Fairvote Canada
What is This Group is About?
De Quoi Parle ce Groupe?
The unofficial non-partisan Lemmy movement to bring proportional representation to all levels of government in Canada.
🗳️Voters deserve more choice and accountability from all politicians.
Le mouvement non officiel et non partisan de Lemmy visant à introduire la représentation proportionnelle à tous les niveaux de gouvernement au Canada.
🗳️Les électeurs méritent davantage de choix et de responsabilité de la part de tous les politiciens.
- A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems
- What is First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)?
- What is Proportional Representation (PR)?
- What is a Citizens’ Assembly?
- Why Referendums Aren't Necessary
- The 219 Corrupt MPs Who Voted Against Advancing Electoral Reform
Related Communities/Communautés Associées
Resources/Ressources
Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles
- List of Canadian friends of Democracy Bluesky
- Fair Vote Canada: Bluesky
- Fair Voting BC: Bluesky
- Charter Challenge for Fair Voting: Bluesky
- Electoral Renewal Canada: Bluesky
- Vote16: Bluesky
- Longest Ballot Committee: Bluesky
- ~~Make Votes Equal / Make Seats Match Votes~~
- Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto (IRV for municipal elections)
We're looking for more moderators, especially those who are of French and indigenous identities.
Politiques de modération de contenu
Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.
view the rest of the comments
@AlolanVulpix @MyBrainHurts Sorry I know this isn't directly abt PR for Canada. But isn't Germany really an example of PR success? AFD is not in government. In the US, a similar movement (MAGA) pretty easily parlayed a small plurality within one party into a takeover of every government branch.
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.
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.
The point I'm trying to make is this:
Great question! In the very short term, sort of. (Though from the start I'd point out that it is much harder to envision a party like the AFD gaining traction in an FPTP system)
PR causes 2 different styles of issues with the AFD. 1) It makes politics much less likely to produce significant or helpful change, so people don't see meaningful political improvements in their lives and are more likely to turn to extremist parties like the AFD. and 2) Because the AFD has so many seats, the winning coalition has to be super broad, basically the same coalition of the Conservative and Progressives that was seen as ineffectual the last time around. Admittedly, this time they can exclude the Greens. The same reasons the previous government collapsed and led to such a significant rise in support for the AFD are still in effect.
@MyBrainHurts living in the us I guess it feels like fptp is producing government that is every bit as unresponsive to people's problems. (Really a lot more unresponsive, for the problems important to me, like climate and housing.) And given the choice between a party system where it's a little hard to build a coalition that lasts more than a couple years, and a two party system with one party actively dismantling democracy; I'd so so happily take the first one.
What you're seeing as a broad ineffective coalition happens in Canada within the parties themselves, prior to the election. They're preconfigured to be broad and ineffective. The end result of ineffective governance is the same.
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.
The significant difference between that and PR which produces the AfD is that the dissenting voices are hidden and suppressed for much longer under our system. Either by their own parties, or by gaining no seats under a third party. Both of those don't eliminate the problems that make people vote this way. They just delay the knowledge of those problems and therefore any serious solution. With PR the AfD shows up on the radar as soon as 5% of the people have a problem which makes them vote this way. The incumbent parties have an incentive to fix those problems much earlier. Sure they can do nothing and be ineffective but they could also decide to do something. Or there could emerge another party that rises up to address what they wouldn't. In our system that's basically impossible. Meanwhile in Germany, De Linke got 9%.