Whilst it is true that if the Tories receive a landslide victory under fptp then to have pr would make little difference since the Tories would still be in power. But if to remove fptp would make a difference then it can only be to the benefit of the people since democracy itself is liberating and good for the people.
To claim that first-past-the-post makes no difference to the outcome of an election is to deny the existence of the Labour party who are considered to be the official opposition to the Tories. Labour often win and even if they don't win they receive very many votes many of which are cast in a 'tactical' fashion. For the Labour party to be in receipt of tactical votes means that a left-wing party is getting more votes than it would do with a proportional system which in itself is a problem for economic liberals. We can assume that the Labour party would do much less well with a proportional system and they would be replaced with a party approximating to the Liberal Democrats. So then fptp subjects the country to more economic collectivism than pr would. Tories who continue to support fptp in light of this fact (that it helps Labour) either do not have the interests of the country in mind or they deny that Labour do well (and beat the Tories) with fptp.
First-past-the-post is hurtful to the country because party loyalty is more of an anathema to liberals than to socialists. Fptp is better for Labour than the Tories so either the Tories are in denial of this fact or they don't care because they don't care about the fortunes of their own country.
Labour do better than the Tories under fptp so then fptp results in more economic collectivism than would be the case with a proportional system. The Tories either deny the fact in the preceding sentence (that Labour win at fptp) or they knowingly hate their own country.
No comments:
Post a Comment