13 May 2010

Why FPTP Stinks, Another Reply To Tom Harris

Tom, your seat is so safe it is bad for democracy. I'm sure you don't think your seat is safe because of you, do you? You and I both know that anyone could win that seat for Labour unless they were a mass murderer or something (even then they might hold on). Don't you think it funny that the biggest defenders of FPTP tend to come from seats like yours?

Anyway, what do you think of the graph showing a correlation between the seats the largest party wins and higher government debt? Also the Harvard study showing that PR run countries are more equal (which in turn means less crime, less social problems, better environment and a better quality of life). Basically FPTP produces higher government debt and more inequality, lower turnout and lower political engagement, worse public services and higher corruption. Nobody should defend this, especially those supposedly on the left.

1 comment:

  1. And on top of all that, FPTP also creates an artificial polarisation. You'd think from that map that there are no Labour supporters in any of the English shire counties, and no Tories in the conurbations. Neither of those things is true, and all those people are effectively disenfranchised. But Tom Harris doesn't care about that. He more or less admitted on telly the other day that all he cares about is the Labour Party. That kind of "my party right or wrong" dinosaur tribalism is what has to change if Labour is ever to seem relevant again.