I say no, we already have enough European governments with proportional representation. Shouldn’t someone open up the possibility of more decisive action?
Estimates suggest that Labour won two-thirds of the seats with a third of the vote, give or take. This prompts the usual cries of voter distortion (it also reminds us that virtually all electoral systems are not “democratic” in the naive sense). But Britain has many serious problems, and I would prefer to see one party given the decisive mandate to solve them. And I write this as someone who does not generally support Labour – virtually all my favourite British politicians are Conservatives, even if I dislike what the party has become as a whole.
Compare the British election with the recent one in France. The distribution of votes is not totally different, but the British won a landslide victory, while the French find themselves in a potentially ungovernable situation.
I like checks and balances, but the UK needs to defeat the NIMBY and fix the NHS. Now it’s Labour’s turn to try its luck. Here’s A general overview of the Labour Party’s 100-day planIt’s not exactly what I would choose (see Wooldridge at Bloomberg), but if they get two or three important things right, the regime could still be a success.
Note that The margins for winning Labour seats are extremely smallwhich means that the exercise of governmental power is subject to permanent constraints. I am not so much worried about an “elected dictatorship”. On the contrary, it might not be decisive enough.
Another consideration is that the proportional representation system in the UK could result in the rise of some Islamic party, of course with minority status. I fear that this will damage democratic debate rather than improve it, and perhaps even hinder the assimilation of immigrants. I do not want that to happen, and so this is one more reason why the UK should not move to a proportional representation system.
The post office Public relations for the UK? first appeared on Marginal REVOLUTION.
