MyBrainHurts

You literally just were in your last message.

Maybe share a quote of what you're misunderstanding?

That’s your opinion, which isn’t supported by the evidence, nor mathematics.

I mean, I've shared examples and theory as to why this is the case, repeatedly.

Yes, using the notwithstanding clause was considered extreme

Again, if you're going to accuse the Ontario Conservative party of being extremists, that's a pretty ridiculous bar. You should look at actual extremist parties, like the AfD, Die Linke, FPO etc. Lumping in the Ontario conservatives with those groups makes it even harder to take you seriously.

You actually don’t care about people and their ability to govern themselves. I cite the Supreme court reference question on Quebec’s secession, in which the court states Canada would have no basis to deny Quebec to self govern, if that’s what they decided – on the basis of international law. You are the one who is out of touch with reality. It’s not “hey this is more democratic” it’s that people have the right to self-determination. It makes no sense for a minority to govern on the behalf of the majority. A point that you have not been able to refute, except literally throwing democracy to the fire.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, besides misusing the word literally. Somehow me being a fan of FPTP means I hate democracy or something?

Under your own logic, extremists are difficult to elect, so under a PR system, extremists will always have less than majority (by inherently being extremist), meaning they will never pass legislation.

I have no idea what "logic" you're using. Maybe... Do you not understand how legislation is typically passed in a PR system? Basically, it's very rare for a government to form a majority under PR, so they make deals with other parties to work together as part of what's called a coalition government, under which the parties trade priorities etc. For an example of how this plays out, look to Israel, where the government is held hostage by a number of small extreme right parties, which keeps the war going farther than most Israelis and defence personnel wanted. There are numerous far right people in cabinet, like Smotrich etc helping to craft and pass legislation.

you’ve become the very thing you’ve so deeply despise, an extremist who thinks it’s acceptable, even preferable, that people are denied their democratic rights.

Sorry, you want me to respond to you deciding that I am an extremist for supporting FPTP? What a bizzare stance. Because I understand the consequences of PR I'm an extremist for being opposed to it? Out of curiosity, were the 40% who voted to return to FPTP in New Zealand also extremists?

Or do you not understand what extremism is? You seem to use the word like trump uses rigged, everything you don't like is extremism.

Ohhh, good call!

I'm going to ignore the big Oscar Winner sort of stuff (12 years a slave etc) or super famous comedies (Napoleon Dynamite) and focus on some smaller stuff.

Rhymes for Young Ghouls - Feels like an Indigenous Guy Ritchie sort of movie. Heavy subject matter though (revenge on a residential school administrator) but quite good. Canadian made, Indigenous director.

Blood Quantum - Solid B movie, Indigenous community vs Zombie Apocalypse.

20th century women - Hard to describe but it's about a single mom raising her son in 1979. Great writing.

Banshees of Inisherin - A man tells another he'd no longer like to be friends. Things escalate incredibly from there. Darkly funny, one of my favourites of the year.

Snowpiercer - Really dark sci fi action, incredibly unsubtle class allegory.

Tangerine - Sean Baker's (who wrote n directed Anora) first movie. It's a day in the life of a transgender prostitute trying to find her cheating pimp/bf. It's heartfelt, wrenching and beautiful in its seedy way. Really good.

Goon - Think Slapshot but in modern times and funnier. "Two rules, stay away from my fuckin' percocets and do you have any fuckin' percocets?" "CHOOSE 69, IT'S HILARIOUS!" (I say this every time I'm playing sports and someone has the number 69, which is about 1/3 of the games. Even in adult leagues.)

(I assume if you're into horror you've seen the Babadook and It Follows but if not, damn you are in for a treat!)

More democracy is literally the whole point of the proportional representation movement?

Yes... No one is disputing that. What you refuse to acknowledge is that there are significant costs that outweigh the benefits of more democracy. (Again, this is presumably why you're not advocating for the most democratic system possible, direct democracy. The associated costs outweigh the benefits of more democracy.)

