Changes Coming to Nova Anglican Electoral System?
John McAvoy, Political Columnist, Londinium Courier
Although much of our nation's attention has been focused on the World Cup (4-2 win over Valladares!) and the current World Baseball Classic (0-2 with Imota coming to town), yesterday Prime Minister Allen Mumford made a speech that is seen as the first step towards reforming Nova Anglicana's electoral system.
Our nation has been a first-past-the-post nation divided into electoral districts since its inception, believing that politicians should represent their local constituencies and that each politician should have the substantial support of their district in order to be elected. The magic number has long been 40%, with a margin of victory of at least 5%. While this has generated its fair share of runoffs and makes it more difficult to elect one candidate, it has the advantage of ensuring that no candidate is elected who is not supported by a substantial portion of the population. FPTP systems usually coalesce into a two-party system, much as we have seen in our neighbours to the south, the USA, with two major parties crowding out all other challengers and monopolizing the political conversation. Fortunately for us, Nova Anglicana has five major parties that all have at least 4 seats in the House of Deputies. Political analysts have revealed that this is mainly due to each party having particular "strongholds". For example, the French-speaking part of Nova Anglicana often votes for Libertarian candidates in the hopes of more autonomy, while the First Nations areas of our country return Stewardship Party candidates exclusively because of the SP's strong support for the environment and indigenous rights. Despite the existence and representation of five major parties, the ruling Progressive Justice Party and opposition Nova Anglican People's Party currently occupy 83 of 100 seats in the House of Deputies, meaning that we have a two-party dominant state instead of a multiparty democracy.
But why would Mumford announce his intention to make this change, given that it would likely result in gains for smaller parties or even the formation of new parties to contest elections? One reason could be the intense pressure put on him by voting rights groups and the junior members of the coalition government (SP and Liberal Secularists). Another reason could be that Mumford is getting on in age (67 years old) and that he wishes to leave a magnanimous legacy in Nova Anglican politics. If he transitions the electoral system to a more equitable one, he will be seen as a nation-builder and someone who paved the way for a freer Nova Anglicana instead of a doddering old non-interventionist who alienated left and right by raising income taxes and presiding over a growing wealth gap, despite the economic gains that came with it. He is the architect of the modern Nova Anglican state and he can add to that legacy with this reform.
But what sort of reform will it be? Mumford was mum on the specifics, instead referring to "reform that will more equitably allow our citizens' voices to be heard while maintaining our cherished local constituencies." Critics on both left and right were quick to dismiss this as populist drivel that either goes too far or that promises reform without actually changing the system. It remains to be seen what kind of reform will be attempted, and indeed whether Mumford will be able to find enough support to push it through the legislature. For now, we must watch and wait with baited breath.
