Fairvote Canada
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.
- A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems
- What is First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)?
- What is Proportional Representation (PR)?
- What is a Citizens’ Assembly?
- Why referendums Aren't Necessary
- The 219 Corrupt MPs Who Voted Against Advancing Electoral Reform
Related Communities/Communautés Associées
Resources/Ressources
Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles
- List of Canadian friends of Democracy Bluesky
- Fair Vote Canada: Bluesky
- Fair Voting BC: Bluesky
- Charter Challenge for Fair Voting: Bluesky
- Electoral Renewal Canada: Bluesky
- Vote16: Bluesky
- Longest Ballot Committee: Bluesky
- ~~Make Votes Equal / Make Seats Match Votes~~
- Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto (IRV for municipal elections)
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.
view the rest of the comments
Your arguments against PR continue to rest on selective examples, while ignoring the fundamental democratic deficits inherent in FPTP and the significant evidence contradicting your claims about effectiveness.
First, your framing reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what an electoral system should accomplish. You acknowledge that "more democracy is a bonus" for PR, as if democratic representation is merely a nice-to-have feature rather than the core purpose of elections. This mindset exemplifies precisely what's wrong with FPTP defenders - treating democratic representation as secondary to other considerations.
The turbulent times you mention actually strengthen the case for PR rather than weakening it. When facing multiple existential threats, we need governance systems that incorporate diverse perspectives and build genuine majority consensus around solutions. FPTP's tendency to produce false majorities implementing policies opposed by most citizens creates precisely the kind of policy instability that undermines effective long-term responses to complex challenges.
Ok, so let's look at the examples you brought up: Germany: You claim Germany has been "unable to pass significant legislation" due to its coalition government. This ignores their substantial climate legislation (far outpacing Canada's), comprehensive pandemic response, and extensive Ukraine support package. The "struggling economy" argument is misleading - Germany faces structural challenges related to energy dependency and demographic shifts that would exist under any electoral system. Their PR system has successfully contained the AfD's influence despite its growing support - exactly as designed.
Israel: Again, Israel uses an extreme form of PR with an exceptionally low threshold (1.5% until recently) specifically designed to create fragmentation. I've already addressed this previously.
Austria: The recent Austrian election actually demonstrates PR working correctly - the Freedom Party won 28% of the vote and received proportional representation, while the system prevents them from unilaterally implementing policies opposed by the 72% who didn't vote for them. Under FPTP, that 28% could easily translate to a governing majority with unchecked power.
Poland: Poland's transition from PiS to Tusk's coalition government shows PR's strength, not weakness. After PiS undermined democratic institutions, PR enabled a broad coalition to form and begin restoring them. The coalition reflects the will of the majority of Polish voters - exactly what an electoral system should facilitate.
Netherlands: The Dutch coalition negotiations reflect the genuine divisions within Dutch society. Far from being a failure, this is democracy working as intended - ensuring government reflects the actual distribution of voter preferences rather than artificially manufacturing majorities.
Italy: The Brothers of Italy received 26% of the vote and needed to form a coalition to govern. This ensures they can't implement policies without broader support, protecting democratic guardrails. Contrast this with the UK, where the Conservatives implemented Brexit with profound national consequences based on a 43.6% vote share.
What you characterize as "effectiveness" is actually undemocratic governance that produces unstable policies lacking broad support. True effectiveness comes from policies with genuine democratic legitimacy and staying power. The most pressing challenges we face - climate change, economic inequality, democratic backsliding - require sustained, long-term policy approaches that survive beyond electoral cycles. PR systems produce exactly this kind of stability through consensus-building.
Your concern for future generations is admirable, but consider what system those "groovy kids" would actually prefer: one where every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, or one where millions of votes are systematically discarded? One where parties must build genuine consensus for policies, or one where minority-supported parties can implement whatever they want? One with transparent representation of all viewpoints according to their actual support, or one that masks extremism until it captures a major party? The polls show 76% of Canadians support electoral reform, 62% of Ontarians support proportional representation in government.
The mathematical reality remains: PR produces governments that more accurately reflect how people actually vote. This isn't a minor technical detail - it's the fundamental purpose of representative democracy. A system that routinely discards over half the votes in many districts betrays the very concept of democracy itself.
What we actually need is a system where:
PR delivers this democratic accountability that FPTP fundamentally cannot. The turbulent times ahead require more democracy, not less - more voices at the table, more genuine consensus, and governance that truly represents the will of the people. That's what PR offers, and what those "groovy kids" you care about deserve.
