Trudeau abandons pledge to end first-past-the-post.

[blahface]

This is infuriating. Clicky.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm more concerned about the long-term implications for Canadian politics.

Let's see:

Rise of Right wing/anti-Muslim/anti-refugee/authoritarian sentiment, and increasing political polarization (Bush/Harper).

Charismatic young Centre-Leftist Party candidate comes in promising hope and change, saving the Centre-Left (Obama/Trudeau).

Now everyone is grumbling about how he didn't live up to their hopes, and we're seeing Alt.-Rightist (i.e. white supremacist) sentiments rising (see the recent Quebec shooting as an example).

Sound familiar? Because to me, it sounds like the last 15 years of American politics, prior to Trump.

If the pattern holds, we're going to see a lot of talk about a failed Centrist establishment next election, and the moment Trudeau's gone, and someone less charismatic is running in his place (if not sooner), Canada is going to be faced with a choice between a more strongly Leftist progressive, and a Right wing demagogue. And unless the NDP can pull off a win for, like, the first time ever, guess which country is probably going to be joining the rest of the English-speaking Western world as Nazi-lite?

Consider also that Canada doesn't really have the checks and balances even that the US does (deteriorated as they are), and is systemically utterly unprepared, in my opinion, to handle that kind of thing.

Trudeau needs to stop waffling and breaking his word and give people who want reform something big, or we are going to go down a very ugly road, I think. And at the same time, people who feel betrayed by Trudeau should remember: We could do much, much worse. Particularly as a dual citizen, I look South of the border and feel profoundly grateful for Justin Trudeau.

[Tribble]

Anyone with a working brain saw this coming since long before the election. Trudeau only made the promise because:

A) he wanted to sway NDP voters over to his party (which worked) and
B) He wanted to float a trial balloon for ranked ballots (though the fact that he won a majoirty quickly dampened his mood for even that).

He made it clear right from the start that he had absolutely no intention of allowing proportional representation, even if it's what the majority of Canadians wanted. The moment he won a majority it became obvious he was going to kill the reform at some point.

That sad part is this isn't the worst thing a Liberal has done electoral reform wise - a couple of months back Prince Edward Island voted via plebiscite to adopt proportional voting... and the Liberal government squashed it on account of the results not being "decisive enough".

And note that this isn't unique to the Liberal Party either - Conservatives have been known to advocate for proportional voting when they're in the dumps too, only to drop the act the moment they get into office. Only the NDP is serious about it IMO (since they suffer from FPTP the most).

[The Romulan Republic]

And I bet you the NDP would drop it if they ever started winning.

Its likely going to be damn hard to ever get any major change to an election system, because the people in power are the people who won on the current system.

Stuff like this should be put to referendums, really, to avoid the obvious conflicts of interest.

[Tribble]

And I bet you the NDP would drop it if they ever started winning.

IMO it seems like the NDP are beginning to understand that winning is the great exception rather than the rule, and are preparing to adjust their strategy accordingly. In the long run they're beginning to realise that proportional representation is better for them as they are essentially the protest party of Canada (that is, people tend to vote for them the most when they get tired of Liberals and Conservatives).

At least that's what I hope.

Its likely going to be damn hard to ever get any major change to an election system, because the people in power are the people who won on the current system.

Stuff like this should be put to referendums, really, to avoid the obvious conflicts of interest.

Referendums have their own issues (just look at things like Brexit), and are not necessarily any better than having a majority party with a mandate to put the reforms through.

Besides which, virtually all research done indicated that some form of proportional representation was preferable to the current FPTP.

[Phantasee]

I, for one, am grateful that Trudeau dumped the terrible idea. We'd have seen the atomization of the existing voter coalitions under the existing parties, the reformation of those coalitions on the other end, in Parliament, and about a decade of wasted time in between as things realigned. We'd also see the rise of those extremist groups you are so convinced will come into power with a higher threshold for victory, sooner, since most PR systems have a lower threshold for election. And not just extremist groups: you would see the rise of ethnic and religious groups in Canadian politics, as various groups realize they have the votes to elect one of their own outside one of the major parties. The NDP would fall apart over their usual socialist bickering, the Conservatives and Liberals would fall apart into constituent elements, with no moderating forces on any of them because they wouldn't have to get along with one another until they got elected.

