Quote:
Originally Posted by Angua
Why do we need clear winners elected by a minority? What makes that either strong or stable? All it produces is parties ignoring the majority simply because they have hit that magic number of seats in parliament. They don't have to listen to or appeal to the majority, just sway the voters in marginal constituencies. Most seats just do not matter.
Consensus governments have to plan long term, minority parties can get votes/MPs which make the ruling coalition aware of problems, rather than riding roughshod over the electorate because they can easily ignore dissent.
|
Don't forget that most Governments also attempt to redefine the constituency boundaries to make them "fairer" which strangely ends up with the chance of a few more seats for the incumbent administration.
---------- Post added at 15:00 ---------- Previous post was at 14:51 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
Well, partly correct. However, you may have a coalition which has the support of the majority of the population, but is as weak as the current government because although the numbers add up, every decision has to be put off, diluted or abandoned to get cross party support.
Look at the series of weak governments Italy has had to put up with over the years. We don't want that here.
|
You are falling, perhaps deliberately, into the trap of presenting extreme examples of the scenario you wish to attack.
You forget that there is a spectrum of choice between what we have now and the failed Italian administrations I think you're referring to.