Entirely comfortable…

[Protheroe]

you would have to admit you were wrong.

About government being a necessary evil?

[Borin' Baggie]

Changing the subject by selectively quoting doesn't work on a messageboard where the context of the bit you quoted is right there in the above comment pal.

[Protheroe]

I'm not changing the subject. You have selected something you like in the Netherlands, I am pointing our that as a necessary evil that even a Dutch coalition of your preferred partners is #LeastWorst (in your opinion).

As for our political system being at fault, at least FPTP guards against actual fascists (or communists) being on the ticket to represent us - let alone winning. Most of western Europe couldn't say the same, including the Netherlands - or have you forgotten Geert Wilders was in Rutte's cabinet a little over a decade ago.

[CarlosCorbewrong]

I'm not changing the subject. You have selected something you like in the Netherlands, I am pointing our that as a necessary evil that even a Dutch coalition of your preferred partners is #LeastWorst (in your opinion).

As for our political system being at fault, at least FPTP guards against actual fascists (or communists) being on the ticket to represent us - let alone winning. Most of western Europe couldn't say the same, including the Netherlands - or have you forgotten Geert Wilders was in Rutte's cabinet a little over a decade ago.

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of Dutch politics, you clearly know your stuff.

But, had we adopted PR in this country do you think it may have given the far right a democratic voice rather than a subverted one which manifests in violence, terrorism and hate?

[Borin' Baggie]

You tried to change the subject from your bollocks about #LeastWorst being a necessity in every democracy to something completely unrelated. You are posting on a messageboard where this thing can easily be tracked especially when it's all on the same thread.

Who I would vote for in the Netherlands isn't determined by who is "#LeastWorst" because I wouldn't need to guard against any externalities when making my decision, same with Denmark. Same thing happening in Australia resulted in the recent Teal independants as they didn't need to vote Labor to avoid getting Lib-Nat, that was in a near identical Parliamentary system.

As for FPTP, it doesn't guard against shit. The Tories have notably lurched to the extremes and become beholden against neo-mercantile interests, free market fundamentalists, voted in a fucking moron who even spelled out she shouldn't be trusted with anything in the summer and they are represented by the likes of Scott Benton and Lee Anderson in Parliament. Labour embraced tankie foreign policy. The SNP are infested with anti-English extremists. The Lib Dems turned from pro-Europe to full on extreme stupidity on Europe. Need I even bring up what the hell has happened with the GOP in the US? The far right and far left are not marginalised under FPTP, they just join coalitions via big-tent political parties which are in of themself closed of coalitions.

[Fido]

I'm not changing the subject. You have selected something you like in the Netherlands, I am pointing our that as a necessary evil that even a Dutch coalition of your preferred partners is #LeastWorst (in your opinion).

As for our political system being at fault, at least FPTP guards against actual fascists (or communists) being on the ticket to represent us - let alone winning. Most of western Europe couldn't say the same, including the Netherlands - or have you forgotten Geert Wilders was in Rutte's cabinet a little over a decade ago.

I'll have to bow to your superior knowledge of Dutch politics, you clearly know your stuff.

But, had we adopted PR in this country do you think it may have given the far right a democratic voice rather than a subverted one which manifests in violence, terrorism and hate?

Interesting question. If Nick Griffin got in for, I don't know, Stoke or somewhere would that make his party more acceptable to some given that he'd gone through a democratic process? Could have a detrimental effect.

[Ossian]

Interesting question. If Nick Griffin got in for, I don't know, Stoke or somewhere would that make his party more acceptable to some given that he'd gone through a democratic process? Could have a detrimental effect.

I suppose you'd have to trust the voters in that constituency to know where to draw the line. The example of Farage is encouraging: he's had a number of failed attempts at becoming a constituency MP and he's never quite overtly strayed into Nick Griffin territory, despite sailing close on a few occasions. Mind, if the letter my mother got through her letterbox recently (from the sitting MP) is any guide, he might have stood a chance in Dudley North.

There's been times when UKIP would have had 60 or 70 MPs under PR; equally the Lib-Dems have been consistently the losers under FPTP.

[Fido]

Interesting question. If Nick Griffin got in for, I don't know, Stoke or somewhere would that make his party more acceptable to some given that he'd gone through a democratic process? Could have a detrimental effect.

I suppose you'd have to trust the voters in that constituency to know where to draw the line. The example of Farage is encouraging: he's had a number of failed attempts at becoming a constituency MP and he's never quite overtly strayed into Nick Griffin territory, despite sailing close on a few occasions.

There's been times when UKIP would have had 60 or 70 MPs under PR; equally the Lib-Dems have been consistently the losers under FPTP.

I have to beg ignorance to how PR might work - so if say Conservatives got 40%, Labour 40% and Lib Dems 20% how would the MPs themselves be picked? Would it be up to the parties themselves to select their "best" team and potentially be even more undemocratic in terms of the MPs representing their party?

[Ossian]

Party lists seems to be the favoured approach, but there's more than one way to arrive at them. This being politics, all of them have their advocates and critics.

This might help...

[Borin' Baggie]

Interesting question. If Nick Griffin got in for, I don't know, Stoke or somewhere would that make his party more acceptable to some given that he'd gone through a democratic process? Could have a detrimental effect.

I suppose you'd have to trust the voters in that constituency to know where to draw the line. The example of Farage is encouraging: he's had a number of failed attempts at becoming a constituency MP and he's never quite overtly strayed into Nick Griffin territory, despite sailing close on a few occasions.

There's been times when UKIP would have had 60 or 70 MPs under PR; equally the Lib-Dems have been consistently the losers under FPTP.

I have to beg ignorance to how PR might work - so if say Conservatives got 40%, Labour 40% and Lib Dems 20% how would the MPs themselves be picked? Would it be up to the parties themselves to select their "best" team and potentially be even more undemocratic in terms of the MPs representing their party?

Under STV (which used to be used in this country in the old university constituencies and is used in Ireland) what would happen is a constituency has multiple MPs (usually between 5 and 7) and you have a ranked choice, the candidate with the most first preferences gets elected and then it goes to second preferences etc until all the seats are filled. That completely removes party lists and you still vote for candidates.

There's also mixed member systems (like AV+ which Blair was supposed to introduce, or the systems used in Scotland and Wales) which use both party lists and constituencies.