While I understand and even co-sign people's instinct to cling to the status quo without exceptional evidence that a change will benefit us, I also recognize that reflex can be detrimental to our well-being if what we have truly makes us weaker, and a less free and just nation. The fact is there have been many examples of PR, some successful, others less so, and there are models that are clearly superior in making sure everyone's perspective is heard and given fair consideration. Unfortunately that's difficult to explain to people. Truthfully very few Canadians have a strong grasp of how our electoral systems work now, let alone the case for why it should be changed. You would not believe the number of misconceptions people have about the system we currently use and how often people confuse it for other systems they've heard about in other countries. I blame our media environment for that more than our education system, but that's a tangent.

For this reason, it is necessary to continue to keep trying to explain, persuade, and re-engage people on this issue. The fact is people have not been making fully informed decisions, so trying again to explain it, and then asking them again is simply part of the process. Democracy only works when we're all well informed. That's why Plato hated democracy, because he considered the problem of getting everyone fully informed and on the same page too daunting in his opinion.

It's our obligation as citizens to work together for a better nation. Some truths are found in the wisdom of the crowd, but many are objective, regardless of whether people believe in it. Many people hated the idea of public healthcare... until they experienced it, and changed their minds. Now you will pry it from our cold dead hands. Our implementation could definitely be better, but even deeply flawed it's better than anything south of the border and the overwhelming majority will stand by that. Lived experience is a pretty good argument, no?