It's probably not surprising that I would disagree, but I really think you are massively over-selling the benefits of the preferential voting system we use in Australia (usually referred to as Alternative Vote) and are portraying a particular kind of PR system which is far from the only version available.
Firstly, I don't see the Westminster system as necessarily being associated with being represented by a single local member in a single-member electorate. There are plenty of jurisdictions which use PR but have a government responsible to the lower house in a parliamentary system, including a number with a Westminster heritage. This includes Tasmania, the ACT, Malta and the Republic of Ireland.
And of course there plenty of downsides to the single member system. It can be great if you live in a marginal seat, but if you live in a safe seat your local member can safely ignore you. Not to mention that multi-member electorates mean that most voters are represented by someone from the party they voted for. None of those problems are solved by switching from FPTP to AV.
You're also ignoring the increasingly chaotic results we have been getting in Australia as the major party vote declines, and would be even more common in the UK. Look at the three inner-Brisbane electorates where the Greens polled about a third of the vote and won all three seats, or northern Sydney where the teals won most seats without a very high share of the vote. Small changes in votes can produce exaggerated changes in seats. PR is far more stable and predictable in translating vote changes into seat changes.
And the tendencies of FPTP to produce lopsided results where a party wins far more seats than their vote share are just as true, and sometimes more true, under the Australian system. The SNP won most Scottish seats in the 2019 UK election off 45% of the vote, with the Tories second on 25%. If that result took place in Australia, the SNP would still won an enormous share of the seats.
You know what system would allow pro-unionist parties with a slim majority of the vote to win a slim majority of the seats? PR.
When there was an actual proportional election in Scotland, the pro-independence parties (SNP and Greens) polled 48% while the large pro-union parties polled 46%. The Scottish PR system still allows the bias of the FPTP seats to play a role, so the SNP still won a small seat bonus, but much less than they would have won under a single-member system, either FPTP or AV.
It also sounds like your familiarity with PR is limited to a few scare stories.
Firstly, there are PR systems which allow independents to get elected. Indeed Tasmania just had an election where three independents won seats and hold the balance of power. And more than 10% of seats at the 2020 Irish general election went to independents. Both systems based on the Westminster system of responsible government.
You talk about thresholds, but not all PR systems work that way. Low-magnitude PR systems with less than 10 members elected per district have natural thresholds at the district level, so no national threshold is needed. Again, Tasmania and Ireland are examples. They are also examples of systems where voters cast their votes for individual candidates. There are also examples in mainland Europe such as Finland where voters have meaningful influence over individual candidates.
The canard about extremist parties is a common criticism of PR, but it doesn't hold up, particularly when you look at a party like the UK Conservatives or the US Republicans. Under a majoritarian system, the extremist element can take over a whole major party!
And with the example of One Nation in Australia, I would argue that it has been their electoral success under PR systems that has been their undoing. When they are put in a position of influence and media attention, they have tended to implode, and their vote has then collapsed. When parties are locked out by the electoral system, their support tends to grow and grow, or they find a way to take over a bigger party.
We will see how this goes for the Jacqui Lambie Network in Tasmania (not a far right party, but a populist party). If their choices of candidates turn out to be poor, their support will fall and they won't be re-elected.
I also found the comment about a more mature party being able to leverage preferences productively in contrast to the Australian Greens. What are you suggesting? Generally in the past when the Greens have tried to direct preferences in a way that is not in keeping with their voters' attitudes, it has gone very poorly for them. I don't think it reflects a lack of maturity to respect that they are not in the middle of the spectrum and can't plausibly change things with their preferences. This is a very convenient outcome for Labor, since they can largely take those voters for granted, up until the point where they challenge for a seat directly.
It's probably not surprising that I would disagree, but I really think you are massively over-selling the benefits of the preferential voting system we use in Australia (usually referred to as Alternative Vote) and are portraying a particular kind of PR system which is far from the only version available.
Firstly, I don't see the Westminster system as necessarily being associated with being represented by a single local member in a single-member electorate. There are plenty of jurisdictions which use PR but have a government responsible to the lower house in a parliamentary system, including a number with a Westminster heritage. This includes Tasmania, the ACT, Malta and the Republic of Ireland.
And of course there plenty of downsides to the single member system. It can be great if you live in a marginal seat, but if you live in a safe seat your local member can safely ignore you. Not to mention that multi-member electorates mean that most voters are represented by someone from the party they voted for. None of those problems are solved by switching from FPTP to AV.
You're also ignoring the increasingly chaotic results we have been getting in Australia as the major party vote declines, and would be even more common in the UK. Look at the three inner-Brisbane electorates where the Greens polled about a third of the vote and won all three seats, or northern Sydney where the teals won most seats without a very high share of the vote. Small changes in votes can produce exaggerated changes in seats. PR is far more stable and predictable in translating vote changes into seat changes.
And the tendencies of FPTP to produce lopsided results where a party wins far more seats than their vote share are just as true, and sometimes more true, under the Australian system. The SNP won most Scottish seats in the 2019 UK election off 45% of the vote, with the Tories second on 25%. If that result took place in Australia, the SNP would still won an enormous share of the seats.
You know what system would allow pro-unionist parties with a slim majority of the vote to win a slim majority of the seats? PR.
When there was an actual proportional election in Scotland, the pro-independence parties (SNP and Greens) polled 48% while the large pro-union parties polled 46%. The Scottish PR system still allows the bias of the FPTP seats to play a role, so the SNP still won a small seat bonus, but much less than they would have won under a single-member system, either FPTP or AV.
It also sounds like your familiarity with PR is limited to a few scare stories.
Firstly, there are PR systems which allow independents to get elected. Indeed Tasmania just had an election where three independents won seats and hold the balance of power. And more than 10% of seats at the 2020 Irish general election went to independents. Both systems based on the Westminster system of responsible government.
You talk about thresholds, but not all PR systems work that way. Low-magnitude PR systems with less than 10 members elected per district have natural thresholds at the district level, so no national threshold is needed. Again, Tasmania and Ireland are examples. They are also examples of systems where voters cast their votes for individual candidates. There are also examples in mainland Europe such as Finland where voters have meaningful influence over individual candidates.
The canard about extremist parties is a common criticism of PR, but it doesn't hold up, particularly when you look at a party like the UK Conservatives or the US Republicans. Under a majoritarian system, the extremist element can take over a whole major party!
And with the example of One Nation in Australia, I would argue that it has been their electoral success under PR systems that has been their undoing. When they are put in a position of influence and media attention, they have tended to implode, and their vote has then collapsed. When parties are locked out by the electoral system, their support tends to grow and grow, or they find a way to take over a bigger party.
We will see how this goes for the Jacqui Lambie Network in Tasmania (not a far right party, but a populist party). If their choices of candidates turn out to be poor, their support will fall and they won't be re-elected.
I also found the comment about a more mature party being able to leverage preferences productively in contrast to the Australian Greens. What are you suggesting? Generally in the past when the Greens have tried to direct preferences in a way that is not in keeping with their voters' attitudes, it has gone very poorly for them. I don't think it reflects a lack of maturity to respect that they are not in the middle of the spectrum and can't plausibly change things with their preferences. This is a very convenient outcome for Labor, since they can largely take those voters for granted, up until the point where they challenge for a seat directly.