Section 3 – Policy Initiatives & 2025 Deliverables
11. Democratic and Electoral Reform
The Parties will work together to create a special legislative all-party committee to evaluate and recommend policy and legislation measures to be pursued beginning in 2026 to increase democratic engagement & voter participation, address increasing political polarization, and improve the representativeness of government. The committee will review and consider preferred methods of proportional representation as part of its deliberations. The Government will work with the BCGC to establish the detailed terms of reference for this review, which are subject to the approval of both parties. The terms of reference will include the ability to receive expert and public input, provide for completion of the Special Committee’s work in Summer 2025, and public release of the Committee’s report within 45 days of completion. The committee will also review the administration of the 43rd provincial general election, including consideration of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report on the 43rd provincial general election, and make recommendations for future elections.
To make it very plain.
Yes, more democracy is a bonus. Let’s call that a plus for the PR side. No one is disputing that.
On the downsides are the effect on Canada. I’m a fun uncle for a bunch of my friends’ cool kids and I care about the country they’ll get.
Some countries have done well historically with PR. But, as we enter incredibly turbulent times with almost half a dozen threats ranging from deadly serious to existential on the horizon, the weaknesses of PR are becoming apparent.
Germany is not only struggling with the AfD but despite being in a recession for almost three years been unable to pass significant legislation, in part as a result of the coalitions required to keep out the AfD. PR is not going well there and I do not want that for the aforementioned children.
Israel has been unable to stop a deeply unpopular war in large part because of PR.
Austria is trying to cobble together a government to keep out an extremist party that won the most votes.
Tusk is struggling to undo the damage wreaked by PiS.
The Dutch are bending over backwards to keep Wilders out.
The Brothers of Italy are running the country.
Times are only going to get tougher. For those groovy kids, I want a government that can effect serious and meaningful change, which FPTP makes more likely. Even though my vote is often less effective, that’s a trade-off I’ll take to avoid the catastrophes above.
(You are also misremembering 2015, yes, housing was mentioned but mostly in the context of social housing and renters. As you’ve read through the chat with Avid Amoeba, you’re either ignoring or already forgetting those realities which I’ve already pointed out. Feel free to look at the party platform I already linked.)
Your arguments against PR continue to rest on selective examples, while ignoring the fundamental democratic deficits inherent in FPTP and the significant evidence contradicting your claims about effectiveness.
First, your framing reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what an electoral system should accomplish. You acknowledge that “more democracy is a bonus” for PR, as if democratic representation is merely a nice-to-have feature rather than the core purpose of elections. This mindset exemplifies precisely what’s wrong with FPTP defenders - treating democratic representation as secondary to other considerations.
The turbulent times you mention actually strengthen the case for PR rather than weakening it. When facing multiple existential threats, we need governance systems that incorporate diverse perspectives and build genuine majority consensus around solutions. FPTP’s tendency to produce false majorities implementing policies opposed by most citizens creates precisely the kind of policy instability that undermines effective long-term responses to complex challenges.
Ok, so let’s look at the examples you brought up: Germany: You claim Germany has been “unable to pass significant legislation” due to its coalition government. This ignores their substantial climate legislation (far outpacing Canada’s), comprehensive pandemic response, and extensive Ukraine support package. The “struggling economy” argument is misleading - Germany faces structural challenges related to energy dependency and demographic shifts that would exist under any electoral system. Their PR system has successfully contained the AfD’s influence despite its growing support - exactly as designed.
Israel: Again, Israel uses an extreme form of PR with an exceptionally low threshold (1.5% until recently) specifically designed to create fragmentation. I’ve already addressed this previously.
Austria: The recent Austrian election actually demonstrates PR working correctly - the Freedom Party won 28% of the vote and received proportional representation, while the system prevents them from unilaterally implementing policies opposed by the 72% who didn’t vote for them. Under FPTP, that 28% could easily translate to a governing majority with unchecked power.
Poland: Poland’s transition from PiS to Tusk’s coalition government shows PR’s strength, not weakness. After PiS undermined democratic institutions, PR enabled a broad coalition to form and begin restoring them. The coalition reflects the will of the majority of Polish voters - exactly what an electoral system should facilitate.
