I don’t think you understand that you just showed me how you think. Based on your words, you must live in a nation with winner-takes-all, no other option is possible. The image of how you think, as I see it, is shown to the left here:
I am therefore reminded of the Stockholm Syndrome. This sometimes occurs with people that are captured, their ending up defending/supporting the person (or system) that captured them. It is human nature to look for reasons why things are the way things are, to look for reasons why things should not be any other way.
Where we may agree is that, at the national level, it can be handy to limit the number of parties. After all, no democracy will function well with having twenty little parties. But just two empowered parties over the years? No, that’s not good. In your mind, I know you agree that something is wrong with having just two parties empowered over many, many years. I don’t use the word fascist often, but winner-take-all has that tendency from a systematic perspective for sure.
One point I’d like to highlight is that with PR even extreme right-wing and extreme left-wing feelings can get expressed. I am not afraid for these feelings to show, even though I hope neither will ever be expressed in a majority party (but if that happens, this is often based on extreme external influences, probably not on internal influences). What is good about PR is that it enables emancipation, something not available in winner-take-all, or first-past-the-post. All experienced pressures end up being out in the open in PR.
Let me mention a German right-wing party in the context of Brexit. Where the Germans have a democratic outlet, the English decided to exit the European Union out of fear of being invaded by too many foreigners. I hope you can let that sink in.
The English ended up making a right-wing decision, whereas the Germans are incorporating their feelings into their system as we speak. Things may go well, still. By being acknowledged, the conversation can be held in the open, instead of being suppressed in a non-emancipated way.
But there is more to discuss. Winner-take-all nations create more poverty. Just take a look at this article:
In my mind, the UK domination prior to WW I helped create WW I. I hope you can see there is something of a truth about that, how the dominatrix ended up with forces she could not control.
You do not need to embrace the idea, but nations excluding other nations for the benefit of their own do not end up making this a better world. History goes deep and long, since the Brits already started having navigation acts in the 17th century. I’d call that the conception of the nationalist movement (I don’t use the word fascist much) that would grip the world for centuries to come.
If only the UK would have been a democracy and not a duopoly (with fringe parties playing little roles once a century), then the world could have been a better place today.
Two-party nations are too much like one-party nations. We probably agree that we don’t need twelve little parties. But just two empowered parties over the years is a bit like having just one party. Red and blue, but no yellow, is not a real system of representation.
I hope you’ll join the democratic world one of these days.
