- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,747
I get your point but I don't agree with your analysis. Parties coalesce into vague left and right blocs, and you still end up with government and opposition. The only real difference resulting from PR is there is more chance that smaller parties will get seats making it more likely that coalitions will be required. This means large mainstream parties teaming up withh smaller extreme parties. Thus in Israel we have right wing religious extreme parties part of the government bloc with Likud, or (occasionally) the hairy arse lefties in coalition with labour. It is a bit like here when May had to buddy up with the DUP (doh!). Solves nothing, gives voice to extremists, plus you NEVER get what you voted for because coalitions require compromise within the government block, and compromise means going back on election promises. Of all the things that spell suicide for a British Government (especially a labour one) is going back on promises. And elsewhere PR generates weak and unstable governments and a need for a new general election every few years (Italy). I prefer the system we have, and feel that we get the governments we deserve.
I refer the Right Honourable Gentleman to my earlier answer https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?367132-Proportional-Representation&p=8962018&viewfull=1#post8962018
Of the 43 countries most often considered to be within Europe, 40 use some form of proportional representation to elect their MPs.
Unfortunately, I understand enough about the situation to know it isn't going to happen and I'm mature enough to accept it