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.
You keep claiming that PR leads to “significant costs that outweigh the benefits of more democracy,” but you haven’t substantiated those costs beyond vague references to extremism. Let’s be clear about what’s happening here: FPTP doesn’t prevent extremism - it just masks it or channels it differently. When extremist views capture a major party (as we’ve seen in several FPTP countries recently), those views can actually gain disproportionate power rather than being contained.
Your fundamental argument seems to be that giving people accurate representation is dangerous because some of those people might have views you consider extreme. This position is profoundly anti-democratic at its core. Democracy isn’t just about getting outcomes you personally agree with - it’s about a fair process where everyone’s voice matters proportionally to their numbers in society.
You mention the AfD in Germany as if FPTP would prevent such a party from gaining influence. But Germany’s system actually demonstrates PR working exactly as intended - the AfD has representation proportional to their support (no more, no less), while coalition dynamics have successfully kept them from wielding government power. Meanwhile, in FPTP systems like the UK and US, we’ve seen extremist factions capture major parties and gain significant power with minority support. The Tea Party and MAGA movements in the US, despite representing minority viewpoints, have wielded enormous influence by capturing a major party in a two-party system. This illustrates how FPTP can actually amplify extremism rather than containing it.
When I point out that using the notwithstanding clause to override constitutional rights is extreme, you dismiss it as trivial. But systematic constitutional violations by minority-supported governments are precisely what should concern us all. The Ontario PCs, elected by a minority of voters (43%), can implement policies opposed by the majority (57%). This is the “tyranny of the minority” that FPTP enables. How can you argue this is more democratic or produces better outcomes than a system that requires genuine majority support for policies to be enacted?
The direct democracy comparison isn’t relevant to our discussion - I’ve consistently acknowledged feasibility constraints throughout our conversation. Representative democracy is our practical framework, and within that framework, PR offers substantially better democratic outcomes without the practical challenges of direct democracy. Bringing up direct democracy repeatedly is simply a distraction from the actual comparison at hand: FPTP versus PR within representative systems.
You keep avoiding my central point about the legitimacy of majority rule. If 60% of voters didn’t vote for the governing party, how can you justify that party implementing policies those 60% of voters oppose? In PR systems, coalitions must represent majority viewpoints to form government and pass legislation. This means policies generally have broader support across the population. What’s your response to this fundamental democratic deficit in FPTP?
It’s also worth noting that STV and other ranked ballot systems (forms of PR) actually address the extremism concern better than FPTP does. They ensure candidates must have broader appeal to win, unlike FPTP where candidates can win with small pluralities in crowded fields. This is precisely why electoral reform advocates often support these systems - they combine proportionality with incentives for moderation and consensus-building.
Your arguments about FPTP creating more “efficient” government ignore the evidence from countries that actually use PR systems. New Zealand, Germany, and the Nordic countries consistently outperform FPTP countries on measures of good governance, economic stability, and social outcomes. These PR systems produce governments that may take slightly longer to form but then implement policies with broader popular support and thus greater legitimacy and staying power. The claim that PR produces worse outcomes simply isn’t supported by international evidence.
The evidence from New Zealand is particularly instructive. They switched from FPTP to MMP in the 1990s, and while there was initial skepticism, subsequent referendums have shown growing support for the PR system as people experienced its benefits. The coalition governments formed under MMP have been stable and effective, contrary to the doom-and-gloom predictions of PR opponents.
Your argument about small parties holding governments “hostage” in PR systems ignores the fact that FPTP regularly allows small regional parties to extract disproportionate concessions. In Canada, we’ve seen how parties with geographically concentrated support can wield influence far beyond their actual vote share. PR would actually reduce this type of distortion by ensuring all votes count equally regardless of geographic concentration.
I also notice you haven’t addressed the mathematical superiority of PR in terms of representing voter preferences. PR systems consistently outperform FPTP on metrics like the Gallagher Index, which measures the proportionality of electoral outcomes. This isn’t just theoretical - it means millions of voters who cast ballots for non-winning candidates under FPTP essentially have no representation at all. How can you justify a system that systematically discards so many votes?
You suggested that I’m calling you an “extremist” for supporting FPTP, but that mischaracterizes my position. What I’m saying is that opposing proportional representation fundamentally opposes a key democratic principle: that representation should match voting patterns. When you argue against PR, you’re arguing that some people’s votes should count more than others based solely on where they live or who they support. That’s a position that contradicts basic democratic values and is therefore extreme.
But the majority (60%) preferred to keep the more proportional system after experiencing both. This suggests that when people actually experience PR, most come to prefer it over FPTP.
My position ultimately comes down to this: in a democracy, your vote should contribute meaningfully to representation regardless of where you live or which party you support. FPTP systematically denies this for millions of voters in every election. That’s not a minor technical detail - it’s a fundamental democratic deficit that undermines the very purpose of elections.
The idea that we should deny people fair representation because we fear what policies might result from that representation turns democracy on its head. If you truly believe in democratic principles, you must accept that sometimes voters will support policies you disagree with. The solution isn’t to rig the system to prevent those voices from being heard - it’s to engage in the democratic process to persuade others of your position.
If PR systems truly produced such terrible outcomes as you claim, we would expect to see countries moving away from them toward FPTP. Instead, we see the opposite trend globally - countries with FPTP systems are increasingly adopting more proportional alternatives. This suggests that the practical experience with PR is largely positive, contrary to your theoretical concerns.
I remain convinced that proportional representation is fundamentally more democratic than FPTP and produces better governance outcomes for citizens. The evidence from countries using PR supports this view. Rather than fearing what might happen if everyone’s vote counted equally, we should embrace a system that ensures exactly that.
