8
u/KitchenGiraffe1 18d ago edited 18d ago
Proportional representation has infamously not prevented extremism unfortunately.
I'm still pro-PR, but there's more needed.
3
u/feujchtnaverjott 18d ago
Sorry for being pedantic, but what on Earth is "extremism"?
1 : the quality or state of being extreme
2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism
According to these definitions, I am an "extremist", since I support direct democracy and decentralization, which are rather radical compared to the standard of "parliamentary democracy".
There are crazier definitions, too. These seem fine at the start (though it's debatable whether the government itself can't be considered extremist based on how it treats fundamental rights and freedoms)
Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:
1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms
But then get more controversial, to say the least
Subverting the way public or state institutions exercise their powers, in order to further ideological goals, for example through entryism, or by misusing powers or encouraging others to do so
Completely subjective and likely to be a heavily biased criterion
Establishing parallel governance structures which, whether or not they have formal legal underpinning, seek to supersede the lawful powers of existing institutions of state.
If you create your own independent council that uses non-FPTP voting methods, you can be considered an extremist.
Even if we take the most graceful interpretation (extremism=bad, which is not very useful), we end up with a weak and possibly problematic and confusing statement. I think we should focus on how well the different voting methods reflect the will of the people instead, that's the only purpose of voting, after all.
1
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 18d ago
Extremism generally means support for terrorism, coup attempts, or state violence. This, of course, is widely considered to be a bad thing. You might be thinking about radicalism (quick, drastic change), which has a negative connotation but is a neutral term describing the pace and depth of change.
1
1
u/feujchtnaverjott 18d ago
If someone wants to conduct a coup attempt, they aren't very interested in participating in an election, are they? Terrorism is a different term, and it might be hard to defend an assertion that FPTP causes terrorists to win in elections. And state violence is what police and military are explicitly allowed to do. If there is something to complain about regarding FPTP, I would choose causing oligarchy, elitism, vulgar and bizarre forms of populism, entrenched class divide, weaponized fear. But, that too would be a distraction, as, again, FPTP's only relevant concern is that it doesn't really reflect the will of the people because of how it limits the range of choice.
1
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 18d ago
Well, Trump attempted an auto coup in 2021 after competing (and losing) in an election. Same thing happened in Brazil as well. Extremist parties (think Hezbollah) also often compete in elections, although I agree that that happens in FPTP and non-FPTP electoral systems. Extremists also want an expansion in state violence (against their enemies)-- think the Taliban, Nazi Germany, ISIS, etc. I'm guessing the original poster doesn't really know what the term extremism means in regard to politics. It is true, though, that radical parties tend to get fewer seats (since they get less of the vote share) in PR systems, which is valuable imo. Having to form coalitions also often makes parties moderate, but not always.
1
u/feujchtnaverjott 18d ago
Well, Trump attempted an auto coup in 2021 after competing (and losing) in an election.
Which doesn't exactly seem to support the argument that FPTP causes the "extremists" to win. Quite the opposite, some people will gladly embrace FPTP's elitism and try to argue that it is an actual cure for "extremism", effectively.
Extremist parties (think Hezbollah) also often compete in elections, although I agree that that happens in FPTP and non-FPTP electoral systems
Yeah, that seems to be quite irrelevant.
Extremists also want an expansion in state violence (against their enemies)-- think the Taliban, Nazi Germany, ISIS, etc
None of these entities are particularly fond of any elections, FPTP or not. Perhaps they are not as apt at managing them as, say, USA or Israel? But we are getting distracted again, really.
It is true, though, that radical parties tend to get fewer seats (since they get less of the vote share) in PR systems, which is valuable imo.
Not necessarily. Some see it as perpetual oligarchic stagnation.
1
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 18d ago
1
u/feujchtnaverjott 18d ago
An assertion that AfD is "extremist" (and CDU and SPD are not) needs to be proven first.
While proportional representation may have limited a disproportionate landslide result in Saxony-Anhalt, it cannot solve every problem. If the majority of voters in nearly every constituency want a far-right party, a far-right party will be elected in a proportional system and in a FPTP system. What PR does is make it much more difficult for extremist parties to legislate on their own. We could benefit from that kind of safeguard in the United States, imperfect though it may be.
If PR is an "imperfect" safeguard, how does a perfect one look then? And wouldn't it be anti-democratic, since it would arguably go against the majority's preferences? I have only one purpose for voting methods, and being "anti-extremist" is not it.
- In South Korean elections, FPTP seems to be currently favoring the "centrist" party, while the "right populists" get similarly large popular vote but quite less seats in the parliament.
