Unpopular parties may still win with First Past The Post

First Past The Post means we must vote for a party we don't like. Parliament is not a court: Politics is not about choosing the best laws, it is about protecting interests. If Parliament were a court, then it would be in the interests of the voter to choose the most able candidate, of any party. But instead voters select their representative along partisan lines.

Because the Government has the "right" to transfer, and spend, wealth, voting becomes a matter of gaining the most from the outcome. It is not question of choosing the best laws, but of choosing the balance of a boundary dispute. This is not judgement, it is an instinct; the quality of local candidates does not matter.

So that the majority is not able to exploit the minority, it is best to have proportional representation. To avoid a landslide.

If power transfers to one party, exclusively, the rest of the population is at their whim. With a majority, they rule absolutely. Proportional Representation would mean that even the dominant parties would be required to compromise when in power. And voters would be better able to ensure that the party (philosophy) that they support is heard. Many votes go to the main parties that are cast by persons that do not share complete agreement with the party. Cast reluctantly, with regret in the hope that the recipient, the party, does not act too far outside the expectations of the voter. The vote is cast not with enthusiasm but with a sense of duty, loyalty. We are not able to reject both extremes. We choose one or other ruler, not the party of our choice, from a wide selection. Since we must choose one, we are still vulnerable to their idiosyncrasies.

If Parliament is not representative of the votes cast, it means that the interests of the parties, and Government takes precedence. Parties are able to offer a very narrow choice and yet still get elected. It does not cater for a plurality. If the choice is narrowed to two parties we must make a compromise.

Not quite a Hobson's choice but almost. The country is Governed by one or the other party, no matter if they share common faults.


Proportional Representation leads to better outcomes because there is greater pressure on the parties to improve; there are other places for the votes to go. Bad policies (parties) go unpunished because the voter has no choice but to remain loyal, to keep the other out. We would vote for freedom but we have a dogmatic electoral system. It would be a waste.

We can't vote our principles because we are obliged to vote for the party that will keep the feared opposition out.