This has turned out into a very interesting discussion.
In a similar way, Donald Trump is a figure that several significant demographic groups can unite behind. These groups have not had a political messiah for some time. Very likely, under a PR system, they would have their own political party to express their wishes — and probably not have united so easily.
To my way of thinking, the biggest difference between PR and FPTP is when the governing coalition is made. In PR, it is made after the general election. In FPTP, it is made before the general election. In Canada, if managers of the coalitions do not unite somehow before the election, the chances of election success are less likely. A good example is my province of Alberta. In 2015, the conservative demographic split into two parties. This allowed the “socialist” party to govern for four years. But during the time, the conservative movement — not used to being out of power — learned how to get along again, merged the two parties into one, and retook the province in 2019. Under PR, the conservatives would have probably still been running the show during the “socialist” years. But in the long term, the results are the same under PR and FPTP as coalitions are formed in both systems, albeit FPTP is much less publicized.
As for the good/evil demarcation, I would say that you and I are on different pages. We need to focus our public opinion in a rightful way. While our political leaders reflect the diversity of morals within our society, our political leaders also shape our morals. Society will move towards the direction of such leaders. For example, the 5% of Slovaks who support the Slovak National Party need to be thinking onto something other than sending the Slovak Army to Budapest — or perhaps confiscating the properties of Hungarians still living in Slovakia. These people can be slowly turned in a more rightful way, but it takes time. But this change is almost impossible if their political leader is given too much air time on TV because that leader does have a legitimate voice.
And maybe this “lack-of-societal direction” from the parties was a big part my frustration in my six years of party politics. We could argue that I should park my political support behind a new party more focused on morals. But the minute it accepts donations for campaigns, it becomes corrupted, so such a moral party cannot stay moral for very long. Or perhaps better said, the very structure of western democracy leads to a compromised acceptance of corruption; it does not matter whether it is PR or FPTP.
After I left politics, I realized that political parties are less about the ideology they espouse to the public and more about formal and informal contests for status, influence, and power of a society. They are semi-dysfunctional. Even the moderate PR parties in Europe have this power accumulation contest dominating their collective thinking.
We need to move beyond our power accumulation instincts. The TDG is a good forum for that societal change.
