this post was submitted on 12 Mar 2025
36 points (97.4% liked)

Fairvote Canada

559 readers
177 users here now

Matrix Chat

What is This Group is About?

De Quoi Parle ce Groupe?

The unofficial non-partisan Lemmy movement to bring proportional representation to all levels of government in Canada.

🗳️Voters deserve more choice and accountability from all politicians.

Le mouvement non officiel et non partisan de Lemmy visant à introduire la représentation proportionnelle à tous les niveaux de gouvernement au Canada.

🗳️Les électeurs méritent davantage de choix et de responsabilité de la part de tous les politiciens.

Related Communities/Communautés Associées

Resources/Ressources

Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles

We're looking for more moderators, especially those who are of French and indigenous identities.

Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
Sunshine@lemmy.ca
AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca
36
B.C. New Democrat and B.C. Greens finalize agreement: The accord sets out shared policy initiatives and deliverables for 2025 focused on ... democratic and electoral reform - BC Green Caucus (bcgreencaucus.ca)
submitted 2 weeks ago by AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca to c/fairvote@lemmy.ca
74 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Full text agreement here.

Section 3 – Policy Initiatives & 2025 Deliverables

11. Democratic and Electoral Reform

The Parties will work together to create a special legislative all-party committee to evaluate and recommend policy and legislation measures to be pursued beginning in 2026 to increase democratic engagement & voter participation, address increasing political polarization, and improve the representativeness of government. The committee will review and consider preferred methods of proportional representation as part of its deliberations. The Government will work with the BCGC to establish the detailed terms of reference for this review, which are subject to the approval of both parties. The terms of reference will include the ability to receive expert and public input, provide for completion of the Special Committee’s work in Summer 2025, and public release of the Committee’s report within 45 days of completion. The committee will also review the administration of the 43rd provincial general election, including consideration of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report on the 43rd provincial general election, and make recommendations for future elections.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (66 children)

Seems rude to come in and argue the merits of PR in a community devoted to it, apologies, I’m happy to let it be.

I mean, we live in a democratic society, so free speech is encouraged.

Edit: also if there were a hypothetical system superior to proportional representation, I'd be in favour of it after rigorous consideration. I'm not bound to any particular electoral system.

If you read about what’s happening in those countries, you’ll realize it’s not about the culture, it’s that PR incentivizes really bad outcomes. Take Germany for example. Just like here, a small minority of people would vote for really hateful parties that are toxic and should be avoided

How is that a "bad outcome" when it's literally what people voted for. Electoral systems are not supposed to decide the ideological makeup of government.

It's not PR you are against, you are against a characteristic inherent of democracy itself.

has made the other parties form really broad and thus ineffective coalitions, which are unable to push forward significant legislation

Is this worse than the big tent parties we have now, that members can't vote or think independent of their party leaders?

an absolute pure democracy where every bill, item etc was voted on by everyone. That would certainly be the ultimate in democracy, but it would be a terrible way to run a country and likely lead to some insane policy choices

What does this have anything to do with our conversation? We aren't discussing representative democracy versus direct democracy. We are discussing proportional representation vs non-proportional representation.

My entire point is that PR, while really groovy on paper, tends to produce really bad outcomes and thus sacrifices a lot of the efficiency of government (and of voting frankly) for some (arguably temporary) democratic gain

  1. Tends to produce bad outcomes how exactly? You would need to describe an outcome that you would not see under any democracy.
  2. Sacrifices the efficiency of government how? And is "efficiency" more important than policy that the majority actually agree on?
  3. Your argument against PR is that voting is "inefficient", therefore we should allow non-proportional governments?
  4. How is it "temporary" democratic gain, when there are more mathematical criteria satisfied under PR systems for producing democratic systems?
[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

How is that a “bad outcome” when it’s literally what people voted for.

You don't see how abhorrent racist parties taking power is a bad outcome?

Is this worse than the big tent parties we have now,

Yes. We've just passed a national school lunch program, are working on affordable day care and expanding healthcare to cover dental work. For better or worse, the Liberals have a very clear record you can vote on, whether you think they allowed too much immigration or you support their work on childcare, they have a clear record that they own and we are thus able to vote on it. This is not possible in a PR system. (What were the things your party actually made happen vs the results of messy compromises with a dozen parties? In the German context, as they'll need literally every party to avoid working with the AFD, how are you possibly able to apportion blame or praise on any party?)

We are discussing proportional representation vs non-proportional representation.

Again, I refer you to your quote: "The responsibility of the electoral system is to ensure **effective **representation in government" I'm pointing out that there are trade offs. You could establish 100% representation but it would be terrible. Similarly, sure you can argue that PR leads to more representation but that doesn't mean that it is effective representation.

Tends to produce bad outcomes how exactly? You would need to describe an outcome that you would not see under any democracy.

The ability of small parties to hold a majority hostage. Think about the extreme right in Israel, who despite being fairly unpopular are pushing ahead some fairly aggressive anti-Palestinian moves. This caaaaaaaaan happen in a fptp system but is much less likely.

Sacrifices the efficiency of government how? And is “efficiency” more important than policy that the majority actually agree on?

Again, I refer you to pretty much everything I've already written about the German system. Being paralyzed means the government can't pass significant legislation, which has led to significant problems and perversely, the rise of groups like the AFD.

Your argument against PR is that voting is “inefficient”, therefore we should allow non-proportional governments?

That's not at all what I've said.