Claiming that choosing large swathes of Europe is my cherry picking is pretty silly.
And you are misunderstanding the point of those examples. It is not just dangerous how close some of these hard right groups are to power, the fact these groups are so popular is in itself worrying.
It is not a sign of a healthy democracy when people are so angry and desperate they give Kickl 29% of the vote. It is a deeply worrying sign when some 20% of Germans are voting for dog whistle neo Nazi party (Alice fur Deutschland is about as blatant as it gets, there's not a German who doesn't know the Nazi slogan was Alles fur Deutschland.
Yes, those democracies are struggling through and bending into contortions to keep functional, non extremist governments working. But this is a sign of Democratic strength in the same sense that coughing up blood is a sign your body is keeping the blood out of your lungs, it's true but it is also a sign that something is seriously wrong.
A system can be great in theory or in different circumstances. But the reality of the moment and the real world evidence suggests we are very lucky to have avoided PR and would do well to continue to do so. We don't have a Wilders, Weidel or Kickl for a reason.
You blithely assume that more voices at the table or more better representation etc leads to better outcomes but what's the proof? You even mentiom Brexit but either don't know or comveniently forget that it was passed with a majority support in a referendum. For crazy but very representative outcomes, look South to California which loves ballot referendums, which are as pure a democratic option as possible. If you've read about the LA fires, you already know that insurance companies have been unable to accurately price the risk of fores because of a referendum preventing insurance companies from raising rates, popular but insane policy.
FPTP and our elected dictatorship creates a balance between the ability of government to pass significant legislation while also being accountable to voters. The real world examples of PR are horrific. It's really not that complicated.
I find it nonsensical how you keep cherrypicking examples while completely missing the point of what an electoral system is supposed to do.
You're saying "more democracy is a bonus" like it's some nice little perk rather than the entire purpose of elections! This perfectly illustrates our fundamental disagreement. I believe democracy exists to represent people's views. You seem to think it's primarily about producing governments you personally consider "effective" - even if they ignore what most citizens actually want.
I'm not blind to the challenges in Europe. But you're deliberately ignoring how PR is working exactly as designed in these cases. Take Germany - yes, the AfD has support, and that's disturbing. But PR ensures they get seats proportional to their actual support while preventing them from gaining disproportionate power. Unlike FPTP systems where extremists capture entire parties from within (hello, MAGA movement!).
And honestly, I find it pretty ironic that you're so worried about extremism when our FPTP system regularly produces governments opposed by the majority of citizens. The Ontario PCs are implementing policies that 57% of voters rejected! That's a minority strangling the majority - exactly the kind of governance that breeds extremism and discontent.
You mention those "groovy kids" you care about. Have you actually asked what they want? Polls consistently show younger generations overwhelmingly support electoral reform. They want a system where their votes matter, where every voice counts.
You know what doesn't serve future generations? A system that's completely failed to address climate change, housing affordability, and economic inequality - the exact issues they care most about. Nine years of Liberal promises on housing with minimal action until the crisis became catastrophic isn't "effectiveness" - it's failure.
And let's talk about rural Ontario. In Hastings-Lennox and Addington, over 51% of voters had NO representation whatsoever. Their votes literally counted for nothing. I've shared this statistic before but you keep ignoring it. How can you justify a system that systematically discards millions of votes in every election?
You know what's actually not healthy for a democracy? When people feel their votes don't matter. When they see governments implementing policies most citizens reject. When they watch the same neglected problems fester for decades because the system incentivizes short-term thinking and polarization over consensus-building.
I care deeply about this country too, and that's exactly why I'm fighting for a system where every vote counts. Where parties have to build genuine consensus instead of appealing to narrow slices of swing ridings. Where we can finally tackle the long-term challenges we face instead of lurching from one crisis to the next.
These "turbulent times" demand more democracy, not less. More voices at the table. More genuine consensus. That's what PR delivers, and what we all deserve.
Pray tell, what criteria would you use that somehow excludes our G7 PR system peers but is also not cherry-picking? Like, PR only (but not always!) counts in countries that have an imminent threat of Russian to their East?
Not that it's been demonstrated I've been cherry picking in the first place. Both people doing something wrong doesn't make it ok. Yet another example of lazy intellectual discussion from the FPTP camp.