I'd rather have a strong, stable, mostly majority government (LPC or CPC, I'm fine with either) instead of making political science students happy by playing out one of their experiments in a functioning westminster democracy.

One even supposes he could have outflanked the New Democrats and just rammed through very pure proportional representation, exposing all our recognized mainstream, big-tent parties to the dissolving acid of personality cults, religious and ethnic movements, single-issue slates, and loons.

from Colby Cosh: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... was-stupid

[Tvpnbb]

I, for one, am grateful that Trudeau dumped the terrible idea. We'd have seen the atomization of the existing voter coalitions under the existing parties, the reformation of those coalitions on the other end, in Parliament, and about a decade of wasted time in between as things realigned. We'd also see the rise of those extremist groups you are so convinced will come into power with a higher threshold for victory, sooner, since most PR systems have a lower threshold for election. And not just extremist groups: you would see the rise of ethnic and religious groups in Canadian politics, as various groups realize they have the votes to elect one of their own outside one of the major parties. The NDP would fall apart over their usual socialist bickering, the Conservatives and Liberals would fall apart into constituent elements, with no moderating forces on any of them because they wouldn't have to get along with one another until they got elected.

I'd rather have a strong, stable, mostly majority government (LPC or CPC, I'm fine with either) instead of making political science students happy by playing out one of their experiments in a functioning westminster democracy.

One even supposes he could have outflanked the New Democrats and just rammed through very pure proportional representation, exposing all our recognized mainstream, big-tent parties to the dissolving acid of personality cults, religious and ethnic movements, single-issue slates, and loons.

from Colby Cosh: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comme ... was-stupid

Are you aware that there actually are a ton of countries that use PR and still function well? There are valid reasons to oppose PR but your post sounds like ignorant fearmongering.

Or do you mean that PR would be exceptionally bad specifically under Canadian circumstances, even though it may fit other countries?

[The Romulan Republic]

Election systems should ideally be simple, readily accessible and understandable to the voters, and offer the greatest practical degree of choice to the voter.

My own preference (short of outright direct democracy by referendum) would be to scrap the current system entirely, have people vote for representatives and PM/President/whatever separately, and make the outcome in both cases determined by a straight popular vote for which every adult citizen is automatically registered. But I know that's not in the cards.

Proportional does seem to be tailored to making the results more closely match the actual number of votes, though, so that's a point in its favour.

[Tribble]

Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, Finland, Norway, Ireland, Denmark etc are such terrible countries for using proportional representation. Oh wait- those also happen to be countries that are at least roughly equal if not superior to Canada when it comes to quality of life and standards of living!

The US election and Brexit have just shown rather conclusively IMO that major political parties are at least as prone (if not more so) to being hijacked by political extremism so I strongly disagree with the notion that FPTP is better in that respect.

I also disagree with the notion that proportional representation and minority governments are less stable than majority governments long term. While it's true that elections may come more often and that coalitions may change, overall it appears that coalition governments are more stable in the sense that the mainstream parties generally retain overall control. Merkel has been in charge of Germany since 2005, which is longer than your typical FPTP leader. And more importantly, minority governments tend to avoid the wild swings in policy that you see under majority governments in FPTP.

[bilateralrope]

Election systems should ideally be simple, readily accessible and understandable to the voters, and offer the greatest practical degree of choice to the voter.

How does proportional representation not fit that criteria better that electing individuals ?

Each party has their own policies. Since individual politicians only serve at the will of the party, you don't have them voting against the parties wishes. So you can treat the party as a single bloc. The more people vote for a party, the more of their agenda they get to act upon.

No need for the voter to weigh up the policies of the party against the policies of the individual on the ballot, because only the parties policies matter.

No strategic voting when you really like the individual in third place (or worse) in your district. Well, unless you're voting for a party that has very little support across the entire country.

My own preference (short of outright direct democracy by referendum) would be to scrap the current system entirely, have people vote for representatives and PM/President/whatever separately, and make the outcome in both cases determined by a straight popular vote for which every adult citizen is automatically registered. But I know that's not in the cards.

Take a set of views that have about 10% support across the entire country, but a spread evenly across the country. Does your prefered system allow them to elect anyone that supports their views ?

