I think some people confuse what happens in district elections with what happens in government legislatures. And some unusually have the belief that the second is a copy of the first instead of the other way around, which many others, also mistakenly, think is the case. That is, some believe that when a party obtains a plurality of SEATS, it has the right to legislate its proposal. Some apparently believe that that is how the British/Canadian parliamentary tradition works. But actually we have a system where a majority of the Members in the legislature has power, not plurality. A majority -- whether in one party or in a coalition or other working group -- has power in the Hof C, not a mere plurality. A minority government has only power that an assemblage of the majority of members gives it. A government falls any time it loses a vote of confidence, a vote determined by a vote of members, where an adverse vote turfs out the government. in district election under FPTP, unfortunately a plurality is enough to have the representative for each district. (But plurality as opposed to majority is not enough to get power in a legislature.) (Other people often think that because a majority is important in a legislature, that a majority of votes is important for election of district representative under FPTP. But that is not the case under FPTP. A simple plurality is enough for election, unfortunately,) Some say that those who think that a government should have power only if it has a plurality of VOTES is wrong. That instead that merely having more seats than any other party should be enough to wield power.
But actually almost everyone would say that there is something wrong in a system that puts in power a party that does not have a plurality of votes, a system that gives power to a party that does not have more votes than any other single party, a system that allocates government status to a party that is not the popular choice even if of a minority of the voters.
We live under such a government nowadays in Canada. The present government is put in power by just such a system. But the Liberal government is sustained in power by the will of the majority of MPs, not just some plurality of the seats.
The Liberals received fewer votes than the Conservatives - so there is something wrong, but it is just one of many things screwed up and it is not enough to cause widespread complaints. One reason for that is because in 86 percent of the country (taken province by province) the Liberals received 1M more votes than the Conservatives, as my blog presenting a dollars and cents analysis of the federal election shows. It is is said by some that we need coalition governments, that they will always have a greater range of ideas on any topic. But I don't know of any countries that take advantage of this. I off-hand can't think of any country where plurality - as opposed to majority - is used to determine who holds power, where plurality - as opposed to majority - is used to determine who can pass pieces of legislation?
Votes are important to assert democratic will of the governed. A plurality of the votes is not enough, should not be enough to wield total power, but it is better than minority rule, by being governed by an unpopular regime.
Representation of the varied sentiment of the voters is important for representative democracy, and this depends on a high turnout, which is helped when the pathology of the existing system is addressed through PR. But representation of the people, rule by a majority government that represents a majority of the voters, may be all we can hope to see happen, as under a PR system.
Expectations put on a coalition government led by a party with minority support is worse than a requirement of majority rule, it seems to me.
-------------------------------
Here's a bit more on this:
Giving decision making ability to a majority is preferable to giving it to a minority.
Giving decision making ability to a majority government is preferable to giving it to a minority of the legislators. Especially if that majority government is supported by a majority of the voters, as under a proportional system
But we should note that non-proportional winner-take-all FPTP does not guarantee a majority government, and in history of Canada it has only given us a majority government supported by a majority of voters six times in entire history of the country.
Nor does PR mean necessarily a minority government.
Look at the present NZ government.
The voters in many provinces give a majority of votes to one party, so under PR that would still rightly produce a single-party majority government, an eventuality I personally don't have trouble with. It could be that in effort to be fair we might find that we incur more suspicion of creating ineffectual governments than we gain from fair-minded-ness.
It might be that we will put such impediments in the way of government that nothing can ever change, that voters cannot see the result of their votes, which for democracy is surely as much of a problem as giving power to a simple majority of the legislators.
If we give no one party power and responsibility, voters would not be able to learn from past mistakes or glory in their wise choices.
Perhaps a government's term in office could be determined by a government's popularity --
if government elected with less than 40 percent of the vote, it should be in government just for a year (even if it holds majority of the seats)
if 40 to 50 percent of the votes --- no more than two years,
more than 50 percent of the votes --- for four or five years.
Something to think about...
-------------
And a bit more...
Decision-making in a legislature is different from election of representation, although the result of plurality (first-past-the post) elections is often mistaken for majority rule. Plurality elections elect the option that has more votes than any other, regardless of whether the fifty percent threshold is passed.
A plurality election produces representation of a majority when there are only two candidates in an election or other situations where there are only two options. However, when there are more than two alternatives, such in many elections, a candidate that has less than fifty percent of the votes cast in its favor is often elected.
=================
Thanks for reading.
==============================================
Σχόλια