Proportional Representation (Part deux)

It's funny the things one thinks about in the shower. I just happen to be thinking about PR. Go figure.

It's been a while since I've made a half-decent argument, so here's the late-night Wendy's version. As I had discussed previously HERE, pundits have voiced concern about proportional representation because it allows the chance for fringe parties to be elected in.

So my question is, why not let them in? We advocate free speech for all in the hopes that in the ensuing discourse, the hateful, extremist views are reasoned away by the moderate, tolerant majority. To pull the extreme views out of the shadows and into the spotlight, revealing that there really isn't anything there worth listening to is free speech's strength.

In the case of PR, yes, there is a chance that a few extremist candidates are elected. So let them try to pass their outrageous bills. The majority of MPs representing the tolerant majority will overwhelmingly defeat them, thus proving the lack of worth of those views. If their bills pass, well, then it's not the problem of those candidates, but the radical shift in societal values (or the MPs aren't representing their constituents, which also becomes the larger problem).

So we shouldn't let the fear of extremists being elected restrain even the discussion of electoral reform, let alone actual reform. As an open, pluralistic, democratic society, we should always be ready to defend our values every step of the way, from the coffee shop to the House of Commons.

We should be saying, "Bring'em On!"