Netherlands: The Dutch coalition negotiations reflect the genuine divisions within Dutch society. Far from being a failure, this is democracy working as intended - ensuring government reflects the actual distribution of voter preferences rather than artificially manufacturing majorities.
Italy: The Brothers of Italy received 26% of the vote and needed to form a coalition to govern. This ensures they can’t implement policies without broader support, protecting democratic guardrails. Contrast this with the UK, where the Conservatives implemented Brexit with profound national consequences based on a 43.6% vote share.
What you characterize as “effectiveness” is actually undemocratic governance that produces unstable policies lacking broad support. True effectiveness comes from policies with genuine democratic legitimacy and staying power. The most pressing challenges we face - climate change, economic inequality, democratic backsliding - require sustained, long-term policy approaches that survive beyond electoral cycles. PR systems produce exactly this kind of stability through consensus-building.
Your concern for future generations is admirable, but consider what system those “groovy kids” would actually prefer: one where every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, or one where millions of votes are systematically discarded? One where parties must build genuine consensus for policies, or one where minority-supported parties can implement whatever they want? One with transparent representation of all viewpoints according to their actual support, or one that masks extremism until it captures a major party? The polls show 76% of Canadians support electoral reform, 62% of Ontarians support proportional representation in government.
The mathematical reality remains: PR produces governments that more accurately reflect how people actually vote. This isn’t a minor technical detail - it’s the fundamental purpose of representative democracy. A system that routinely discards over half the votes in many districts betrays the very concept of democracy itself.
What we actually need is a system where:
PR delivers this democratic accountability that FPTP fundamentally cannot. The turbulent times ahead require more democracy, not less - more voices at the table, more genuine consensus, and governance that truly represents the will of the people. That’s what PR offers, and what those “groovy kids” you care about deserve.
Claiming that choosing large swathes of Europe is my cherry picking is pretty silly.
And you are misunderstanding the point of those examples. It is not just dangerous how close some of these hard right groups are to power, the fact these groups are so popular is in itself worrying.
It is not a sign of a healthy democracy when people are so angry and desperate they give Kickl 29% of the vote. It is a deeply worrying sign when some 20% of Germans are voting for dog whistle neo Nazi party (Alice fur Deutschland is about as blatant as it gets, there’s not a German who doesn’t know the Nazi slogan was Alles fur Deutschland.
Yes, those democracies are struggling through and bending into contortions to keep functional, non extremist governments working. But this is a sign of Democratic strength in the same sense that coughing up blood is a sign your body is keeping the blood out of your lungs, it’s true but it is also a sign that something is seriously wrong.
A system can be great in theory or in different circumstances. But the reality of the moment and the real world evidence suggests we are very lucky to have avoided PR and would do well to continue to do so. We don’t have a Wilders, Weidel or Kickl for a reason.
You blithely assume that more voices at the table or more better representation etc leads to better outcomes but what’s the proof? You even mentiom Brexit but either don’t know or comveniently forget that it was passed with a majority support in a referendum. For crazy but very representative outcomes, look South to California which loves ballot referendums, which are as pure a democratic option as possible. If you’ve read about the LA fires, you already know that insurance companies have been unable to accurately price the risk of fores because of a referendum preventing insurance companies from raising rates, popular but insane policy.
FPTP and our elected dictatorship creates a balance between the ability of government to pass significant legislation while also being accountable to voters. The real world examples of PR are horrific. It’s really not that complicated.
I find it nonsensical how you keep cherrypicking examples while completely missing the point of what an electoral system is supposed to do.
You’re saying “more democracy is a bonus” like it’s some nice little perk rather than the entire purpose of elections! This perfectly illustrates our fundamental disagreement. I believe democracy exists to represent people’s views. You seem to think it’s primarily about producing governments you personally consider “effective” - even if they ignore what most citizens actually want.
I’m not blind to the challenges in Europe. But you’re deliberately ignoring how PR is working exactly as designed in these cases. Take Germany - yes, the AfD has support, and that’s disturbing. But PR ensures they get seats proportional to their actual support while preventing them from gaining disproportionate power. Unlike FPTP systems where extremists capture entire parties from within (hello, MAGA movement!).