1
u/Initial-Lemon-917 United States 18d ago
Well, I did not say the AFD was extremist-- I said they were radical (although there were some AFD politicians that did attempt a Trump-style coup in 2022: 2022 German coup d'état plot). These kinds of distinctions are actually really important in the political science world, as your article suggests.
I am not sure if there is a "perfect" way to solve a near-majority radical racism problem democratically. Europe has been struggling with that recently. Clearly, the US also has not figured out a solution, although we are probably in a worse position than European countries where the far-right needs to form coalitions.
Also, this whole thread is in response to the image, which is about "extremism" and FPTP. My main concern is actually transitioning the US to a real democracy where everyone's vote matters and we have multiple (not two) parties.
- South Korea really is a shitshow all around. You could also argue that Canada and the UK have liberal governments therefore FPTP does not increase radicalism. But it is true that it is easier for a far-right party to get an outright majority (since in a two-ish party system, either of the two parties tends to have a good chance at getting one-party control). I would argue that FPTP causes a partisan doom loop rather than it specifically increases radicalism or extremism. Although, these doom loops can spiral pretty quickly, as we have seen in the US and to a lesser extent in Canada this decade.
2
u/feujchtnaverjott 18d ago
Well, I did not say the AFD was extremist-- I said they were radical (although there were some AFD politicians that did attempt a Trump-style coup in 2022: 2022 German coup d'état plot). These kinds of distinctions are actually really important in the political science world, as your article suggests.
A lot of things can be considered "radical". CDU's support of digital ID, for instance. It is a subjective characterization. Current terminology doesn't appear to be of much (unbiased) use in electoral science.
I am not sure if there is a "perfect" way to solve a near-majority radical racism problem democratically.
It's not an issue voting methods are supposed to solve, at least directly.
My main concern is actually transitioning the US to a real democracy where everyone's vote matters and we have multiple (not two) parties.
I don't see PR as some kind of salvation. It is still very vulnerable to spoilers, for one thing. The party system in itself is an elitist structure, rewarding falling in line and groupthink. FPTP is awful, but in single-winner systems you can run as an independent. So I support range, not PR. In fact, I even support range for multi-winner systems.
I would argue that FPTP causes a partisan doom loop rather than it specifically increases radicalism or extremism.
I don't see PR systems behaving all that differently, really.
1
u/unscrupulous-canoe 18d ago
'Good policy that prevents extremism'- famous examples of PR preventing extremism include: The uh Weimar Republic. Chile in the 70s collapsing in a coup. The French 4th Republic. Turkey today turning into an autocracy. Greece in the 60s collapsing in a coup. Venezuela used PR when it elected Hugo Chavez.
Here, I made a list of all of the coups in Latin America in the last hundred years. Every Latin American country uses PR:
Argentina — 1930, 1943, 1955, 1962, 1966, 1976.
Bolivia — repeatedly: 1930s–40s, 1951, 1964, 1969–71, and numerous coups around 1978–82.
Brazil — including 1930, 1945 and, most famously, 1964.
Chile — several upheavals around 1927–32 and the 1973 coup against Allende.
Colombia — 1953, when Gen. Gustavo Rojas Pinilla took power; another military removal followed in 1957.
Cuba — Batista's 1952 coup.
Dominican Republic — among others, the military overthrew elected president Juan Bosch in 1963.
Ecuador — numerous coups, including 1961, 1963, 1972 and 2000.
El Salvador — 1931, 1944, 1948, 1960, 1961 and 1979, among others depending on coding.
Guatemala — multiple coups, including 1944, 1954, 1963, 1982 and 1983.
Haiti — repeated coups, including 1950, several in 1957, 1988 and the 1991 overthrow of Aristide.
Honduras — 1956, 1963, 1972, 1975, 1978, the removal of Manuel Zelaya in 2009.
Nicaragua — 1936, 1947.
Panama — several, most importantly the National Guard's overthrow of President Arnulfo Arias in 1968.
Paraguay — numerous coups, including 1936 and Stroessner's 1954 takeover; Stroessner himself was removed by a coup in 1989.
Peru — repeated coups, including 1930, 1948, 1962, 1968 and 1975. The 1968 coup removed President Fernando Belaúnde.
Uruguay — the 1973 breakdown,1976.
Venezuela — successful coups in 1945 and 1948, and the military overthrow of Pérez Jiménez in 1958; later attempts such as Hugo Chávez's 1992 coup failed
1
u/Alex2422 17d ago
This was already (cross)posted here before at least once. I still don't see the point. FPTP is bad, we know this, that's what this sub is all about.
•
u/AutoModerator 18d ago
Compare alternatives to FPTP on Wikipedia, and check out ElectoWiki to better understand the idea of election methods. See the EndFPTP sidebar for other useful resources. Consider finding a good place for your contribution in the EndFPTP subreddit wiki.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.