MyBrainHurts

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.

I was referring to the federal PC party which no longer exists.

Sorry, I'm a little confused then. Because you started with this about the PC:

An AfD in Canada takes root not as a separate party but as a faction of one of the large parties. They grow internally and either split or take over that party. Has happened to our PC party which got split in two, then reunited again under the extreme part’s leadership.

Which yes, the PC ceased to exist, because FPTP punishes extremism. So, this seems like a pretty good example of FPTP moderating/mitigating some of the consequences of a PR system. (Under which you could easily see a moderate Conservative party continually forming coalitions with the extreme Conservative party, which would allow the moderate Conservatives to vote Conservative while not technically voting for whatever extremism an unmoderated extremist Conservative group would want.) And today's Conservative party is a much more moderate beast.

Housing was a serious problem when they came to power under Trudeau in 2015.

I wasn't sure about this so looked back at some polling from around then as well as the Liberal platform. which is absolutely worth looking at as a time capsule. You'll note that a lot of it was about social housing and rental housing, as the concern was more about the most vulnerable.

Meanwhile, a look at CBC's polling at the time doesn't even list housing as an issue (presumably lumped together with the economy?) but consider how unthinkable having a poll without housing as a distinct issue would be nowadays. (It's also an interesting reminder that for their ills, the Liberals really did try to address those top concerns by growing the economy despite Covid and trying (and getting murdered on) a Carbon Tax, which is generally acknowledged as the best and most serious approach to tackling climate change.

What we just witnessed with the replacement of the LPC leader without an election is pretty unprecedented and exceptional. This is not how things typically work.

Yup. Sorry though, I don't think I'm getting the connection between this and PR vs FPTP?

I also believe the AfD will grow but I think there’s a chance for De Linke to grow with it and force the next-next government to do something about the issues AfD voters are facing.

Maybe. But I think right now, parties that "are fighting for a change of course in politics that will open the way for a fundamental transformation of society that will overcome capitalism." face an uphill battle. I genuinely wonder if the SPD and CDU were left to choose between the AFD and Linke, which they would go to. Do Die Linke have policies that are compatible with mainstream politics? Regardless, I don't think lurching from being held hostage to one extreme group to another is really conducive to good or effective government.

Which, I think is why I like FPTP, governments (usually) get the ability to enact significant legislation (we can actually blame the Liberals for failing to act on housing as opposed to "well, it was those rat bastards in the other parties that wouldn't compromise... etc") but those parties need to appeal to a large swathe of voters in order to actually form government. (And of course, watching PR governments struggle to create significant change in the last couple of decades doesn't really raise their appeal. )

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.

That's simply untrue! I'm not sure if you're forgetful or honestly don't remember what you write but here are a handful of examples in our brief exchange:

Here's me pointing out some of the toxic consequences and you just handwaving it because hey, people got what they voted for.

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.

Or, here you are deciding you don't actually want to talk about the successes of failures of PR and all that matters is how good it is at measuring democracy:

I’m not about to have a full discussion about PR causing success or not. I’m sure there are already articles written on it. However, if we live in a democracy, we are deserving of and entitled to representation in government, and only proportional representation can get us there. A democracy necessarily requires everyone having a seat at the table, and in a representative democracy, vote percentage must equal seat percentage.

Heck, here you are explicitly saying all that matters in this conversation is how democratic PR is:

In a democracy, we are entitled to and deserving of representation in government. I am not trying to argue whether democracy (and by proxy PR) itself is successful (or unsuccesful), because that is an entirely different discussion.

Heck, this nonsense:

PR can be demonstrated to be mathematically superior to winner-take-all such as FPTP. So this is the baseline.

Is **entirely **defining superior as measuring democracy.

What's happened here is I think that as a way to deflect any actual criticism of PR you reflexively go into a "all that matters is how democratic the outcome is, I don't care about any other consequences." But, I think you're starting to see that's not a particularly cogent dodge because there are systems that would produce a more democratic outcome, so now you're trying to backpedal.

But, now that you concede that yes, okay, the consequences of the system matter, let's go back to the initial points about why FPTP is better.

Similarly, you’ll see in Israel where mainstream parties are held hostage by relatively small extremist parties leading to horrific outcomes that are generally not supported by the public.

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

Your original response: 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.

So, here, you're totally okay with a system that puts hate groups in positions of power?

Basically, and I wish I still remembered some of the course books, but some of the interesting first year poli sci courses (I think Stanford or Harvard have some online for free. If you're interested I'll look for a one for you) are exactly about the tension between democracies and human rights. That tension is why most democracies (including ours) have Charters of Rights and Freedoms that outline things that are so important that we say no matter what people vote for, they have these protections. The point here is that yes, democracy is a good thing but it is not the only good. If you have a system that tends to produce poor outcomes (large coalition governments unable to pass significant legislation, hate groups getting chokeholds on government etc) then those outcomes can outweigh the goodness of democracy.

What a sad way to spend your time.

I hope things get better in your life.

So, are you running away from the two principles that you laid out above

I suppose so…?

Okay, then this:

What is in contention is whether PR is democratically superior to FPTP.

Doesn't really make sense. You can't just say "when we're talking about PR vs FPTP, what matters is whether PR is more democratic" but then when Direct Democracy vs PR is the question, all of a sudden it doesn't matter which is more democratic.

So again, what are the principles by which you are judging PR to be a good or bad choice? If it is purely, which is the most democratic system, then direct democracy blows PR out of the water...

If you want an answer to the question "which is better, PR or FPTP" you have to have criteria to use as judgement. And again, if that criteria is only "which is more democratic" then why aren't you advocating direct democracy?

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.)