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.
I’m not claiming the current CPC is equivalent to the AfD or Brothers of Italy in their policy positions. That mischaracterizes my argument. What I’ve been pointing out is the mechanism by which extremism manifests differently under different electoral systems.
In PR systems, extremist viewpoints form their own distinct parties with representation proportional to their actual support. In FPTP systems, extremist movements are incentivized to work within mainstream parties, gradually influencing their direction from within rather than forming separate parties that would split the vote.
The Reform Party example illustrates this pattern - not because the CPC today equals the AfD, but because it demonstrates how FPTP doesn’t eliminate ideological factions; it simply forces them to operate within big-tent parties where their influence can grow less visibly. The Reform Party recognized this reality and eventually merged with the PCs rather than remaining a separate entity.
This pattern repeats across FPTP systems globally. In the UK, Brexit was championed by what was once a fringe position within the Conservative Party before capturing the party’s direction. In the US, the transformation of the Republican Party over the past decade shows how rapidly a mainstream party can shift when captured by a movement from within.
What PR provides is transparency and proportionality. When the AfD gets 23% in Germany, they receive exactly that proportion of seats - no more, no less. Meanwhile, the remaining 77% can form coalitions that reflect the majority will. This creates both visibility about extremist support and a containment mechanism that prevents disproportionate influence.
The mathematical reality remains that PR ensures every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, while FPTP systematically discards millions of votes. This democratic deficit is what should truly concern us - a system where majority viewpoints can be ignored while minority-supported governments implement policies opposed by most citizens.
The fundamental question isn’t about comparing specific parties across countries, but about which system better serves democratic principles by accurately representing citizens’ actual voting preferences.
And that mechanism is leading to moderate parties in FPTP systems like ours and hate groups in PR ones.
You admit that
So, why aren’t those tensions which are boiling over repeatedly in PR systems boiling over here? Again, simply put, do you think 1/5 Canadians are angry enough to vote for a far right group?