MyBrainHurts

So, are you running away from the two principles that you laid out above? I'm just pointing out here that you seem to move the goal posts to whatever is convenient. When you are defending PR, all that matters is how democratic something is. When I bring up direct democracy, all of a sudden, the costs and practical consequences matter.

You cannot have it both ways.

And are you confusing me with someone else? My very original point was

Please, anything but full PR. Please. In a polarized landscape PR is leading to increasingly bad outcomes (Israel, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Poland etc.) In a PR system, the Far Right would be running France.

I'm just seeing how your logic plays out. You can't have it wherein "if I'm talking about PR, then all that matters is how democratic a system is" AND "if I'm talking about any other system, then the practicalities and consequences matter."

You've been arguing that PR is the best system because it is the most democratic. I'm pointing out that there are more democratic systems.

As you stated above, your principles:

1. In a democracy, we are entitled to and deserving of representation in government.

2. I am not trying to argue whether democracy (and by proxy PR) itself is successful (or unsuccesful), because that is an entirely different discussion.

So, according to the two principles you've laid out, direct democracy seems superior to PR.

Edited to include your quotes about the context/reminding you of the goal posts which you chose.

I strongly recommend reading about modern German politics. Actual AfD manifesto "Islam does not belong to Germany. Its expansion and the ever-increasing number of Muslims in the country are viewed by the AfD as a danger to our state, our society, and our values." As much as we hate them, imagine the Republicans writing something like that in their manifesto.

Yes, the Republican party is doing terrible things. But none of that would be stopped by a PR system. (Especially when the republicans won more than half the votes...)

What you’re seeing as a broad ineffective coalition happens in Canada within the parties themselves, prior to the election

Sort of? That coalition still comes forward with a set of proposals that they generally have a chance to enact (or, they choose not to and bear the electoral consequences for it.) This is different than going forward with a set of proposals, then in a murky set of compromises behind close doors with multiple parties, some other result happens. How to assign blame or credit?

Has happened to our PC party which got split in two, then reunited again under the extreme part’s leadership.

Come on. I don't think a serious or well informed adult can honestly look at the PC party and say that it is seriously comparable to the Hard Right like the AfD. While some of those folks are swept up into a faction, their outcomes get moderated by the PC party because of the FPTP incentives to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate.

They just delay the knowledge of those problems and therefore any serious solution.

I mean, you've seen this learning happen pretty quickly to the Liberal party. People got fed up about inflation and housing, started abandoning the party. There's a reason the guy who crushed the Liberal party election was the only one who could credibly say he'd had nothing to do with those bad decisions.

Like, political parties aren't only informed about public opinion during elections. (Otherwise, their campaign promises and platforms would just be wild guesses.) There's all sorts of public opinion polling etc. And thanfully, we have a strong system that can address these issues instead of just muddle through with a coalition that's too broad to actually address those issues.

Look at Germany. Does it seem likely that the coalition government will be able to do anything about the AfD or will they just muddle through while the problems fester and the AfD gets more popular? I'd put heavy money on the latter. Whereas Canada, has already started broad plans to create housing etc (these are the sorts of plans that take a long time to materialize, a sad irony about the upcoming election is that whatever party wins will likely be credited for dealing with housing developments spurred by the current Liberal government.)

Okay, so if I'm advocating for direct democracy, it's more democratic than PR. So, this is PR vs non PR.

Or, do you not actually care about democracy? Because earlier it seemed that the only thing that mattered to an electoral system was how democratic it was. Hard to argue direct democracy is less democratic than PR...

I've heard such good things, it's top of my list. I might try and start a watching group on here or something. Think like a book club with an episode a week or something.

Great suggestion, thanks!

I'd never heard of either of those and they sound great, thanks for sharing!

Yeah, a 2 party system is generally not very ideal. Here in Canada we're lucky enough to have had multiple parties able to nudge one another into various directions.

and a two party system with one party actively dismantling democracy; I’d so so happily take the first one.

I'm not sure how PR would stop those attempts. And if anything, it could make them significantly worse.

where it’s a little hard to build a coalition that lasts more than a couple years,

It's more that those coalitions have serious trouble creating significant legislation, which still leads to issues like housing and climate change legislation being very unlikely. Except worse, it's now very hard to assign blame OR to propose bold reforms. So you just muddle through with things getting worse. There's a reason so many PR systems have started producing great outcomes for hard right parties. (The sort of anti democratic, racist parties that make the republican party look almost progressive.)

Why not have everyone vote on every bill possible then? Or are you against democracy?

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.

If you're going to advocate for something, it seems wild to just hand wave "surely someone has written articles about this."

It seems like you are very excited about the goal of PR but haven't really looked into, or are unwilling to acknowledge, the dangers, pitfalls and harms. Sort of like when trump says he wants to help American workers, very hard to hate that idea but it's the details and how those details will play out that is the essential bit.