Why is 'spiked-online' pro PR?

Does Brendan O'Neill read this blog? It seems uncanny that his latest article on spiked almost feels like a direct response to my previous post "Not A PR Stunt". Avid readers will recall that in that post I railed against the PR threat to democracy that could undermine the unmediated relationship between the citizen and his or her political representative. In his article O'Neill echoes my feelings almost to the word. Under a system of proportional representation, he argues, "people’s ability to directly vote for the person whom they want to represent them – someone whose views, passion and flair they genuinely support – is diminished". But if this is the case, why on earth does he give PR one of its biggest endorsements by declaring that "spiked likes the idea of proportional representation"?

Why should even the idea of PR appeal to spiked? That's the one question that Brendan hasn't answered in either of his articles. In his previous article he referred to 'fairness' and this time he's given us a vague reference to 'clarifying political debate' and providing a better 'democratic snapshot', but no explantion of any specific problem or any specific solution. Has he really thought it through?

For a start, the 'fairness' argument is potentially anti-democratic. The key complaint levelled at majoritarianism is that it is unfair, that it does not give the minority voice its due. All of which is simply another way of saying that the views of the majority are suspect and that their weight should be moderated. OK, in many cases these views might not be right-on, but thence begins politics. The ideology underlying these ideas needs tackling by head-on argument; not by tacitly accepting but electorally sweeping aside. The annoying thing is that O'Neill totally accepts this argument which is what makes his article so confusing.

The whole idea of enforced fairness in politics should itself be treated with suspicion. There is nothing automatically democratic about the percentage of seats a party receives closely mirroring the percentage of votes it won. This is an especially empty view today when the dividing lines between the mainstream parties are more blurred than ever (and there is now no fundamental difference between Lib Dem and Conservative). But even, say, 25 years ago when divisions where clearer, the call to ensure proportionality in Parliament would have:

• made MPs more accountable to their parties' ruling executives than to their electorates.
• made it harder to get rid of an unpopular MP.
• confused the issue of exactly who it is that represents me in Parliament, and who I need to be keeping on their toes.
• destroyed the idea that the winner in a FPTP election actually represents those who didn't vote for him as well as those who did (yes - let's bring back magnanimity).
• given party manifestos greater prominence than the records and statements of individual candidates (while at the same time making it less likely that any manifesto commitment would be adhered to because of the need to make coalition compromises).
• thwarted the progressive development of political ideas from confused local ones to clearer national ones (PR promotes political ideas to office before they have run the gauntlet of seeking a mandate).
• viewed the entire electorate as a specimen to be measured, not as a sleeping lion that ought to be feared.

Against all this is the view that PR is, well, fairer. But in a fight you don't want fair - you want to win. And if your first move is to complain that the fight isn't fair then you'll never win. Spiked should drop all its references to supporting even the idea of PR, and continue the noble art of politics with its gloves off.