Or do you think that their views should be ignored ?

Proportional does seem to be tailored to making the results more closely match the actual number of votes, though, so that's a point in its favour.

It does that by saying that the individual representatives don't matter, only the parties as a whole.

We'd also see the rise of those extremist groups you are so convinced will come into power with a higher threshold for victory, sooner, since most PR systems have a lower threshold for election.

Yes, there is a lower threshold to get extremist groups into parliament under proportional representation. But, once in, they have to make a choice:
- Start pushing their policies, showing everyone what they really want, while the other parties prevent any of those policies from passing.
- Fail to push their policies.

In the former, everyone gets to see how the extremists will make things worse without them being able to do so. In the later, they get to see that the extremists aren't any different to the other parties. Either way, that will lead to less votes for the extremists in the next election.

And not just extremist groups: you would see the rise of ethnic and religious groups in Canadian politics, as various groups realize they have the votes to elect one of their own outside one of the major parties.

Why is that a problem ?

I live in New Zealand. A country that does have a party focused on one of our ethnic groups. A comparison of their election results to the maori population shows that a large number of Maori aren't voting for them because their views align with those of the other parties more than the party targeting their ethnicity.

If an ethnic group does all vote for a party that focuses on that ethnic group, doesn't that suggest that there is some problem that is effecting that ethnic group worse than everyone else ?

As for the religious parties, if one gets enough votes to get their own way on everything, that means they got a high percentage of the party vote. Which means a decent proportion of the population likes their policies. Big enough that they would probably do better in a system of electing individuals.

[Phantasee]

Are you aware that there actually are a ton of countries that use PR and still function well? There are valid reasons to oppose PR but your post sounds like ignorant fearmongering.

We'd have seen the atomization of the existing voter coalitions under the existing parties, the reformation of those coalitions on the other end, in Parliament, and about a decade of wasted time in between as things realigned.

Good for those countries. Do their PR systems encompass the second largest land area in the world, cover a young nation without a long, shared history or cultural tradition? No? Between that and the wasted decade of realignment, I'm unconvinced that the price is worth the reward.

Or do you mean that PR would be exceptionally bad specifically under Canadian circumstances, even though it may fit other countries?

Yes. We have a history of separatism in Quebec and in the West that are tamed by a strong federalist system, with strong federalist parties. Even with strong separatist movements like the Bloc Quebecois, the system has kept the country together.

This recent fad of PR and electoral reform only came about because the Liberals ran trash campaigns and couldn't beat Harper and the Conservatives for a decade. Now that they've regained their "natural governing party" confidence they're fine with the existing system. Cynical and self-serving? Yes. But they obviously can take the Conservatives out if they don't suck, so as far as I'm concerned the system works. When the Liberals suck, the Conservatives win. When the Liberals don't suck, they win. Keeps the government on an even keel, and keeps the godless socialists in the NDP out of government.

[Tribble]

Are you aware that there actually are a ton of countries that use PR and still function well? There are valid reasons to oppose PR but your post sounds like ignorant fearmongering.

We'd have seen the atomization of the existing voter coalitions under the existing parties, the reformation of those coalitions on the other end, in Parliament, and about a decade of wasted time in between as things realigned.

Good for those countries. Do their PR systems encompass the second largest land area in the world, cover a young nation without a long, shared history or cultural tradition? No? Between that and the wasted decade of realignment, I'm unconvinced that the price is worth the reward.

Or do you mean that PR would be exceptionally bad specifically under Canadian circumstances, even though it may fit other countries?

Yes. We have a history of separatism in Quebec and in the West that are tamed by a strong federalist system, with strong federalist parties. Even with strong separatist movements like the Bloc Quebecois, the system has kept the country together.

This recent fad of PR and electoral reform only came about because the Liberals ran trash campaigns and couldn't beat Harper and the Conservatives for a decade. Now that they've regained their "natural governing party" confidence they're fine with the existing system. Cynical and self-serving? Yes. But they obviously can take the Conservatives out if they don't suck, so as far as I'm concerned the system works. When the Liberals suck, the Conservatives win. When the Liberals don't suck, they win. Keeps the government on an even keel, and keeps the godless socialists in the NDP out of government.

