Should the UK adopt proportional representation?

PR would result in weaker coalition governments

Question: Should the UK adopt proportional representation?
Position‹2 of 2: The UK should not adopt Proportional Representation
Argument1 of 3›: PR would result in weaker coalition governments

Proportional Representation would result in a greater number of coalition governments than with first-past-the-post. This could lead to instability and indecisiveness.

The argument

Proportional Representation might lead to coalition government. A coalition government is the government formed when no one political party has achieved a clear majority. As a result, different political parties must work together to form a temporary coalition in order to rule. Under first-past-the-post, there is usually a political party with a clear majority. However, due to the nature of Proportional Representation, it is more likely that coalition governments would be needed. Many have written about how the likelihood of coalition governments is raised 'significantly' by Proportional Representation. Coalition governments have been very rare in the UK's political history. The Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition government of 2010-2015 was the first since the War Ministry during the Second World War. In contrast, in countries with a history of deploying a form of Proportional Representation in their voting system, coalitions have been the norm rather than the exception. For example, in Germany, It is usually the CDU/CSU who rule along with another party, and indeed currently it is an alliance between the CDU/ CSU and the SPD. Detractors of Proportional Representation argue that a coalition government is a less effective form of government, due to the competing interests and ideologies at play. Any given political party already contains internal squabbles and differences in opinion, and this is only magnified when there are two separate political parties with separate ruling visions. It can also take too long to form a coalition government. In 2010, it took Belgium 541 days to form a government while it took Germany, and over 160 days to form a government after its September 2017 election. This uncertainty and indecisiveness can detract from the bigger issues.

Context

Proportional Representation is a voting system whereby the number of popular votes determines the number of seats held by a political party in parliament. Currently, the UK uses the first-past-the-post system of voting, where voters must vote for one MP in their area. This can result in people strategically voting not for their favorite candidate, but for the candidate they believe is most likely to win in their area. In 2011, the UK held a referendum on the 'Alternative Vote.' Although it was defeated by nearly 68%, it stoked a discussion about what kind of electoral system was best for the United Kingdom. One of the solutions repeatedly proposed is a form of Proportional Representation. However, proportional representation could lead to an increase in coalition government.

Premises

[P1]Proportional Representation significantly raises the likelihood of coalition governments, as shown by countries like Germany where coalitions are the norm. [P2] Coalition governments are less effective because competing parties with differing ideologies magnify internal disagreements and slow decision-making. [P3] Forming coalitions can take an excessively long time, as seen in Belgium's 541-day delay and Germany's 160-day delay, creating harmful uncertainty. [C] Therefore, the UK should not adopt Proportional Representation, as it would produce weaker and less decisive coalition governments.

Counter-arguments

Supporters of PR reply that coalition is not the same as weakness. They point to stable, long-lived coalitions in Germany, the Netherlands and the Nordic states, arguing that negotiated agreements can produce durable, consensus-based policy that survives changes of party better than the abrupt reversals of single-party majorities. The delays cited — Belgium's record, Germany's months of talks — are, they argue, unusual cases rather than the norm, and a government formed slowly on a broad agreement may govern more steadily than one installed quickly on a minority of the vote. On this view first-past-the-post's "strong" majorities are often manufactured from well under half the votes, a different kind of weakness — of legitimacy.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That PR raises the likelihood of coalitions is granted, but a higher chance of coalition is not itself a defect unless coalitions are shown to govern worse. [Rejecting P2] Coalitions in Germany, the Netherlands and Scandinavia have frequently been stable and effective, so competing ideologies need not produce paralysis; negotiated policy can be more durable. [Rejecting P3] Belgium's 541 days and long German talks are outliers, not the routine outcome; against them stand many coalitions formed quickly and lasting a full term.