Arguments Against

The main argument against proportional representation is that it produces political instability in that a situation can arise whereby third parties hold the balance of power, whereas the first past the post system usually produces a government by one party even when it receives less than half the vote.

But the balance of power situation is still possible under the present system, as is the case in Britain at the present time and advocating the ability of one party to do all it wishes against the will of the majority is being undemocratic, and when the ruling minority becomes as low as 39% of electors, the elementary rights of citizens come into question. This minority rule situation has existed in New Zealand now for the last 26 years and on a number of occasions before that as well.

If a coalition Government is needed under a proportional representation system then each issue is decided by a majority of electors as represented in parliament by their elected parties. If a party gains a majority of the vote, then it is able to put its own policies into effect. Under either situation there exists political stability, consensus and democracy which can be seen in the economic prosperity social health, relative absence of industrial troubles in those countries which have proportional representation such as Sweden and West Germany.

Another argument against proportional representation is that under it some constituents may end up with an M.P. which few of them voted for, if the additional seat form is being used. However, under the present system many people end up with an M.P. which few voted for and since party preferences account for at least 87% of voting behaviour the parties are justified in selecting their own M.P.s for the seats they are eligible for although all candidates for the seats should stand in constituency elections.