Day after Alex Pretti killing I complained to BBC about presentation of White House statements and evidence as equivalent. Duty of balance doesn’t extend to complicity with clear lies, I said. BBC could and should report WH making false statements as a *fact of the story*. Today I got response …
Very thoughtful response, thank you! Your points re: Scotland and Wales are particularly well-made, and I will have to take some time to reflect on them!
This isn't a substack! It's a university blog so it's free to read :)
But to answer your question, the French-style system isn't PR, and it preserves single-member constituencies like we have in the UK!
As the author says, a good PR system provides stability & political pluralism (he points to 🇪🇸 & 🇮🇪), but a bad PR leads to instability. The 2-round 🇫🇷 system could work for 🇬🇧. In the 1st round, voters choose honestly for their preferred party/candidate. In the 2nd, they choose between rival alliances.
The core of the argument:
And that the French system is the best way to combine decisionist politics and unstable multipartyism
My argument is that the traditional model of politics advocated by PR-supporters (consensual bargaining between stable parties with organic links to different sociological constituencies) is no longer really viable, so that some version of decisionist politics is still required
(or at least - potentially good)
2. I do very much believe that a 2RS is the best majoritarian system. Why I think it is better than AV is that it gives voters extra information between the casting of different preferences, and I think that that can be really important.
So I obviously agree with all your points about the great demerits of FPTP - see my paper here debunking all the supposed claims for its benefits: consoc.org.uk/wp-content/u...
1. I am definitely NOT arguing that majoritarianism > PR!
I am arguing that SOME majoritarian systems (e.g. 2RS) are better than most PR systems, but also that SOME majoritarian systems (e.g. FPTP) are far worse than basically any PR system
Thanks for this response! Two quick points I'll make:
The problem currently is that there are now three blocs (a nightmare in literally any system)
The great strength of the French system is that it can accommodate multi-partyism and party system change, while also forcing the parties into blocs.
Traditionally this was "bipolarism pluralism", which I would personally see as optimal.
To be clear I think polarisation is good! My worry is elections in which there are NEITHER stable, long-term, representative, NOR the ability of voters to make a clear choice between governments.
I'd obviously be extremely happy with that package!
ah but there's another factor here! In the two-round system for parliamentary elections (what I think we should have), it isn't just the top two who go through! It's any party that crosses a certain threshold. So there might be some need to vote tactically, but much less than for the presidential
The great benefit of the two-round system is that it MAXIMISES the information voters have - they get to cast their ballot in the second round with full information about what the options are, how the parties relate to each other, and their relative strength
I agree AV might be plausible, but I think it is wrong to equate AV with SV (which I agree is terrible).
The problem with SV is that it forces voters to make limited choices within limited information (e.g. the don't know who the final two will be)...
When parties lack an organic representative connection to their voters, I think that voters being able to make that straight choice is really valuable
... this certainly isn't always the case.
By contrast, the majoritarian nature of the two-round system, and the incentives it gives parties to coalesce between the rounds, means voters almost always get a straight choice between alternative governments.
Thanks! So I should say firstly that I'm also pretty pro STV, and would be delighted if we ended up with that in the UK.
But I think the big difference is the decisionist function: while depending on your party system STV can sometimes allow voters to make a decisive choice between blocs...
As a member of team PR, I appreciate the provocation. But, genuinely, it's great to see this sort of debate emerge. Electoral reform feels closer than it has for ages, even if it's still some way off.
Because I think what occurs between the two rounds is really important! Parties are forced to be straight with the public about their preferred alliances, and voters then get to make an informed choice based on a) the first round results and b) the alliance decisions the parties have now made
This is intended as a provocation to my fellow electoral reformers - hopefully of interest to @jack-bailey.co.uk @robfordmancs.bsky.social @profjanegreen.bsky.social @martamiori.bsky.social @timbale.bsky.social @alanrenwick.bsky.social
I've written for the @uniofbathipr.bsky.social blog about why de-alignment and party system breakdown poses challenges for PR as well as FPTP, and why a French-style two-round electoral system might therefore now be optimal for the UK
Really enjoyed attending this launch for @smidbob.bsky.social's new book on the Larzac struggle as a site of transnational resistance - bringing together diverse strains of peasant, pacifist, indigenous, religious, revolutionary, and ecological forms of activism
Some more thoughts on @dmk1793.bsky.social's piece on the death of deliverism for @samfr.bsky.social last week.
In short: the binary is a trap - delivery isn't sufficient but nor is narrative. The interesting question is how objective reality influences voters' subjective perceptions
Above all, @aveek18.bsky.social raises what I think is a key question about to what extent elections can or should be the key basis of political accountability
Some characteristically thoughtful engagement with my deliverism essay here from @aveek18.bsky.social, who I think does an excellent job of pushing beyond the debates I discuss to set out what needs investigating and how we should think about the potential implications of different findings
