One thing that strikes me looking at the election across the water is that FPTP is now indefensible even for its fans. It’s an active element in how things are going wrong for the UK, because it rewards polarisation and a 35%/40% strategy.
Under STV, a 40/30/20/10 split means the 40% can’t ignore the others or make itself toxic. There are multiple options to form a majority.
Under FPTP, that’s likely a majority for the 40% and being able to drive through what it wants.
That rewards playing to a polarised base.
Under FPTP, that’s likely a majority for the 40% and being able to drive through what it wants.
That rewards playing to a polarised base.
Electoral strategists aren’t dumb. Dominic Cummings is disastrous at governance, but he’s very good at this sort of electoral strategy. He’s not alone. Those whose job it is to win FPTP elections will see this and follow the strategy.
And entryists see this, too.
And entryists see this, too.
If you are an extremist in the UK, you don’t need to win as a separate party. You just need to get enough supporters in a major party to pull that party over to you. Each time they kick off, they pull one party to an extreme.
That won’t work under STV. Under the Kodos v. Kang of FPTP - you’ve got to vote or the wrong monster gets in - it works brilliantly in internal party politics. It’s precisely what the ERG have done to the Tory party. It’s what the Labour left have done to Labour.
Both at once.
Both at once.
They can do it because FPTP rewards and enables it; parties don’t split because 35% beats a 30%, a 20% and a 10%.
If a 10% in a party on 40% see that party being dragged into the mire by its extremists, splitting just lets the 35% extremists scoop the pool instead of getting an alternative representative voice in the legislature for the 10%.
Kodos v. Kang: stay and fight for your monster
Kodos v. Kang: stay and fight for your monster
Now, there comes a point where the extremists damn well deserve it. Be damned to them all. And you get to HL Mencken’s point: democracy is the theory the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. The UK electorate chose to keep this, so, good and hard.
But: there are people now trying to vote tactically, and facing the truth that in many constituencies, FPTP means they have no morally-decent choice. They cannot vote for a non-evil option, but must instead choose which minority group’s rights and fears are to be disregarded.
These people are agonising over it.
Were I in one of those minority groups, I’d be justifiably raging at them, too: what about my fears, my family, you think we’re nothing to be chucked aside for your tactics?
Problem is: avoiding that evil rewards the same evil done to others.
Were I in one of those minority groups, I’d be justifiably raging at them, too: what about my fears, my family, you think we’re nothing to be chucked aside for your tactics?
Problem is: avoiding that evil rewards the same evil done to others.
FPTP when exploited by entryists does not allow you to punish them. It means that even if you try to vote tactically to punish those extremists, you just have a choice of which set of extremists get to disregard and attack which minority. You get a Kobiyashi Maru election.
FPTP has been at the root of the UK’s state crisis: Brexit’s origin is in internal Tory party appeasement of extremists. It has failed on every supposed virtue - strong government, certainty, pull to the centre.
But, worse, it removes the ability not to reward evil actors.
But, worse, it removes the ability not to reward evil actors.
A system that leaves you with no choice but to reward those who would attach minorities is a moral disaster every bit as much as practical.
It should, must, be binned, for the sake of common decency.
It should, must, be binned, for the sake of common decency.