And honestly, I find it pretty ironic that you’re so worried about extremism when our FPTP system regularly produces governments opposed by the majority of citizens. The Ontario PCs are implementing policies that 57% of voters rejected! That’s a minority strangling the majority - exactly the kind of governance that breeds extremism and discontent.
You mention those “groovy kids” you care about. Have you actually asked what they want? Polls consistently show younger generations overwhelmingly support electoral reform. They want a system where their votes matter, where every voice counts.
You know what doesn’t serve future generations? A system that’s completely failed to address climate change, housing affordability, and economic inequality - the exact issues they care most about. Nine years of Liberal promises on housing with minimal action until the crisis became catastrophic isn’t “effectiveness” - it’s failure.
And let’s talk about rural Ontario. In Hastings-Lennox and Addington, over 51% of voters had NO representation whatsoever. Their votes literally counted for nothing. I’ve shared this statistic before but you keep ignoring it. How can you justify a system that systematically discards millions of votes in every election?
You know what’s actually not healthy for a democracy? When people feel their votes don’t matter. When they see governments implementing policies most citizens reject. When they watch the same neglected problems fester for decades because the system incentivizes short-term thinking and polarization over consensus-building.
I care deeply about this country too, and that’s exactly why I’m fighting for a system where every vote counts. Where parties have to build genuine consensus instead of appealing to narrow slices of swing ridings. Where we can finally tackle the long-term challenges we face instead of lurching from one crisis to the next.
These “turbulent times” demand more democracy, not less. More voices at the table. More genuine consensus. That’s what PR delivers, and what we all deserve.
Pray tell, what criteria would you use that somehow excludes our G7 PR system peers but is also not cherry-picking? Like, PR only (but not always!) counts in countries that have an imminent threat of Russian to their East?
Not that it’s been demonstrated I’ve been cherry picking in the first place. Both people doing something wrong doesn’t make it ok. Yet another example of lazy intellectual discussion from the FPTP camp.
Your shorter responses are telling me that perhaps you don’t actually don’t “care” enough about the country to defend FPTP. Because you would have full and properly thought out responses to make counter points and defend your position. Readers of this thread will decide, I suppose. I’ll be using this as the most extensive example of how out of touch the FPTP camp is.
Reiterating a number of points, your concern about far-right parties in Europe fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of electoral systems. These systems don’t create extremism - they reveal it. Under PR, we see exactly how much support extremist views actually have. Under FPTP, that extremism still exists but remains hidden until it captures an entire mainstream party, as we’ve seen repeatedly in the US with MAGA and even in Canada with elements of the CPC’s current direction.
You’ve completely ignored my point about how FPTP produces governments that implement policies opposed by the majority of citizens. In Ontario, the PCs hold a “majority” with just 43% of the vote. How can you justify a system where 57% of voters explicitly rejected the governing party? That creates precisely the kind of democratic deficit that feeds extremism.
Your Brexit example actually undermines your argument. The referendum was a direct democracy mechanism that bypassed representative systems entirely. It has nothing to do with PR versus FPTP. And California’s referendum system is similarly irrelevant to our discussion about representative democracy structures.
You claim FPTP creates accountability, but our experience demonstrates the opposite. The Liberals campaigned on housing affordability in 2015 and failed to make meaningful progress for nine years while the crisis exploded. Yet they remained in power because FPTP distorts voter preferences. That’s not accountability - it’s systematic failure.
Most telling is how you describe FPTP as an “elected dictatorship” as if that’s a positive feature! That perfectly captures what’s wrong with your perspective. Democracy isn’t supposed to be a temporary dictatorship - it’s supposed to be representative governance where every citizen’s voice matters in proportion to its numbers.
The countries you cite as PR failures are functioning democracies where extremist parties gain representation proportional to their actual support, while being effectively contained through coalition dynamics. Compare this to the US where extremism now controls an entire major party with unchecked power when they win.
Democracy matters. Representation matters. Every vote should count.
