I say no, we have enough European governments with equal representation already. Shouldn’t someone allow for the possibility of decisive action?
Estimates suggest Labor won two-thirds of the seats with one-third of the vote, more or less. So that creates a general cry of voter misrepresentation (reminding us again that almost all electoral systems are not “democratic” in the abstract sense of that term). But Britain has many serious problems, and I would like to see one party given the ultimate authority to deal with them. And I write that as someone who isn’t entirely committed to the Labor Party – almost all of my favorite British politicians are Tories, even if I don’t like what that party is as a whole.
Compare the British and recent French elections. The distribution of votes was not completely different, but the British had a “landfall,” while the French had an uncontrollable situation.
I like checks and balances, but the UK needs to get over NIMBY and fix the NHS. Now it’s Labour’s turn to try. Here is a broad outline of the 100-day plan for Labor. Not exactly what I’d choose (see Wooldridge at Bloomberg), but if they get two or three big things right the regime could still be successful.
Note that the margin of seats for the winners is very low, which means that there is a continuous loophole in the exercise of government power. I’m not so worried about “elected dictatorship.” If anything, it may not be decisive enough.
Another consideration is that UK PR could eventually mean the rise of a Muslim group of some kind, albeit a small one. I suspect that will do more harm than good to democratic discourse in Britain, and perhaps prevent immigration. I don’t want that to happen, so that’s another reason why the UK shouldn’t switch to a PR system.
Post UK PR? appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION.
Source link