FPTP can just as prone to regionalism as other voting methods. In the 1990s the separatist Bloc Quebecois captured the 2nd highest number of seats and formed the official opposition, even though their entire campaign was focused exclusively in Quebec and they had considerably less total votes than both the Conservatives and the Reform Party. But hey, better to have separatists as the "loyal opposition" than those godless socialists, right?


We have also seen similar things in the UK with the Scottish National Party.

[Tribble]

And speaking of the "godless socialist" NDP, it was FPTP that allowed them to win 62% of the seats in Alberta (the most Conservative province in the country) in the last election despite only having 40% of the vote. If proportional representation were in place I highly doubt they would have won that majority.

[Phantasee]

And speaking of the "godless socialist" NDP, it was FPTP that allowed them to win 62% of the seats in Alberta (the most Conservative province in the country) in the last election despite only having 40% of the vote. If proportional representation were in place I highly doubt they would have won that majority.

I'm okay with them winning a majority in Alberta, because FPTP is great for tossing governments out. They get an ineffective four years in government and then we'll toss them out once the conservative movement figures its shit out.

Changes in government are good, in small doses. FPTP does that, in Canada. It also gives us majority governments, which is great for the purposes of blame and responsibility. Can't blame coalition partners if you've got 62% of seats!

[Phantasee]

(I'm in Edmonton, by the way)

[Tribble]

I'm okay with them winning a majority in Alberta, because FPTP is great for tossing governments out. They get an ineffective four years in government and then we'll toss them out once the conservative movement figures its shit out.

Except that if it weren't for FPTP they wouldn't have gotten in with a majority, and thus you wouldn't have needed to toss them out in the first place. Or at the very lest the "damage" they could have inflicted would be much less given that they wouldn't have had the majority required to pass everything through without opposition. It would be a far more moderate change of government than what you got.

Btw what is the general impression of the Alberta NDP to residents there? By most measures they would be on the right wing of the political spectrum in Ontario.

And again, FPTP does not prevent regionalism. Even excluding groups like the Bloc Quebecois, the Conservatives are generally seen as most representing "Western Canada" while the Liberals / NDP are more seen as representing "Central / Eastern Canada."

Changes in government are good, in small doses. FPTP does that, in Canada. It also gives us majority governments, which is great for the purposes of blame and responsibility. Can't blame coalition partners if you've got 62% of seats!

As I've said earlier, FPTP can case massive swings in policy that outweigh any of those potential advantages. It also seems to start a pendulum going, in the sense that with each swing of majority government the differences between the parties tends to become bigger.

[Phantasee]

Except that if it weren't for FPTP they wouldn't have gotten in with a majority, and thus you wouldn't have needed to toss them out in the first place. Or at the very lest the "damage" they could have inflicted would be much less given that they wouldn't have had the majority required to pass everything through without opposition. It would be a far more moderate change of government than what you got.

A more moderate change in government assumes there would be more moderate options. The Liberals and Alberta Party are ineffective and small (the former has shrunk to a party incapable of fielding candidates in nearly half of Alberta, the latter incapable of mounting a real provincial campaign outside one riding). The NDP, while also incapable of mounting a real provincial campaign with 87 credible candidates, still won a majority (and some of those "paper" candidates are making the effort).

Btw what is the general impression of the Alberta NDP to residents there? By most measures they would be on the right wing of the political spectrum in Ontario.

This is absurd. Other than the political and economic reality of being pro-pipeline and resource development being at odds with their NDP cousins across Canada, they are firmly on the left side of the national spectrum. Alberta is only conservative relative to the Canadian spectrum, but even then, we're centre-right.

More importantly, the spectrum isn't as useful for defining provinces or even parties as people like to think. A free-enterprise coalition party is called whatever it needs to be called and self-identifies as whatever it needs to identify as based on the province and population it aims to represent. In self-described progressive British Columbia, the BC Liberals govern, as the clear alternative to the NDP. In Alberta, it was the Progressive Conservatives, and maybe the United Conservatives after 2019. In Saskatchewan, where the conservative name was ruined by Devine in the 80s, it's the Saskatchewan Party. Manitoba is still good with the Progressive Conservative name.

Where do these parties sit, relative to one another? More or less in the same place on most spectra. Free enterprise, socially progressive to a degree, fiscally conservative.