Your shorter responses are telling me that perhaps you don't actually don't "care" enough about the country to defend FPTP. Because you would have full and properly thought out responses to make counter points and defend your position. Readers of this thread will decide, I suppose. I'll be using this as the most extensive example of how out of touch the FPTP camp is.
Reiterating a number of points, your concern about far-right parties in Europe fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of electoral systems. These systems don't create extremism - they reveal it. Under PR, we see exactly how much support extremist views actually have. Under FPTP, that extremism still exists but remains hidden until it captures an entire mainstream party, as we've seen repeatedly in the US with MAGA and even in Canada with elements of the CPC's current direction.
You've completely ignored my point about how FPTP produces governments that implement policies opposed by the majority of citizens. In Ontario, the PCs hold a "majority" with just 43% of the vote. How can you justify a system where 57% of voters explicitly rejected the governing party? That creates precisely the kind of democratic deficit that feeds extremism.
Your Brexit example actually undermines your argument. The referendum was a direct democracy mechanism that bypassed representative systems entirely. It has nothing to do with PR versus FPTP. And California's referendum system is similarly irrelevant to our discussion about representative democracy structures.
You claim FPTP creates accountability, but our experience demonstrates the opposite. The Liberals campaigned on housing affordability in 2015 and failed to make meaningful progress for nine years while the crisis exploded. Yet they remained in power because FPTP distorts voter preferences. That's not accountability - it's systematic failure.
Most telling is how you describe FPTP as an "elected dictatorship" as if that's a positive feature! That perfectly captures what's wrong with your perspective. Democracy isn't supposed to be a temporary dictatorship - it's supposed to be representative governance where every citizen's voice matters in proportion to its numbers.
The countries you cite as PR failures are functioning democracies where extremist parties gain representation proportional to their actual support, while being effectively contained through coalition dynamics. Compare this to the US where extremism now controls an entire major party with unchecked power when they win.
Democracy matters. Representation matters. Every vote should count.
What on Earth are you trying to say? Again, the question was pretty simple, how are my examples cherry picking? If we want to look at examples of how PR is playing out, the G7, the group to which we commonly compare Canada, seems a good choice. You just don't like it because they aren't great for your side. What example countries do you think would make a good comparison and why are they better than our G7 pals who use PR?
Your overabundance of free time doesn't compel me. I recommend going outside, enjoying a pleasant walk, maybe phoning a friend etc. It'll do you good.
Variations on "more representation is good!" isn't a new point, no one is arguing about this.
I thought you didn't like direct democracy because it wasn't practical. Is your position actually you want all peoples voices heard but ONLY filtered through representatives? You demand we listen to all the people but they can't be trusted enough to answer a question directly? This is a very silly position.
Not only do I already do your recommendations (of my own volition), I'm out here campaigning for democracy and Canadians. You just can't say the same.
I'm glad you're being transparent, and just plainly saying how little people, their agency and democracy matters to you. You've become the very extremist that you despise.
How is this direct democracy? A direct democracy means this would allow all citizens to vote directly on all legislation. Selective direct democracy wasn't in the scope of discussion for electoral systems. I know you love to distort arguments so it looks like you're countering the point, when it's just intellectually lazy, and anyone reading would know it. Please continue to show how out of touch you are.
My position is that FPTP is undemocratic because it systematically discards millions of perfectly valid votes. Whereas being Canadian means supporting democracy, including a fundamental principle of democracy: proportionate representation.
The Brexit referendum is completely irrelevant to our discussion about electoral systems. It wasn't about how representatives are elected - it was a one-off policy decision put directly to voters. You're conflating completely different democratic mechanisms to avoid addressing the actual failures of FPTP.
You keep avoiding the central issue: In Ontario, the PCs govern with a "majority" despite 57% of voters explicitly rejecting them. How is this legitimate democratic representation? You call FPTP an "elected dictatorship" as if that's a positive feature rather than a profound democratic failure.
Your cherry-picking of European examples continues to miss the point. The purpose of an electoral system isn't to prevent certain ideologies from gaining representation - it's to ensure accurate representation of how citizens actually vote. If you're concerned about extremism, address the cultural and social factors creating it, rather than trying to silence it through electoral manipulation.
