Here comes a new law in political science: Joe’s Law. As I write, the Republic of Ireland is still working out, after its general election, what sort of a coalition government will be entailed by its system of proportional representation. And the Germans are fretting already about whether and how a new coalition might be put together, the last one having disintegrated. A new election looms, held according to Germany’s ‘personalised proportional representation’ voting system.
Voters may not have agreed on much but they did share a longing for bold and decisive government
Joe, meanwhile, is a first cousin twice removed whom I didn’t even know. He’s 16, and has a paper to write about our ‘first past the post’ (FPTP) voting system. Joe contacted me via his grandfather, my first cousin. We met on Zoom for a lengthy discussion, and from the back-and-forth I developed what is for me a new and (I believe) strong argument in favour of FPTP: a repudiation of all those rival voting systems we call proportional representation (PR). I name it after my fellow explorer, whether or not Joe himself agrees with it.
This is Joe’s Law: ‘Binary choices cannot proportionately reflect divergent opinions.’
A binary choice is between two alternatives: typically yes or no, between taking and not taking a course of action – whether or not, for instance, to take an umbrella this morning – where there can be no halfway house. Or whether to use my savings for an annuity to support me for the rest of my life.
Government in a democracy – the big policy decisions taken by those we elect to represent us – typically involves a series of choices that are, more often than not, essentially binary. Leadership means making binary choices.
Examples? Some in this list have happened, others might. Choosing tax rises that target business.
Comments
Join the debate for just £1 a month
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for £3.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just £1 a monthAlready a subscriber? Log in