Hacker News Reader

Comment by galangalalgol | Hacker News Reader

First past the posts for a nationwide position (president) ensures two party polarization even without any external influences (and there are many). In the UK (and Canada) you use fptp for the lower house but due to regional differences that can still create multiple parties and more viewpoints within parties. Regional differences get obliterated with a nationwide fptp position, making every act of compromise a betrayal.

View on HN

It's not perfect in the UK, I suspect we could have avoided Brexit with a proportional system.

oh it’s far from perfect. it’s better, though

Whether that is a good thing or depends on whether you were in favour of Brexit or against.

I actually think we would have got Brexit faster. Cameron decided on the referendum because the Conservatives were losing voters to UKIP. With proportional representation voters would have turned into seats much more effectively. UKIP for 13% of the vote in 2015 - with proportional representationism they would have been the third biggest party.

On the other hand the Lib Dems would have been stronger under PR. That could have put a lid on it.

They would have had more seats, but would have taken them almost entirely from other pro-EU parties.

Remember this was at pretty much the peak of support for the EU among MPs and the big parties - that is why Cameron thought he would win the referendum.

Labour had become firmly pro-EU, except for a few old socialists like Dennis Skinner. The Conservative euro-sceptics were still a small group. The SNP was doing very well. The SNP alone would have had about 25 fewer seats under PR and that alone have wiped out about half the gain the Lib Dems would have had.

>Labour had become firmly pro-EU

Barely, their leader at the time had been criticising the EU for a long time and I'm still not convinced he voted remain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com