As for your claim that I don't care about outcomes - I care deeply about outcomes. That's exactly why I support PR. Countries with PR systems consistently outperform FPTP countries on measures of economic equality, social welfare, environmental protection, and democratic satisfaction. The Nordic countries, Germany, and New Zealand all demonstrate how PR produces stable, effective governance with policies that enjoy genuine majority support.
The mathematical reality remains undeniable: FPTP systematically fails to represent millions of citizens in every election. No amount of handwaving about "efficiency" changes this fundamental democratic deficit. If democracy means anything, it must mean that every citizen's vote contributes meaningfully to representation. Only PR delivers this basic democratic principle. A basic democratic principle that you not only don't understand, but fail to recognize as being fundamentally critical for good outcomes for its citizens.
You dismiss all arguments for "more democracy" because you, and only you, think it's like some nice little perk rather than the entire purpose of elections.
That's one perspective but I disagree. Electoral systems and rules exist so that people can elect a government, the purpose of which is to help the people. The primary goal of a government is the welfare of its people.
If your electoral system consistently produces **bad **outcomes, that's a **bad **thing.
When we look to peer nations, like our compatriots in the G7 who use PR or all across Europe, you see bad outcomes happening.
It takes a insane reading of the situation to say a system wherein Kickl is polling about where our Canadian Conservative party polls, is producing good outcomes. You know this intrinsically, it's why you go into histrionics when I point out countries like all the examples already listed.
It's worked in some places, is producing deeply disturbing outcomes in others. You haven't outlined why the Nordic countries are doing well under PR vs all the counter examples, you've just whined that it's not fair to use fairly reasonable comparisons bizzarely claimed that 1/5 Germans voting for an acitve neo Nazi party is somehow a good sign.
Pretty simple stuff.
lol
Yes, please keep showing how the no-PR camp is out of touch with reality. You're trying to corrupt a democratic tool into your own personal elect your preferred ideology mechanism. In which FPTP does not do particularly well.
What good is a government that enacts policies that hurt its people? And no electoral system can filter out ideologies that only you oppose.
I agree, and PR forces government to cater to its citizens. The primary goal of electoral systems is to ensure accurate representation. You're conflating the purpose of government with the purpose of electoral systems. Electoral systems are the democratic mechanism through which citizens select their representatives – they aren't meant to filter out particular ideologies.
Your definition of "bad outcomes" is entirely subjective and ideological. What you're really saying is "I don't like the representatives some voters choose." This is fundamentally anti-democratic, and anti-Canadian. The purpose of elections isn't to produce governments you personally approve of – it's to accurately represent the will of the people.
This cherry-picking again? For every example you cite, there are PR systems producing excellent outcomes. The Nordic countries consistently rank at the top of nearly every measure of good governance, economic equality, and social welfare – all with PR systems. New Zealand transitioned to MMP and has seen stable, effective governance. You conveniently ignore these examples because they contradict your narrative.
The electoral system didn't create Kickl's support – it merely reveals it. What's "insane" is thinking that hiding extremist views through electoral manipulation is better than confronting them directly. FPTP doesn't eliminate extremism; it masks it until it captures an entire mainstream party – as we've seen with MAGA in the US.
Actually, I have – multiple times. The difference is in the broader political culture, democratic traditions, and social cohesion. Electoral systems don't create extremism; they reflect the societies they operate in. Your entire argument boils down to "I don't like what some voters choose, so let's use a system that silences them." That's not democracy – it's electoral engineering to produce outcomes you prefer. And this sinister engineering is disenfranchising millions of "groovy kids" - who you supposedly care about.
I stand for the principle that in a democracy, citizens are deserving of and entitled to representation in government. Only proportional representation can consistently deliver this fundamental democratic right. Your position continues to prioritize subjective outcomes over democratic principles, which is precisely why PR advocates will ultimately prevail – because democracy itself is on our side.
Did you literally stop reading after the first sentence?
Here we differ. I will loudly declare that I believe racist, hateful or Nazi adjacent parties are Bad things. I did not think that was a contentious point, but here we are.
What's the proof? Do you really believe some 30% of Canadians would vote for similar groups and we're just masking that now? Or just huge percentages of Italians, Austrians, Germans, Dutch, Polish etc are fairly hateful? Rather than say, things have gotten really bad and people are looking for extreme measures?
Maybe this is it. To me, 50/50 is a pretty fucking terrible offer here. Like, hey, we can make your vote marginally better but there's a 50/50 chance Canada gets a bunch of extreme right politics to deal with going forward.