The local NDP are clearly well to the left of all of these parties, in every province, and I am confident in saying every local chapter is well to the left of the Canadian average.

General impression: many people regret their vote. In Calgary, which considers itself more conservative, it's difficult to find anyone (non-activists, non-partisans) who will admit to voting for them, despite their obvious success there (several seats, close finishes elsewhere).

In Edmonton, where they swept all the seats, it's harder to deny it. People are apologetic for their vote. They thought the PCs couldn't lose (a sentiment shared by some of the architects of our defeat), but were personally fed up or angry or upset with them, and registered this disaffection with a protest vote (and Notley did a good job of earning those, as opposed to letting them go to any party at random).

Lots of non-political people are inclined to give them a chance, but lots of policies that have shattered investor confidence, voter confidence, etc. have made it difficult for them to earn another mandate in 2019, IMO. Obviously there's a political eternity between now and the next election in spring of 2019. They may pull it out of the fire and that will certainly force a reevaluation of my personal understanding of Alberta politics and Albertans themselves.

[blahface]

And speaking of the "godless socialist" NDP, it was FPTP that allowed them to win 62% of the seats in Alberta (the most Conservative province in the country) in the last election despite only having 40% of the vote. If proportional representation were in place I highly doubt they would have won that majority.

I'm okay with them winning a majority in Alberta, because FPTP is great for tossing governments out. They get an ineffective four years in government and then we'll toss them out once the conservative movement figures its shit out.

Changes in government are good, in small doses. FPTP does that, in Canada. It also gives us majority governments, which is great for the purposes of blame and responsibility. Can't blame coalition partners if you've got 62% of seats!

What advantages does FPTP have that the alternative vote doesn't. I'm no fan of the alternative vote, but it is undeniably better than FPTP. It is still likely to turn out majority governments, but you elect someone who better represents the district.

Also, why does this have to be so party based? With approval voting they could be electing real centrist candidates and they could hold individuals accountable instead of the party.

[Tribble]

And speaking of the "godless socialist" NDP, it was FPTP that allowed them to win 62% of the seats in Alberta (the most Conservative province in the country) in the last election despite only having 40% of the vote. If proportional representation were in place I highly doubt they would have won that majority.

I'm okay with them winning a majority in Alberta, because FPTP is great for tossing governments out. They get an ineffective four years in government and then we'll toss them out once the conservative movement figures its shit out.

Changes in government are good, in small doses. FPTP does that, in Canada. It also gives us majority governments, which is great for the purposes of blame and responsibility. Can't blame coalition partners if you've got 62% of seats!

What advantages does FPTP have that the alternative vote doesn't. I'm no fan of the alternative vote, but it is undeniably better than FPTP. It is still likely to turn out majority governments, but you elect someone who better represents the district.

Also, why does this have to be so party based? With approval voting they could be electing real centrist candidates and they could hold individuals accountable instead of the party.

Both the NDP and Conservatives object to ranked ballots because there is the perception that it will lead to a never ending stream of liberal majorities, as its assumed that most NDP voters and Conservative voters will usually pick Liberals as their 2nd choice.

I'm not sure if that would actually be the case though; if a government is unpopular enough you might get a fair number of people who will rank every party above them.

A more moderate change in government assumes there would be more moderate options. The Liberals and Alberta Party are ineffective and small (the former has shrunk to a party incapable of fielding candidates in nearly half of Alberta, the latter incapable of mounting a real provincial campaign outside one riding). The NDP, while also incapable of mounting a real provincial campaign with 87 credible candidates, still won a majority (and some of those "paper" candidates are making the effort).

A minority government will usually be more moderate as it cannot simply ram through whatever legislation it likes.

I would have less issues with FPTP if the provinces had a Senate and the Federal Senate actually did its damn job. Plus your local representative not being whipped to the point that for all intents and purposes we might as well get rid of them and just assign the leaders of the parties points based on how may ridings they won; that would at least save some money.

FPTP majority government + no real opportunity to review is little better than a 4-5 year dictatorship.

I'm saying this as someone who tends to vote Conservative btw.

