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.
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
Yes, please keep showing how the no-PR camp is out of touch with reality. You’re trying to corrupt a democratic tool into your own personal elect your preferred ideology mechanism. In which FPTP does not do particularly well.
What good is a government that enacts policies that hurt its people? And no electoral system can filter out ideologies that only you oppose.
I agree, and PR forces government to cater to its citizens. The primary goal of electoral systems is to ensure accurate representation. You’re conflating the purpose of government with the purpose of electoral systems. Electoral systems are the democratic mechanism through which citizens select their representatives – they aren’t meant to filter out particular ideologies.
Your definition of “bad outcomes” is entirely subjective and ideological. What you’re really saying is “I don’t like the representatives some voters choose.” This is fundamentally anti-democratic, and anti-Canadian. The purpose of elections isn’t to produce governments you personally approve of – it’s to accurately represent the will of the people.
This cherry-picking again? For every example you cite, there are PR systems producing excellent outcomes. The Nordic countries consistently rank at the top of nearly every measure of good governance, economic equality, and social welfare – all with PR systems. New Zealand transitioned to MMP and has seen stable, effective governance. You conveniently ignore these examples because they contradict your narrative.
The electoral system didn’t create Kickl’s support – it merely reveals it. What’s “insane” is thinking that hiding extremist views through electoral manipulation is better than confronting them directly. FPTP doesn’t eliminate extremism; it masks it until it captures an entire mainstream party – as we’ve seen with MAGA in the US.
Actually, I have – multiple times. The difference is in the broader political culture, democratic traditions, and social cohesion. Electoral systems don’t create extremism; they reflect the societies they operate in. Your entire argument boils down to “I don’t like what some voters choose, so let’s use a system that silences them.” That’s not democracy – it’s electoral engineering to produce outcomes you prefer. And this sinister engineering is disenfranchising millions of “groovy kids” - who you supposedly care about.
I stand for the principle that in a democracy, citizens are deserving of and entitled to representation in government. Only proportional representation can consistently deliver this fundamental democratic right. Your position continues to prioritize subjective outcomes over democratic principles, which is precisely why PR advocates will ultimately prevail – because democracy itself is on our side.
Did you literally stop reading after the first sentence?
Here we differ. I will loudly declare that I believe racist, hateful or Nazi adjacent parties are Bad things. I did not think that was a contentious point, but here we are.
What’s the proof? Do you really believe some 30% of Canadians would vote for similar groups and we’re just masking that now? Or just huge percentages of Italians, Austrians, Germans, Dutch, Polish etc are fairly hateful? Rather than say, things have gotten really bad and people are looking for extreme measures?
Maybe this is it. To me, 50/50 is a pretty fucking terrible offer here. Like, hey, we can make your vote marginally better but there’s a 50/50 chance Canada gets a bunch of extreme right politics to deal with going forward.
I think that offer makes Canada a much worse place for many vulnerable people.
Edit: formattings and the grammars
Your analysis of Germany’s situation fundamentally misunderstands how electoral systems interact with extremism.
First, your claim that “it is much harder to envision a party like the AfD gaining traction in an FPTP system” ignores the reality we’re seeing in FPTP countries. In the US, extremist views didn’t disappear - they captured an entire major party from within. The MAGA movement didn’t need to form a separate party; it simply took over one of only two viable options. This is precisely why Team Permanent DST’s question is so critical.
Your two “styles of issues” with PR reveal deeper misconceptions:
You claim PR “makes politics much less likely to produce significant or helpful change.” What’s the evidence for this? Countries with PR systems like the Nordic nations, New Zealand, and Germany have implemented far more substantial climate legislation, healthcare reforms, and social welfare programs than many FPTP countries. These policies tend to have greater longevity and stability precisely because they’re built on broader consensus rather than imposed by minority-supported governments.
Your concern about “super broad” coalitions ignores how PR gives voters transparency about where parties actually stand. In Germany, voters can see exactly which parties refuse to work with the AfD and why. Under FPTP, these negotiations happen within parties, behind closed doors, before elections even occur. When extremism captures a mainstream party in FPTP, voters have nowhere else to go.
The key difference is accountability and containment. In Germany, the AfD’s ~23% support translates to proportional representation - significant but contained. They remain excluded from governing coalitions because other parties refuse to work with them. By contrast, when extremists capture a major party in FPTP, they can gain control of entire governments with minority support, as we’ve seen in the US.
What’s happening in Germany isn’t a failure of PR - it’s PR working exactly as designed. The system provides early warning about extremist support and creates transparent mechanisms to contain it, while still ensuring citizens who hold those views have representation proportional to their numbers (no more, no less). Meanwhile, FPTP’s tendency to produce false majorities implementing policies opposed by most citizens creates precisely the kind of disenfranchisement that feeds extremism in the first place.
The rise of the AfD reflects genuine social concerns and tensions in Germany that would exist under any electoral system. The difference is that PR makes these tensions visible and addressable, rather than masking them until they capture an entire mainstream party.