I think that offer makes Canada a much worse place for many vulnerable people.
Edit: formattings and the grammars
Your analysis of Germany's situation fundamentally misunderstands how electoral systems interact with extremism.
First, your claim that "it is much harder to envision a party like the AfD gaining traction in an FPTP system" ignores the reality we're seeing in FPTP countries. In the US, extremist views didn't disappear - they captured an entire major party from within. The MAGA movement didn't need to form a separate party; it simply took over one of only two viable options. This is precisely why Team Permanent DST's question is so critical.
Your two "styles of issues" with PR reveal deeper misconceptions:
You claim PR "makes politics much less likely to produce significant or helpful change." What's the evidence for this? Countries with PR systems like the Nordic nations, New Zealand, and Germany have implemented far more substantial climate legislation, healthcare reforms, and social welfare programs than many FPTP countries. These policies tend to have greater longevity and stability precisely because they're built on broader consensus rather than imposed by minority-supported governments.
Your concern about "super broad" coalitions ignores how PR gives voters transparency about where parties actually stand. In Germany, voters can see exactly which parties refuse to work with the AfD and why. Under FPTP, these negotiations happen within parties, behind closed doors, before elections even occur. When extremism captures a mainstream party in FPTP, voters have nowhere else to go.
The key difference is accountability and containment. In Germany, the AfD's ~23% support translates to proportional representation - significant but contained. They remain excluded from governing coalitions because other parties refuse to work with them. By contrast, when extremists capture a major party in FPTP, they can gain control of entire governments with minority support, as we've seen in the US.
What's happening in Germany isn't a failure of PR - it's PR working exactly as designed. The system provides early warning about extremist support and creates transparent mechanisms to contain it, while still ensuring citizens who hold those views have representation proportional to their numbers (no more, no less). Meanwhile, FPTP's tendency to produce false majorities implementing policies opposed by most citizens creates precisely the kind of disenfranchisement that feeds extremism in the first place.
The rise of the AfD reflects genuine social concerns and tensions in Germany that would exist under any electoral system. The difference is that PR makes these tensions visible and addressable, rather than masking them until they capture an entire mainstream party.
How you want electoral systems to interact.
So you're now cherrypicking a 2 party system as the equivalent of ours? Do you really not understand the structural differences of the American system and ours? For actual comparisons, you could look at the UK where Reform is their Far Right equivalent but is significantly more moderate than its PR peers and enjoys lower support. You might also note that there are no analogs in Canada.
Most, if not all, of the changes you describe were set in motion a long time ago. In recent years, maybe it's the rise of polarization, maybe it's just the fade of the boom time of the 90s, but modern PR countries have struggled in the last decade+.
To be clear, the country rocking your utopian electoral system is going through such bad turmoil that 1/5 of its citizens are turning to a dog whistling neo nazi party, and this is a good thing in your books and has nothing to do with the struggles of Germany to pass significant legislation since Merkel? (I mean, you cited Ukraine, Covid and the climate a few replies ago, missing that 2/3 of those were pretty basic that most of Europe figured out and the other is based EU mandates and on legislation passed years and years ago.)
Basically, if you understand that:
and these issues keep popping up over and over in PR countries, probably time to reconsider the merits of that system.
There are two answers to the rise of extremist parties in PR countries:
Again, I take the rise of these parties in Canada as an unacceptable risk to the vulnerable AND that these reflect growing dissatisfaction within the countries you wish for us to emulate.
You and I personally are unlikely to be seriously affected by those awful outcomes but I care about those who will be affected. Maybe that's the difference.
Your contrast between PR and FPTP regarding extremism misses what's actually happening in both systems.
The AfD example actually demonstrates PR's strengths, not weaknesses. Under PR, Germany has a clear, transparent accounting of extremist support – roughly 23% – and a system that contains this influence proportionately. The remaining 77% can form coalitions that reflect the majority's will while acknowledging the real tensions within society.
Compare this to what FPTP does: it doesn't eliminate extremism – it camouflages it. Look at the UK, where Brexit was pushed through by a Conservative Party captured by its extreme wing, despite most citizens eventually opposing it. Or Canada's own experience with the Reform Party, which didn't disappear but instead took over the Conservative Party from within. This pattern of extremist capture of mainstream parties is FPTP's signature failure.