You not paying attention or forgetting doesn’t mean I haven’t demonstrated them:
I mean, I’ve shown you the theory and the practice. And we haven’t even got into the democratic theory around accountability, the mechanics of why Canadian government would be uniquely dangerous in a PR system, etc.
Kid, deciding that everyone who disagrees with you on an issue is an extremist is fucking childish. Again, I ask a very simple question, the 40% of New Zealanders who voted to revert back to FPTP, were they extremists?
Please let this actually be your central point.
No, I haven’t avoided this. I’ve said over and over again, that democracy is a great value but there are competing values (like being able to create a government that can look after those people.)
But, the justification for this is pretty simple, those voters are adults, who are capable of making rational decisions. When an election is called, they aren’t completely flummoxed as to who stands where in the polls. If say 60% of voters in Ontario believed the Conservatives were a dangerous extremist party, they could vote for the party they believe best positioned to remove them. That’s the power and purpose of democracy, accountability. Look what is happening in the national polls, the Conservatives polling numbers haven’t changed significantly but what has happened is voters seem to be coalescing around the Liberals.
Accountability is the great strength of the FPTP. For better or worse, the Liberals own their record. They have passed policy and we can judge them on that policy. In a PR coalition of several parties, how to apportion blame or success?
You claim I’m childish for pointing out the anti-democratic nature of FPTP, but it’s not about labelling people as “extremists” - it’s about identifying principles that fundamentally contradict democracy, I was only using your language. So let me address your question directly: No, the 40% of New Zealanders who voted to keep FPTP weren’t extremists. But the more telling statistic is that 60% preferred to keep MMP after experiencing both systems, suggesting that when people actually experience proportional representation, most come to prefer it over FPTP.
Your accountability argument for FPTP completely falls apart under scrutiny. You claim that “the Liberals own their record” under FPTP, but when a party forms government with just 35-40% of the vote, they don’t truly represent the majority of citizens. How is it accountability when the Ontario PCs can implement policies opposed by 57% of voters? That’s not accountability - it’s minority rule masquerading as majority mandate.
The idea that voters can simply “coalesce” around the party best positioned to defeat an unpopular government shows how FPTP forces a toxic dynamic where citizens must vote strategically against what they fear rather than for what they want. This strategic voting necessity undermines the very democratic expression you claim FPTP promotes. In PR systems, voters can express their actual preferences without fear of “wasting” their vote.
Your argument about “competing values” between democracy and effective governance creates a false dichotomy that isn’t supported by evidence. Countries using PR systems consistently demonstrate that representative democracy and effective governance are compatible. The Nordic countries, Germany, and New Zealand all implement comprehensive, stable policy programs under PR systems. In fact, policies in these countries tend to have greater longevity and stability precisely because they’re built on broader consensus rather than see-sawing between opposite extremes with each election cycle.
The “policy lurch” under FPTP systems wastes billions in abandoned initiatives every time government changes hands. Look at Ontario’s energy policy over the last few decades - a perfect example of how successive governments with minority support completely reverse course, creating costly inefficiencies and long-term planning disasters. PR systems tend to produce more stable policy environments because radical changes require genuine majority support.
Your argument about coalitions and accountability also fails to acknowledge how FPTP distorts political incentives. In our current system, parties only need to appeal to voters in swing ridings, ignoring safe seats entirely. This creates geographical inequalities where some citizens’ votes matter more than others depending solely on where they live. Meanwhile, in rural areas like Hastings-Lennox and Addington, over 51% of voters had their votes completely discarded in the last election. Is that accountability?
The mathematical superiority of PR is undeniable. PR systems consistently outperform FPTP on metrics like the Gallagher Index, which measures the proportionality of electoral outcomes. This isn’t just theoretical - it means millions of real voters who cast ballots under FPTP essentially have no representation at all. I repeat my central question: How can you justify a system that systematically discards so many votes?
You argue that FPTP creates “clear” accountability, but the reality is that it often creates false majorities that implement policies the majority of voters opposed. In PR systems, coalitions must represent majority viewpoints to form government and pass legislation. This means policies generally have broader support across the population. When controversial legislation passes in a PR system, it typically has genuine majority support rather than being imposed by a minority-supported government.
If your concern is truly extremism, consider that STV and other ranked ballot systems (forms of PR) actually address this better than FPTP. They ensure candidates must have broader appeal to win, unlike FPTP where candidates can win with small pluralities in crowded fields. This is precisely why electoral reform advocates often support these systems - they combine proportionality with incentives for moderation and consensus-building.
The evidence from countries using PR supports the view that proportional representation is fundamentally more democratic than FPTP and produces better governance outcomes for citizens. Rather than fearing what might happen if everyone’s vote counted equally, we should embrace a system that ensures exactly that - because a democracy where millions of votes are systematically discarded is no true democracy at all.
Your entire argument rests on the premise that the “effectiveness” of majority governments formed with minority support outweighs the democratic deficit inherent in FPTP. But this premise fails on two counts: first, it assumes FPTP actually delivers more effective governance (which international evidence contradicts), and second, it dismisses the fundamental democratic principle that representation should match voting patterns as merely one value among many rather than a core requirement of democratic legitimacy.
What I find most troubling in your position is the willingness to accept the disenfranchisement of millions of voters based on hypothetical governance concerns that aren’t supported by evidence. The purpose of an electoral system is to provide representation to constituents, not to deny representation. If we live in a democracy, we are deserving and entitled to representation in government. If you have an issue with that, then your issue is with democracy itself, not with PR.