[Coop D'etat]

I know Phant is involved with the Alberta PCs, so I have a slightly different perspective on how that election played out. It wasn't a protest vote based on the idea that the PCs couldn't lose. It was a vote based on how vulnerable the PCs looked and that there was an opportunity to kill the dynasty. People didn't want to send the PCs a message while they stayed in power, they wanted to topple the whole corrupt and arrogant edifice. The NDP ended up benefiting because they were the non-Wild Rose party that was prepared to run an election (one element of the boiling point rage about PC arrogance was running a snap election campaign when the 2nd and 3rd parties were in leadership transition). The party acted like it had such a divine mandate to rule while similaneously acting beholden to the business class and no one else under Prentice that the sentiment evolved past "punish" into "kill." What really pushed the NDP over the top is the late game realization that they had a real chance to win and dump the PCs out of office which motivated a sizeable chunk of the electorate behind them.

Frankly, its been a long time coming. Redford's election was the shot accross the bow, but they completely failed to learn the right lessons from it. Very importantly for the rise of the NDP, that so long as the Wild Rose existed, the PCs ruled on the sufference of the urban center-left vote that was prepared to drop them in a moment and that tolerance for the corruption and high-handed conduct of the PC party machine was wearing thin.


Going forward, the NDP seems to have continual low level screw-ups from not having any real experience in government or capable figures outside their leader, so its going to be difficult to pull the same coalition that put them in power back together again, plus their is an appitite in certain sectors to unite around a single right-wing candidate to restore the percieved divine right for conservatism to rule the province. At the same time though, I think the main figure pushing that union (Jason Kenney) is an outsider who doesn't quite get what severed the PCs from the Wild Rose in the first place, nor understands that there was a significant chunk of the old PC coalition that wasn't in it for conservatism as he understands it. Right now things are pretty up in the air, its still the sorting out period of where people are going to go now that the old party system is dead.

[Tribble]

I know Phant is involved with the Alberta PCs, so I have a slightly different perspective on how that election played out. It wasn't a protest vote based on the idea that the PCs couldn't lose. It was a vote based on how vulnerable the PCs looked and that there was an opportunity to kill the dynasty. People didn't want to send the PCs a message while they stayed in power, they wanted to topple the whole corrupt and arrogant edifice. The NDP ended up benefiting because they were the non-Wild Rose party that was prepared to run an election (one element of the boiling point rage about PC arrogance was running a snap election campaign when the 2nd and 3rd parties were in leadership transition). The party acted like it had such a divine mandate to rule while similaneously acting beholden to the business class and no one else under Prentice that the sentiment evolved past "punish" into "kill." What really pushed the NDP over the top is the late game realization that they had a real chance to win and dump the PCs out of office which motivated a sizeable chunk of the electorate behind them.

Frankly, its been a long time coming. Redford's election was the shot accross the bow, but they completely failed to learn the right lessons from it. Very importantly for the rise of the NDP, that so long as the Wild Rose existed, the PCs ruled on the sufference of the urban center-left vote that was prepared to drop them in a moment and that tolerance for the corruption and high-handed conduct of the PC party machine was wearing thin.


Going forward, the NDP seems to have continual low level screw-ups from not having any real experience in government or capable figures outside their leader, so its going to be difficult to pull the same coalition that put them in power back together again, plus their is an appitite in certain sectors to unite around a single right-wing candidate to restore the percieved divine right for conservatism to rule the province. At the same time though, I think the main figure pushing that union (Jason Kenney) is an outsider who doesn't quite get what severed the PCs from the Wild Rose in the first place, nor understands that there was a significant chunk of the old PC coalition that wasn't in it for conservatism as he understands it. Right now things are pretty up in the air, its still the sorting out period of where people are going to go now that the old party system is dead.

Interesting. The election in Ontario largely followed the Federal election (or rather the Federal election followed the Ontario election as it occurred earlier), in that the NDP had been steadily moving to the right and the Liberals were able to outflank them on the left over several key issues. The ballooning deficit was a big one - you know finances in Ontario are messed up when the NDP agreed with Conservatives that spending needed to be brought under control.

[jwl]

The US election and Brexit have just shown rather conclusively IMO that major political parties are at least as prone (if not more so) to being hijacked by political extremism so I strongly disagree with the notion that FPTP is better in that respect.