Your claim that PR coalitions can't create "significant legislation" contradicts international evidence. Nordic countries with PR have implemented groundbreaking climate policies, comprehensive healthcare systems, and robust social programs that FPTP countries struggle to match. These policies endure precisely because they're built on broader consensus rather than imposed by minority governments.
You mention the "super broad coalition" in Germany as a weakness, but this is democracy functioning properly – reflecting the actual distribution of voter preferences rather than artificially manufacturing majorities. When 77% of voters reject a particular ideology, shouldn't governance reflect that reality?
PR doesn't create division – it reveals divisions that already exist and provides democratic mechanisms to address them. FPTP masks these divisions until they erupt in destabilizing ways, as we've seen repeatedly in the UK, US, and increasingly in Canada.
You keep blithely asserting that PR is dealing with extremism well. We disagree on this. You haven't said anything new. I don't think forcing a bunch of other parties to try to work around excluding almost a quarter of the seats is particularly good politics.
That's a wildly incorrect misremembering of history, the majority of Britons explicitly voted for Brexit in a referendum about it. I know that despite demanding more representation you hate the results of people being asked things directly, but it's pretty hard to argue that Brexit was against their will.
Honestly, just read to the end of the paragraph where I made this point. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.
This is a nonsense reading. You compare a country with a fundamentally different set up, one where the extreme party is fairly moderate by the PR standards AND enjoys less support than extreme parties in PR countries and then our Conservative party, which is nowhere near as extreme as the extremist parties sprouting like mushrooms in PR systems. To put these examples in the same basket as the PR extremism is childishly ignorant and demonstrates you either have no clue about the subject matter or that you are willing to ignore reality to make a point poorly. I'm not sure which is worse.
Like I said, I take the rise of these parties in Canada as an unacceptable risk to the vulnerable AND that these reflect growing dissatisfaction within the countries you wish for us to emulate.
You may not care about the vulnerable, I do.
I mean, you can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change reality. It's like a person who doesn't exercise, think's exercising is bad for them.
You haven't said anything compelling to justify FPTP over PR.
I don't think systematically disenfranchising millions of citizens is good governance nor a healthy democracy.
More correctly, I dislike when disinformation campaigns are brought upon the public. Similar to the PR disinformation campaigns.
You're not in the habit of making compelling arguments
I can't believe you said this. An electoral system does nothing to magically change the ideology of a political party.
And also, you only say this because in your twisted mind, you think the mere existence of the extremist parties in PR, means they have full control. Where the truth is that PR just reflects the ideological makeup of society, just as an electoral system is supposed to do.
What's worse is your denial of reality, how warmly you embrace authoritarianism "elected dictatorship", and how reckless you are in your cherry-picking rhetoric.
Hmm, under FPTP this is happening? What happened to all the good extremism limiting you were talking about?
You care about them so much, you're willing to disenfranchise millions of them. Because you think you know better than them, clearly you think so highly of yourself, don't you?
You need to take a step back and consider what electoral systems actually do versus what we want them to do.
I've said this before: You keep claiming PR isn't dealing with extremism well, pointing to the AfD's ~23% representation in Germany. But this is precisely how democratic representation should work - their support is visible, transparent, and contained exactly in proportion to their actual numbers. Meanwhile, the remaining 77% can form coalitions that reflect the broader public will.
I've also said this before too: What FPTP does isn't eliminate extremism - it masks it. When extremist views capture a major party from within (as we've seen with the Reform Party's takeover of the Conservative Party in Canada), their influence can actually exceed what they would have under PR. The difference is accountability and transparency.
Your Brexit example actually highlights FPTP's weaknesses. The referendum was sold to the public based on promises that quickly unravelled after the vote. The government implementing it had only 43.6% support - meaning most Britons didn't vote for the specific Brexit implementation they received. In PR systems, parties must build genuine consensus on major policies, preventing such dramatic policy lurches.
I've said this before yet you love ignoring inconvenient truths: PR doesn't create division - it reveals divisions that already exist. FPTP masks these tensions until they erupt in destabilizing ways. The evidence from countries using PR demonstrates that governments reflecting genuine majority consensus produce more stable, effective policies over time precisely because they have broader democratic legitimacy.
I care deeply about vulnerable populations, too. That's exactly why I believe every citizen deserves equal representation in their democracy - which would actually force the government to consider all when enacting policy.
I don't know what else to tell you.
If you recommended a bar that had better drinks but every second night, 20% of the bar were alt right extremists, we'd think you had poor taste. The fact you want a similar government here, ain't great look.
