85
We speak of shared values, but most of Europe uses proportional representation while Canada still grants majority power with 30% to 40% of the vote. (media.piefed.ca)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/fairvote@lemmy.ca
19 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

We won't be united on democracy until we adopt a system that ensures governments reflect a broad majority consensus.

A screenshot of a tweet from Mark Carney (@MarkJCarney). The text reads: Canada and Europe are united in our values of pluralism, the rule of law, and democracy. On Europe Day, we’re building on that foundation to forge new strategic partnerships, deepen our trade, and stand steadfast with Ukraine. In a more uncertain world, Canada and Europe are creating greater certainty, security, and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

With proportional representation a politician could neglect anyone living more than a 2 hour drive from the US border

What is the logic behind this? Are you just inventing stuff?

Something like 90% of Canadians live with 2 hours of the US border, so you could in principle get a 90% majority government even if everyone living +2 hours away voted against you. That wouldn't be possible with the current system. Our current system allows people in northern areas to still have a say, even though they only make up a small fraction of Canadians. Things like this are the reason why the current system was designed the way it was.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago

    Things like this are the reason why the current system was designed the way it was.

    First-past-the-post was chosen to water down democracy to serve the elites as it’s incredibly confusing on how it works ie strategic voting.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    That wouldn’t be possible with the current system.

    How is that not possible with the current system? Where are you getting those figures?

    Right now, you have a majority with only 20% of voters, 80% of the people are not getting heard it does not matter where they live. This is an edge case of Ontario, but as OP said the figure does not get much better across Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_index#Canada

    The only thing that proportional representation tries to do is matching the votes with number of the seats without discarding votes. With proportional representation, if enough people vote for you, you get a seat, that is it. They don't throw those votes away. Right now, it does not matter how many votes you get, if you get 15k votes, and the other candidate gets 15k+1. You have 15k voices silenced.

    Are you mistaking proportional representation with something else? Or just being intentionally malicious?

    Giving your preference for disenfranchising 80% of voters, I bet it is the second.

    Things like this are the reason why the current system was designed the way it was.

    No, it was not. Alberta used to have proportional representation, the reason they ended it is that the party in power thought they could stay in power for longer, but it backfired, and they lost to another party some elections later. (it seems that Manitoba and BC had similar stories with PR).

    The current system was not designed the way it was for those reasons you are pulling out of a hat. It was just so the parties in power could have better control on who vote so they hold it for longer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    How is that not possible with the current system? Where are you getting those figures?

    Compare a map of the ridings in a federal election to a population map and you’ll see that the ridings are distributed much more evenly.

    I am going to end this conversation here because you seem to lack a basic understanding of how our current system works and are coming off as excessively hostile. Like I said in my original comment I’m not even trying to argue against proportional representation

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago*

    No, don't blame your shortcomings on me.

    You invent correlation and pass it as universal truth with no backings.

    you seem to lack a basic understanding of how our current system works

    Just asked you to show data and facts, you took things out of a hat and are playing victim.

    I’m not even trying to argue against proportional representation

    without proportional representation, politicians still have to take the time to campaign in rural and Northern areas, because these people’s votes matter. With proportional representation though, there would be no need for this

    this was exactly in your first message. don't play coy now.

    you post something, don't want to clarify and don't want to be corrected.

    I don’t even need to guess what kind of person you are IRL.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent