Notices by Cllr George Potter (georgepotter@mastodonapp.uk)

@clacke @RichPuchalsky relevant update on this, it looks like hopefully the line might be holding:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67574033

@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.

@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 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 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 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 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.

@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 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.

@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.

@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.