You can pretend that the groups you dislike under FPTP are similar to the extremist groups under PR but that's absolute nonsense.
This accusation that I don't care about vulnerable populations is both unfounded and ironic, given that FPTP systems systematically disenfranchise millions of voters – including many from vulnerable communities.
Let's be clear about what truly puts vulnerable people at risk: electoral systems that allow minority-supported governments to implement policies opposed by the majority. Under Ontario's FPTP system, the PCs govern with just 43% support while implementing policies opposed by 57% of voters. How does allowing a minority to govern on behalf of the majority protect vulnerable Ontarians?
Your fear of extremism in PR systems ignores a fundamental reality: extremism doesn't disappear under FPTP – it's just hidden until it captures a mainstream party from within. This "stealth extremism" is actually more dangerous because it lacks transparency and accountability. Look at how the Reform Party didn't vanish – it simply took over the Conservative Party, with Stephen Harper (from Reform) becoming PM. This pattern repeats in FPTP systems globally.
The mathematical reality remains that PR ensures every vote contributes meaningfully to representation. This is particularly important for vulnerable populations whose voices are systematically ignored under FPTP. When Indigenous communities, racial minorities, people with disabilities, or LGBTQ+ Canadians vote for representatives who understand their unique challenges, those votes shouldn't be discarded simply because they don't form pluralities in artificial geographic boundaries.
PR systems create democratic legitimacy by requiring genuine majority consensus for policies. This directly benefits vulnerable populations by preventing the policy lurch we see under FPTP, where successive minority-supported governments implement contradictory approaches. Social services, healthcare, disability supports, and anti-discrimination protections need consistent, stable policy frameworks – not the constant upheaval FPTP produces.
The "dissatisfaction" you reference in PR countries is not caused by their electoral systems but by broader economic, social, and geopolitical challenges that all democracies face today. The key difference is that PR systems create transparent mechanisms to address these tensions through democratic processes, rather than suppressing them until they erupt in more destructive ways.
Your concern for vulnerable populations would be better served by supporting a system where their votes actually count, where their representatives have meaningful seats at the table, and where policies require genuine majority support rather than being imposed by minority-elected governments.
I care deeply about creating a Canada where everyone's voice matters – especially those who have been historically marginalized. That's precisely why I support proportional representation.
This is exactly the silliness I'm talking about.
Do you literally believe the Canadian conservative party is seriously comparable to the AfD or Brothers of Italy?
I'm not claiming the current CPC is equivalent to the AfD or Brothers of Italy in their policy positions. That mischaracterizes my argument. What I've been pointing out is the mechanism by which extremism manifests differently under different electoral systems.
In PR systems, extremist viewpoints form their own distinct parties with representation proportional to their actual support. In FPTP systems, extremist movements are incentivized to work within mainstream parties, gradually influencing their direction from within rather than forming separate parties that would split the vote.
The Reform Party example illustrates this pattern - not because the CPC today equals the AfD, but because it demonstrates how FPTP doesn't eliminate ideological factions; it simply forces them to operate within big-tent parties where their influence can grow less visibly. The Reform Party recognized this reality and eventually merged with the PCs rather than remaining a separate entity.
This pattern repeats across FPTP systems globally. In the UK, Brexit was championed by what was once a fringe position within the Conservative Party before capturing the party's direction. In the US, the transformation of the Republican Party over the past decade shows how rapidly a mainstream party can shift when captured by a movement from within.
What PR provides is transparency and proportionality. When the AfD gets 23% in Germany, they receive exactly that proportion of seats - no more, no less. Meanwhile, the remaining 77% can form coalitions that reflect the majority will. This creates both visibility about extremist support and a containment mechanism that prevents disproportionate influence.
The mathematical reality remains that PR ensures every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, while FPTP systematically discards millions of votes. This democratic deficit is what should truly concern us - a system where majority viewpoints can be ignored while minority-supported governments implement policies opposed by most citizens.
The fundamental question isn't about comparing specific parties across countries, but about which system better serves democratic principles by accurately representing citizens' actual voting preferences.
And that mechanism is leading to moderate parties in FPTP systems like ours and hate groups in PR ones.
You admit that
So, why aren't those tensions which are boiling over repeatedly in PR systems boiling over here? Again, simply put, do you think 1/5 Canadians are angry enough to vote for a far right group?