This is completely wrong. In PR, unlike FPTP, to hold power you have to get a majority of the seats, and to get a majority of the seats you have to get a majority of the vote. PR doesn’t mean the end of majority governments — it’s the beginning. /1
What it does mean, typically tho not always, is government by multi-party coalitions. “Minority governments,” where one party, lacking a majority of either seats or votes, nevertheless tries to nerve its way through, alone, by sheer brinksmanship, are a thing only in FPTP. /2
They’re inherently unstable, but it’s wrong to associate them with PR, not only because minority governments — as opposed to coalitions — don’t tend to happen under PR, but because the political incentives implied by the two systems are totally different…. /3
Minority govts (FPTP) are unstable because it only takes a swing of a few points in the popular vote to make a major change in seats.
So everyones’s got their finger on the button the whole time: whoever’s up in the polls is looking for any excuse to trigger an election. /4
So everyones’s got their finger on the button the whole time: whoever’s up in the polls is looking for any excuse to trigger an election. /4
Whereas under PR, there’s no such “leverage”: a small change in the vote for each party only means a small change in the number of seats it gets. So there’s no point in triggering a snap election. Instead, people get on with governing. /5
There’s no tendency for PR countries to have more frequent elections. It’s a myth, along with the others discussed here… nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew… /6
And here… nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew… /7
And here… nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew… /8
And here… nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew… /9
