- 05 Jul 2020 09:04
#15105295
Everyone talks about scrapping the first past the post system as if it's some universally agreed upon thing, as though they've never heard the argument for the system in the first place. I'm not strongly for or against it, but I'll just put a rationale for the system out there so it's on the table:
1. The first past the post system ensures that more rural localities are able to be heard. If an industrialised nation were not divided into electorates, the urbanites would have complete control over everything, and all the nation's resources would be allocated toward fixing problems in urban areas. Farmers and smaller communities should necessarily have more of a voice than individuals in large cities, as they will be entirely ignored otherwise.
2. New Zealand scrapped the first past the post system in 1996. In their most recent election, neither the reigning National Party nor the Labour Party could gain a parliamentary majority, due to the increased representation of minor parties in the political system. Now, until that point, the National Party had been in coalition with the NZ First Party, so the NZ First voters would've assumed that their vote would go toward that coalition. However, after the election had been held and the votes had been counted, the NZ First Party decided to form a coalition with the Labour Party, meaning that despite the National Party having more seats overall, and the NZ First Party having been voted for with the understanding that they would support the Nationals, the Labour Party formed the government.
Make gentrify total destroy!