The Netherlands has a multi-party system just like reformers in the US want, reputable elections, biking infrastructure that people won't shut up about, a long tradition of social democracy, and just had a far-right election victory. The rise of fascism is not some trickery by Trump or the Russians or the US system: it's part of the world-wide failure of neoliberalism, which suppressed the left and then died.
@RichPuchalsky i kinda agree, except that neoliberals did not kill the left; it's the social democrats that embraced neoliberism and killed the left before dying.
@spacehobo I don't know the Dutch right-wing parties, but in Sweden the traditional right bloc hemmed and hawed for one election cycle while traditional left and right blocs jockeyed for minority power and in the next the traditional right bloc welcomed the fascists for a solid parliamental majority.
@RichPuchalsky But that very system will now prevent those fascists from even forming a coalition, unlike the plurality-take-all systems like Weimar or the US or UK. I understand your later point, but systems that prevent sudden seizure of power are an important step forward. @Hex
@RichPuchalsky worth noting that, in this context, "won" the election means they're the largest party with 35 seats. Far short of a majority unless other parties choose to work with the fascists.
@georgepotter I'm a huge fan of proportional representation and I think first past the post sucks.
But the experience from the last ten years says that just like the center faction in the Republican Party caved to the fascist faction, so the center-right bloc in the multi-party Dutch system will cave to the largest party that is "at least not the Left", just like they did in Sweden. If not this time then next time, after a few years of parliamental uncertainty.
There will be a lot of symbolic resistance which in the end will amount to nothing, just like within the GOP in 2016.
@clacke@RichPuchalsky I think they probably will, but that shouldn't be mistaken for being the same thing as the fascists "winning" an election when they still only represent a majority.
In the US a fascist won the 2016 presidential election. A fascist party winning a third of the seats in a parliamentary election is not the same thing, especially when we're talking about the benefits of proportional versus first past the post systems.
@clacke@RichPuchalsky in multi party systems fascists don't take power unless non-fascist parties work with them. In two party systems fascists can take power simply by being the largest faction within one of the two parties.
@georgepotter They more than doubled their vote and they almost doubled their seats. And a quarter of the voters is a terrifying amount of support for what should be a fringe party.
In terms of media strategy I agree that their victories should not be exaggerated as there's a risk that it becomes self-fulfilling and normalized. On the other hand their opposition needs a wake-up call, clearly.
@clacke@RichPuchalsky I don't think it's nitpicking, I think it's really important that we don't misrepresent election outcomes. Countries with first past the post assume that every election must have a "winner".
But the reality is not that the Dutch fascists have massively surged in popularity (though their popularity has increased) but that the non-fascist vote is more fragmented than ever before due to the emergence of new parties.
@clacke@RichPuchalsky if your definition of "won" an election is simply being the largest party then that can lead to saying that a party entering and exiting an election with the same 20 seats has "won" simply because their opponents went from being 3 parties with 30 seats each to being 6 parties with 15 seats each.
@georgepotter It did go faster to hijack the system in the US, I agree. But I think that the fascists becoming the biggest party is a Big Frikkin Deal to report on and the distinction whether "winning the election" means "literally won majority" or "the election was a huge win for them" is nitpicking.
They went from third party and declining to biggest party. That's a win, regardless if they can form a cabinet of their own. They're the kingmaker.
A majority of seats would have been a bigger disaster. But this is a big disaster and a huge disappointment.
@clacke@RichPuchalsky yes, but that is my point. In multi-party systems the fascists only come to power if non-fascist parties enable them. That does often happen, but it's certainly not inevitable and the system as a whole is less vulnerable to fascists than one where fascists can easily hijack a single party.
@clacke@RichPuchalsky one of the biggest ways fascists are normalised is by having their successes over exaggerated and hyped up by the media. Looking successful helps them to succeed further. Saying they "won" when only a minority of people voted for them only helps them. Putting their success in its proper context hurts them.
@clacke@RichPuchalsky the incumbent coalition government was hugely unpopular and had fallen apart over the very issue central to the fascist platform, there were two successful new parties competing to split the votes of their rivals, the fascists massively toned down their rhetoric and policies and yet, in this almost perfect storm, they still only managed 35 seats.
@clacke@RichPuchalsky regardless of whether other parties enable them into power or not doesn't change the fact that even on their best night the fascists could only attract the support of a quarter of the country.
@clacke@RichPuchalsky it is indeed scary, but just under 24% of the vote doesn't seem inconsistent with many countries, unfortunately. It should absolutely be a wake up call, and not just in the Netherlands.
However, the OP's point of "multi party systems let the fascists win too" is a great example of misrepresenting how popular fascists actually are and thereby giving them the legitimacy of success, which is often what encourages other parties to start working with them.