The best argument in favour of [FPP] is that it leads to strong governments. By contrast, proportional representation is a recipe for unstable coalitions, permanent minority government and legislative chaos.
If one checks out the facts, however, the opposite is shown to be true.
Why is FPP less stable?
“We think of minority governments as unstable because, in our present winner-take-all system, they are: the payoff from [a] two per cent swing [vote] is such that every party has its finger poised over the election button, ready to press it the minute they get a pop in the polls.
“But take away the leverage—let a two per cent swing in the popular vote mean a two per cent change in seats—and everyone is forced to calm down. Politics becomes more incremental, a matter of long-term persuasion, rather than short-term gambles.”
Why does the corporate media support FPP?
Why does the corporate-owned media support corrupt FPP while suppressing and attacking electoral reform? The answer is simple: businessmen can better lobby and influence minority-party dictatorships than multi-party democratic governments (which are the norm in the developed world.)
A referendum is likely coming down the pike if the opposition forms the government in 2015. People who think our voting system is broken better beware. Corrupt businessmen are out to torpedo the referendum with slander and lies so they can maintain more control over the country than the people.
If we want to take back our democracy, we’re going to have to fight for it.