But the european referendum was done by PR. It would have won under an "electoral collage"-type FPTP system too, but as it was it was done under PR and leave won.

[Tribble]

The US election and Brexit have just shown rather conclusively IMO that major political parties are at least as prone (if not more so) to being hijacked by political extremism so I strongly disagree with the notion that FPTP is better in that respect.

But the european referendum was done by PR. It would have won under an "electoral collage"-type FPTP system too, but as it was it was done under PR and leave won.

The European referendum only happened because the Conservative Party was more or less hijacked by UKIP / Hard Brexit supporters and they won a "majority" government to put the referendum forward. Note that mainstream Conservatives weren't actually expecting a majority and they were hoping that particular campaign promise would be killed of with a minority government (since the other mainstream parties would have stopped the referendum legislation) but that spectacularly backfired, didn't it?

While it's true that under mixed-proportional representation you may have had similar results via a Conservative / UKIP alliance (though I have my doubts as Cameron was well known for wanting to remain in the EU and I can't see him turning to them for support over Labour, the liberal Democrats, or even the SNP), that's also kind of the point - under FPTP its just as possible for political extremism to take over a mainstream political parties, so saying that FPTP is superior because it's better at preventing political extremism is absurd.

[jwl]

The US election and Brexit have just shown rather conclusively IMO that major political parties are at least as prone (if not more so) to being hijacked by political extremism so I strongly disagree with the notion that FPTP is better in that respect.

But the european referendum was done by PR. It would have won under an "electoral collage"-type FPTP system too, but as it was it was done under PR and leave won.

The European referendum only happened because the Conservative Party was more or less hijacked by UKIP / Hard Brexit supporters and they won a "majority" government to put the referendum forward. Note that mainstream Conservatives weren't actually expecting a majority and they were hoping that particular campaign promise would be killed of with a minority government (since the other mainstream parties would have stopped the referendum legislation) but that spectacularly backfired, didn't it?

While it's true that under mixed-proportional representation you may have had similar results via a Conservative / UKIP alliance (though I have my doubts as Cameron was well known for wanting to remain in the EU and I can't see him turning to them for support over Labour, the liberal Democrats, or even the SNP), that's also kind of the point - under FPTP its just as possible for political extremism to take over a mainstream political parties, so saying that FPTP is superior because it's better at preventing political extremism is absurd.

If the last general election had been done with PR it would have ended up with a Conservative-UKIP-DUP coalition. Labour would not form a coalition with the Conservatives, the Lib Dems would not form a coalition involving UKIP, and without Labour the Conservatives would have required UKIP for a majority.

EDIT: actually no that's not true, Con-LD-SNP-Grn would have been possible. Not sure how realistic that would have been, though.

[Tribble]

But the european referendum was done by PR. It would have won under an "electoral collage"-type FPTP system too, but as it was it was done under PR and leave won.

The European referendum only happened because the Conservative Party was more or less hijacked by UKIP / Hard Brexit supporters and they won a "majority" government to put the referendum forward. Note that mainstream Conservatives weren't actually expecting a majority and they were hoping that particular campaign promise would be killed of with a minority government (since the other mainstream parties would have stopped the referendum legislation) but that spectacularly backfired, didn't it?

While it's true that under mixed-proportional representation you may have had similar results via a Conservative / UKIP alliance (though I have my doubts as Cameron was well known for wanting to remain in the EU and I can't see him turning to them for support over Labour, the liberal Democrats, or even the SNP), that's also kind of the point - under FPTP its just as possible for political extremism to take over a mainstream political parties, so saying that FPTP is superior because it's better at preventing political extremism is absurd.

If the last general election had been done with PR it would have ended up with a Conservative-UKIP-DUP coalition. Labour would not form a coalition with the Conservatives, the Lib Dems would not form a coalition involving UKIP, and without Labour the Conservatives would have required UKIP for a majority.

EDIT: actually no that's not true, Con-LD-SNP-Grn would have been possible. Not sure how realistic that would have been, though.

Although we'll never know for sure IMO Labour may have joined the Conservatives if it meant they were given the opportunity to prevent the referendum, and Cameron may very well have taken them up on it.

Either way it doesn't change my point that FPTP is no better than PR at preventing political extremism from taking control over mainstream politics, and the Brexit example still holds to that.