be in the Labour Party's selfish interest, and other answers have looked at whether that premise is true. But even if it was true, that might not be sufficient reason to adopt it as policy: after all,...


1

The problem is that whenever one party is in power and another isn't, the party in power is very happy with proportional representation and doesn't want to change it, and the one that isn't in power would have really liked proportional representation but doesn't have the power to change it. If power moves to the other party, suddenly both parties change ...


12

Something else to consider: People vote differently in different voting systems. Right now, a lot of people vote for either Labour or the Conservatives not because they actually want to vote for them, but because a vote for some smaller party would be "wasted" under FPTP. Under PR that's no longer a consideration and I predict you'd see a massive ...


5

Another important point is that the assumption that the 3 liberal (progressive) parties together would command a majority is flawed. The biggest problem with PR is that you tend to get many more parties running for election. For example, in the last election you would have had separate pro-Europe and anti-Europe Labour parties. You would also pick up many ...


Top 50 recent answers are included