How is it “temporary” democratic gain, when there are more mathematical criteria satisfied under PR systems for producing democratic systems?

In the short run, if you can vote for any party but none of the parties are able to really affect change, how democratic or useful is your vote?

In the long run, it leads to more people being willing to abandon democracy as PR systems tend to be unable to deliver significant change. If democracy doesn't help, more people are willing to turn to autocrats.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

You don’t see how abhorrent racist parties taking power is a bad outcome?

I'm not making a position on whether a particular ideology is good or bad. In a democracy, people are entitled to and deserving of representation. If you don't like that, then you are against democracy itself. If that is what people voted for, then they are entitled to a representative that aligns with their interests. Once again, electoral systems are not supposed to determine the ideological makeup of government.

We’ve just passed a national school lunch program, are working on affordable day care and expanding healthcare to cover dental work

To suggest that these policies are solely thanks to an electoral system is nonsensical. The point I was making was that in non-PR systems, we have members that too often don't vote their conscience, and just keep in line with party policy.

they have a clear record that they own and we are thus able to vote on it. This is not possible in a PR system

So you've never seen mixed-member proportional (MMP)? And what aspect of our FPTP system allows you to vote for parties???

the results of messy compromises with a dozen parties

Yes, that is a characteristic inherent of democracy itself. Are you arguing for autocracy?

Again, I refer you to your quote: “The responsibility of the electoral system is to ensure **effective **representation in government” I’m pointing out that there are trade offs. You could establish 100% representation but it would be terrible. Similarly, sure you can argue that PR leads to more representation but that doesn’t mean that it is effective representation.

By effective representation, I mean every vote would actually elect someone. I don't mean that every single person would have a dedicated representative (nor even resembling that notion).

So yes, when you say "pure democracy where every bill, item etc was voted on by everyone" versus "an autocracy can pass perfect and brilliant legislation but is completely un democratic", the axis you are referring to is concentration of power.

Whereas PR vs non-PR doesn't really deal with that, it's more about whether votes actually elect someone. This is really getting into semantics, but the takeaway is that we aren't having the same conversation.

The ability of small parties to hold a majority hostage...This caaaaaaaaan happen in a fptp system but is much less likely.

We already have a small minority holding the majority hostage.

Virtually every single majority government has been a minority holding the majority hostage... You really need to do your research.

Being paralyzed means the government can’t pass significant legislation

  1. This isn't true.
  2. At least in PR, every single bill enacted would be majority supported.
  3. So you're saying that it's better that a minority passes legislation, despite being unpopular?

In the short run, if you can vote for any party but none of the parties are able to really affect change, how democratic or useful is your vote?

It's definitely better than being strangled by a minority, like we have all the time.

In the long run, it leads to more people being willing to abandon democracy as PR systems tend to be unable to deliver significant change. If democracy doesn’t help, more people are willing to turn to autocrats.

True democracy is extremely slow, but that doesn't we should abandon our principles just to maintain a broken and unfair winner-take-all electoral system.

I'm sorry, but the points you raised are problems with democracy itself, not inherently with PR. PR only gets us closer to the ideals of democracy, and democracy is extremely flawed, slow, and yes can be strangled, but at the very least, policies must be enacted with majority support.

The notion that we should maintain our systems because we can pass more legislation (despite how unpopular it might be), is ridiculous and goes against the principles of democracy itself.

What benefits does FPTP achieve? It doesn't do anything it sets out to do, it doesn't guarantee local representation (we can have parachute candidates), it doesn't guarantee effective representation (we have many votes cast that elect nobody), and FPTP isn't even supposed to do any of the things you laud it for doing!

You haven't even addressed the point about PR electoral systems being mathematically superior to FPTP... perhaps because it doesn't fit your narratives? PR can be mathematically demonstrated to have its citizens better off, every single time than FPTP (or any winner-take-all system for that matter).

I'm saddened that you are cherry picking particular pieces of evidence to support your case, and you are so staunchly opposed to PR. I think about, if there is anything possible to change your mind, and since the answer is likely no, then there is no point in discussing further (not that I am opposed to it). Because, it's not clear what objective you want to achieve in an electoral system, that isn't a problem with democracy itself.

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You are correct, we aren't talking about the same thing. I am talking about the actual mechanics and serious downsides of PR. You seem to be talking about how PR does one thing well and then leaping to the conclusion that it is a good thing. Personally, I care about people and the country and PR would harm both. (To you, it seems the harms are just, well, other people's problems.)

It is utterly irresponsible to advocate for a system with significant downsides and then casting pointing out those downsides as not being a fan of democracy.

Have a good night.

[–] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

You are correct, we aren’t talking about the same thing. I am talking about the actual mechanics and serious downsides of PR. You seem to be talking about how PR does one thing well and then leaping to the conclusion that it is a good thing.

Well, this is a good example of evading the points being made...

I care about people and the country

Me too, I recognize when options are mathematically superior.

it seems the harms are just, well, other people’s problems

I could literally say the same thing about FPTP! Again, at least with PR, every single policy that is enacted is supported by the majority, can you say that about FPTP?

It is utterly irresponsible to advocate for a system with significant downsides

I agree, FPTP is the least democratic option when choosing democratic electoral systems.

those downsides as not being a fan of democracy.

And yet you still haven't been able to refute the point, only complain about it. Yes, the downsides you bring up about PR are the same downsides you would have in a democracy, and provide no tangible upsides for FPTP...

load more comments (62 replies)