Five Reasons People Who Claim PR Will Help the Far-Right are Wrong

Let's bust some myths...

In debates I have about electoral reform, one argument more than any other emerges as a showstopper: "Proportional Representation (PR) will empower the far-right." It's a fear that resonates deeply, especially in these politically turbulent times. But what if this widely-held belief is not just wrong, but actively harmful to our democracy?

Below, I set out why the claim that PR helps the far-right is a myth – and why adopting PR would actually be one of our best defences against extremism.

Myth 1: "PR Gives More Power to Extreme Parties"

At first glance, it might seem logical: under PR, far-right parties could gain seats in Parliament that they currently struggle to win under First-Past-the-Post (FPTP). But this overlooks a crucial point: seats don't automatically translate to power.

In a PR system, gaining seats is just the first step. To actually influence government policy, parties need to form coalitions and work with others. Far-right parties often struggle to find coalition partners due to their extreme views. In countries with PR systems, we often see "cordon sanitaire" agreements where mainstream parties refuse to work with extremists.

Moreover, PR often leads to more collaborative politics. In the Netherlands and Germany, which use PR systems, far-right parties have gained seats but remain largely isolated, unable to implement their agendas.

The reality is that PR gives extreme parties representation proportional to their actual support – no more, no less. It's a mirror to society, not a magnifying glass for extremism.

Myth 2: "More Seats Means More Legitimacy"

There's a fear that giving far-right parties a platform in Parliament would legitimise their views. But this argument misunderstands both the nature of parliamentary democracy and the current media landscape.

In today's digital age, far-right groups already have platforms. They're on social media, alternative news sites, and increasingly even the mainstream media. What they lack is scrutiny.

PR would force these parties to engage substantively in Parliament. Their specious claims would be challenged, their policies debated, their costings examined, their proposals voted on. Far from legitimising them, this kind of exposure often reveals the lack of substance behind populist rhetoric.

We've seen this in action in the European Parliament, where far-right MEPs have often struggled to translate their fiery rhetoric into coherent policy proposals. Sunlight, as they say, is the best disinfectant.

Myth 3: "FPTP Protects Us from the Far-Right"

This might be the most dangerous myth of all. FPTP doesn't protect us from extremism – it potentially amplifies it.

Under FPTP, a party can win a majority of seats with a minority of votes. In a fragmented political landscape, this could allow a far-right party to gain disproportionate power with minority support.

It becomes obvious if you consider this scenario: in a four-way race, a far-right party could win a constituency with just 30% of the vote if the other 70% is split between three other parties. Repeat this across enough constituencies, and you could have a far-right government elected by a small minority of voters.

And remember, in 2019, the Brexit Party stood down in Conservative-held seats in return for backroom assurances about getting the harshest form of Brexit done, demonstrating how FPTP can undemocratically amplify the influence of smaller, more extreme parties.

PR, by contrast, ensures that a party's power in Parliament matches its actual level of support in the country. It's a safeguard against minority rule, not an enabler of it.

Myth 4: "The Far-Right Will Grow Stronger with PR"

This myth assumes that far-right parties would thrive under the spotlight of parliamentary scrutiny. History and experience suggest otherwise.

Far-right parties often rely on a narrative of being " excluded outsiders" fighting against a "rigged system." PR removes this narrative. It forces these parties to engage in the messy realities of governance, coalition-building, and policy-making.

In 2009, when Nick Griffin, then leader of the far-right British National Party (BNP), accepted an invitation to appear on flagship BBC political programme, Question Time, many believed it would be a springboard for the far-right cause in the UK. In the end, his utter failure to withstand even that superficial level of scrutiny did the exact opposite.

And when UKIP gained two MPs through by-election victories, their support didn't surge – it declined. Why? Because they failed to transition from a mindset of simplistic criticism to one of constructive problem solving which, ultimately, is what people want from their politicians. Their simple solutions didn't hold up to parliamentary scrutiny.

In PR systems across Europe, we've seen far-right parties rise and fall as voters see the reality behind the rhetoric. PR doesn't strengthen these parties – it exposes their weaknesses.

Myth 5: "PR Leads to Chaos and Instability"

Critics often point to countries like Italy as examples of PR leading to instability. But this cherry-picks evidence while ignoring the many stable, prosperous countries using PR systems.

Germany, New Zealand, and the Nordic countries all use forms of PR. They're known for stable governance, not chaos. In fact, these countries often outperform the UK on measures of democratic satisfaction and effective governance.

Meanwhile, look at the UK's recent history under FPTP: three general elections in five years, multiple changes of Prime Minister mid-term, and a country deeply divided over Brexit. FPTP is no guarantee of stability.

PR encourages cooperation and consensus-building. It reduces the incentives that drive many of the toxic ‘win at all costs’ behaviours that flow from the ‘winner takes all’ FPTP system. And it leads to governments that represent a genuine majority of voters. That's not chaos – it's democracy working as it should.

Conclusion: PR is a Safeguard, Not a Threat

The fear that PR will empower the far-right is understandable, but misplaced. In reality, PR is one of our best tools for managing political extremism:

1. It ensures extremist parties only get power proportional to their actual support.

2. It exposes their dubious ideas to genuine scrutiny.

3. It removes their “excluded outsider" rallying narrative.

4. It encourages a culture of coalition-building and compromise in politics.

5. It leads to more representative, stable governance.

Far from being a threat to our democracy, PR is a way to strengthen it. It's a system that reflects the true diversity of public opinion, encourages political engagement, and ensures every vote counts.

The real threat to our democracy isn't PR – it's clinging to an outdated system that distorts the will of the people and fuels disillusionment with politics.

It's time to move beyond fear-based arguments and embrace a voting system that truly reflects the diverse, dynamic nation we are. PR isn't just fairer – it's our best defence against the very extremism its critics fear.

Open Britain’s Call to Action

Don't let myths and misconceptions stand in the way of a fairer, more representative democracy. Support Open Britain's campaign for electoral reform. Share this article to help spread understanding of how PR can protect, not harm, our democratic process.

Together, we can build a political system that truly works for everyone – not just the privileged few. Join our fight for proper democracy.