Ok, but no more terrible than any other democracy.

That's literally the point, PR has worse outcomes than FPTP. FPTP, you don't see parties like the AFD forming and being dangerously close to power.

Just because they are “big” parties, doesn’t mean they aren’t extreme. Look at the Ontario PCs using the not withstanding clause, or other constitutional violations.

If this is your definition of extremism, you realllllllllly need to read more.

I say refuse to see because it is undeniable that people are being denied democratic representation. You know that this is true, which is why you keep evading points about the democratic arguments for PR

This is utterly silly. Think through the logic here. If your position is that people are being denied their right under FPTP because there is a more democratic system, the same would be true of PR because direct democracy is a more democratic system than that one. Take a couple of minutes, think it through carefully.

When you don’t get your way, you play dirty and bully people into submission.

By pointing out facts? Disagreeing with you, pointing out logic and reality are not bullying or playing dirty.

Every single argument I bring up about democracy, you just say: “muh democracy”.

Because it's all the same point? Yes, democracy is a good thing but there are tradeoffs. Yet again, consider why you are not advocating for direct democracy, which is more democratic than PR. So yes, PR is more democratic, cool point. Direct Democracy is more democratic than PR but we (hopefully!) understand that the associated costs outweigh the benefits.

You also haven’t answered how parties come into play with FPTP?

What are you trying to say?

Fundamentally, we don’t just disagree on PR vs non-PR, we disagree on democracy vs non-democracy.

Wait but you're not a fan of direct democracy. Is that because you don't believe in democracy?

If you want to eliminate extremists, why not just censor them, take away their free speech rights, that way it guarantees their extreme ideas won’t spread. That is a sure fire way to eliminate extremism, unlike FPTP. If the governments that FPTP produces are so amazing, why can’t they legislate away hate groups? Why not implement the death penalty for persistently hateful people?

What on Earth are you trying to say? Is this an actual set of questions? Seriously?

Democracy matters, people, and their agency matters.

Yup. But having a government that can help people also matters. Again, if democracy is the only goal, why not direct democracy? Oh right, those tradeoffs.

I'm not sure if they are made in Canada (I just sent an email asking) but the Legion does sell Canadian flags. As the money goes to supporting veterans, I'd feel pretty good about buying one regardless. But I'll confirm where the flags are made when I hear back.

https://www.poppystore.ca/canada-2

Edit: Got an email back confirming these are made in Canada! So double awesome, support veterans, support a Canadian flag manufacturer. What's not to love?

Basically, the answer to all your points is very simple, more representation is a good thing but it is not the only good thing. The results the system generates are important as well.

Every point you've made is basically "hey, this is more democratic!" Which, cool but that's not a point anyone is arguing.

What I am saying is that the outcomes PR creates can be terrible.

Yes, why give small extremist groups power, when you can give large minority extremist groups power.

Like, this is utterly silly. Which large extremist group are you thinking of in Canada that took power? Because as much as you might dislike the parties, it is pretty childishly ignorant to call any of the big 4 parties extremist compared to some of the smaller parties that form under PR.

so you’re totally okay with a system that denies constitutional rights to the vast majority of the population?

Yawn. No on is being denied a constitutional right.

These hate groups already exist, and electoral systems do nothing to change that

Oh, which hate group has a legitimate chance of being in government in Canada?

Let's look at your "fundamental points."

1, 2, are the same "hey, this is more democratic!"

3, 4) If you want to be taken seriously, maybe don't try to argue the very basics? It would take an incredibly strange district to elect an MP. Because you have to win the most votes in a riding, extremist groups have a much harder time. Come on, this is poli sci 101.

5. same as 1, 2.

6. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

7. Yes, everyone who disagrees with PR is an extremist? Come on kid.

8. You being ignorant doesn't change reality? Japan moved from STV to a more FPTP system, there is a lively debate in Italy about what the best system is having moved from full PR to MMP in the 90s. New Zealand went from FPTP to MMP and then had a referendum where more than 40% wanted to return to FPTP.

