A few people have expressed the objection to PR that it might lead
to BNP MPs (I think twelve is the figure currently being bandied
around). Rather than repeat my responses to that each time someone
says it:
- Some of the BNP votes may be protest votes. The BNP
vote might very well turn out to be less in a situation where they might
actually get seats.
- FPTP doesn’t actually possess some magical anti-BNP
property. It just happens not to give them any MPs because of the
way their support is currently spread. That situation isn’t
guaranteed to persist.
- Choosing an electoral system to disadvantage a specific party
is fundamentally dishonest. There are lots of better reasons
people say they like FPTP, even if they aren’t persuasive to me. (I
know this is the Internet and so everyone who disagrees is assumed to
be arguing in bad faith, but let’s ignore that for a moment.)
- A handful of ineffectual extremist MPs publicly making idiots
of themselves is a reasonable price for a fair voting system
(whatever you think a fair voting system looks like).
I think that as well as being predisposed to
ineffectiveness, the other parties would tend to cooperate to deny
them any real power (because supporting them would be
electoral poison).
Arguably we already have some extremists (of various kinds)
in Parliament already, you just don’t find out they’re an extremist
until they make a politically unwise outburst.
Is this academic, since the most we’ll get is a referendum on AV
(which is electoral reform but isn’t PR)? Maybe, but I think that
even a lost referendum would keep the electoral reform debate open in
the medium term, so (if extremist support remains near current levels)
the point will remain relevant.
I need a politics userpic.