The case for First Past the Post (FPTP) has long been that it constrains minority parties, encourages the "Big Two" to build broad coalitions of support, & prevents backroom deals. I have great respect for @JohnRentoul, but I don't think any of these claims still holds. [THREAD]
1. If FPTP was meant to stop parties like UKIP wielding power, it failed spectacularly. It did, however, deny millions of UKIP voters democratic representation, fuelling hostility to Parlt. And UKIP got power without responsibility, as it never had to vote on anything contentious
2. If FPTP encourages "big tent" politics, where are Ken Clarke, Rory Stewart, Luciana Berger, Chuka Umunna & Sarah Wollaston these days? Parties have learned that they can tack to their flanks, confident that FPTP will force the electorate to follow.
3. As for post-election bargaining: is it so bad that a party with 40% of the vote should have to find allies in order to govern? I prefer this to the "pre-election" negotiations we saw in 2019, which tried to shrink the electorate's choice by getting other parties to stand down.
4. Ultimately, the case for FPTP is that it corrects the mistakes of the electorate, who keep cussedly voting for the wrong parties & refusing to give anyone an outright majority of votes. So it tops up the representation of the biggest party & quietly bins votes for smaller ones
5. But FPTP comes at a high democratic cost: it shrivels voter choice, produces wildly disproportionate results, inflates the representation of the Big Two & ignores millions of votes. If it no longer provides the benefits it promises, it's surely time to look to alternatives.