9. Because that's literally how the system works?

and this:

e already have a small minority holding the majority hostage. And this isn’t the exception, virtually all elections under FPTP, a minority strangles the majority.

Is again, the same as 1, 2 and 5.

Thank you! That looks wonderful!!! (I will watch out for the focaccia share though.) Much appreciated!

My understanding as well is that Reform was the extreme party, PC was the moderate party.

Gotchya, sorry I think I misunderstood which party we were talking about moderating itself! But yeah, I basically agree with this summation of events. But to me the win is that there is no party as extreme as Reform was. In PR, I could see Reform influencing policy in backroom negotiations, whereas under FPTP, those negotiations happen in the open and the people are able to judge pre-election whether it is too extreme or not.

While elections aren't always won or lost on policy (this one is shaping up to be a referendum on "who can deal with trump") I generally think extreme Conservative positions aren't particularly popular in Canada (even Harper had to straight up say the debate on abortion was settled) and the Conservatives will either have to moderate or wait for a perfect storm (as almost happened, the same anti incumbent wave that's swept the world would've helped them out had it not been for trump) if they want power.

Thanks for the heads up! I wonder if I can ask for "what did you give people.last year" or somesuch. Though, and I know this is a bad thing to say on reddit, LLMs have made me much more comfortable trying new ingredients/recipes.

BTW, I'm not down voting you.

Honestly, I'd assumed that from the quality of your comments. But thank you.

To PC vs CPC fun, I could absolutely be wrong but my memory is that the Reform party were staunchly opposed to gay rights (did check, Preston once declared "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society.") , wanted to remove Indigenous affairs and was basically "fuck Quebec, we'll figure it out without 'em."

So, I dunno, I think the two having to merge to become a viable party is a good thing. There are zero parties in Canada that I think would hurt my gay friends as much as the Reform party wanted to. But, in a PR system where the Reform party still existed, I could see a coalition of "Fuck Trudeau" getting moderate conservatives, assholes rocking Reform and then... Ugh.

But, I could absolutely be getting caught up in culture war shit, maybe there were some radical economic proposals I don't remember or somesuch?

Buddy, keep your positions straight!

This:

The onus isn’t on me to demonstrate why either of PR or FPTP is better. The baseline is what is mathematically demonstrated to be true: that PR produces governments that maximize representation for its people. It doesn’t make any claims about anything else you want to bring in like human rights.

Is fundamentally incompatible with this:

You want me to say that I am using more factors to judge an electoral system than measures of democracy alone? Yes, that’s true, but I’ve literally never pretended it was anything otherwise.

Unless, what human rights shouldn't count as a factor in what a good electoral system is? That's wild and insane. If your side requires you to say "hey, we're not judging about the merits of human rights here" then it's not a particularly good side.

And saying stuff like this:

The “toxic consequence” you point out isn’t unique to PR, it’s an inherent characteristic of democracy. You haven’t established this to be unique to PR, this is a characteristic inherent to democracy.

Just lets us know you haven't thought this through. Giving small extremist groups power is a consequence of PR that is largely mitigated in FPTP. It's why the AFD doesn't have a politcally viable analog here. It's literally how the systems work. Just a quick recap: in PR basically any group that gets over a certain threshold gets that many seats, which makes extremist minority parties much more viable. But in a FPTP system, barring incredible regional variation, that's almost impossible. This is one of the page 1 textbook arguments against PR. Not understanding it or pretending not to doesn't endear anyone to your cause.

Ha, great minds think alike (or fools seldom differ, your call.)

I put up a similar post (focused on CBC Gem) in the main Canada community: https://lemmy.ca/post/40558515 and had some pretty cool answers!

I've started second screening the National and Power n Politics while Slaying the Spire (makes playing video games feel productive!) though, as I don't have cable, I sometimes have to stream it on youtube because as far as I can tell, if you aren't watching live, there's now way to start the broadcast at the beginning on CBC Gem.