What on Earth are you trying to say? Again, the question was pretty simple, how are my examples cherry picking? If we want to look at examples of how PR is playing out, the G7, the group to which we commonly compare Canada, seems a good choice. You just don’t like it because they aren’t great for your side. What example countries do you think would make a good comparison and why are they better than our G7 pals who use PR?
Your overabundance of free time doesn’t compel me. I recommend going outside, enjoying a pleasant walk, maybe phoning a friend etc. It’ll do you good.
Variations on “more representation is good!” isn’t a new point, no one is arguing about this.
I thought you didn’t like direct democracy because it wasn’t practical. Is your position actually you want all peoples voices heard but ONLY filtered through representatives? You demand we listen to all the people but they can’t be trusted enough to answer a question directly? This is a very silly position.
Not only do I already do your recommendations (of my own volition), I’m out here campaigning for democracy and Canadians. You just can’t say the same.
I’m glad you’re being transparent, and just plainly saying how little people, their agency and democracy matters to you. You’ve become the very extremist that you despise.
How is this direct democracy? A direct democracy means this would allow all citizens to vote directly on all legislation. Selective direct democracy wasn’t in the scope of discussion for electoral systems. I know you love to distort arguments so it looks like you’re countering the point, when it’s just intellectually lazy, and anyone reading would know it. Please continue to show how out of touch you are.
My position is that FPTP is undemocratic because it systematically discards millions of perfectly valid votes. Whereas being Canadian means supporting democracy, including a fundamental principle of democracy: proportionate representation.
The Brexit referendum is completely irrelevant to our discussion about electoral systems. It wasn’t about how representatives are elected - it was a one-off policy decision put directly to voters. You’re conflating completely different democratic mechanisms to avoid addressing the actual failures of FPTP.
You keep avoiding the central issue: In Ontario, the PCs govern with a “majority” despite 57% of voters explicitly rejecting them. How is this legitimate democratic representation? You call FPTP an “elected dictatorship” as if that’s a positive feature rather than a profound democratic failure.
Your cherry-picking of European examples continues to miss the point. The purpose of an electoral system isn’t to prevent certain ideologies from gaining representation - it’s to ensure accurate representation of how citizens actually vote. If you’re concerned about extremism, address the cultural and social factors creating it, rather than trying to silence it through electoral manipulation.
As for your claim that I don’t care about outcomes - I care deeply about outcomes. That’s exactly why I support PR. Countries with PR systems consistently outperform FPTP countries on measures of economic equality, social welfare, environmental protection, and democratic satisfaction. The Nordic countries, Germany, and New Zealand all demonstrate how PR produces stable, effective governance with policies that enjoy genuine majority support.
The mathematical reality remains undeniable: FPTP systematically fails to represent millions of citizens in every election. No amount of handwaving about “efficiency” changes this fundamental democratic deficit. If democracy means anything, it must mean that every citizen’s vote contributes meaningfully to representation. Only PR delivers this basic democratic principle. A basic democratic principle that you not only don’t understand, but fail to recognize as being fundamentally critical for good outcomes for its citizens.
You dismiss all arguments for “more democracy” because you, and only you, think it’s like some nice little perk rather than the entire purpose of elections.
That’s one perspective but I disagree. Electoral systems and rules exist so that people can elect a government, the purpose of which is to help the people. The primary goal of a government is the welfare of its people.
If your electoral system consistently produces **bad **outcomes, that’s a **bad **thing.
When we look to peer nations, like our compatriots in the G7 who use PR or all across Europe, you see bad outcomes happening.
It takes a insane reading of the situation to say a system wherein Kickl is polling about where our Canadian Conservative party polls, is producing good outcomes. You know this intrinsically, it’s why you go into histrionics when I point out countries like all the examples already listed.
It’s worked in some places, is producing deeply disturbing outcomes in others. You haven’t outlined why the Nordic countries are doing well under PR vs all the counter examples, you’ve just whined that it’s not fair to use fairly reasonable comparisons bizzarely claimed that 1/5 Germans voting for an acitve neo Nazi party is somehow a good sign.
Pretty simple stuff.
lol