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 concerned about this being a committee as politicians can’t agree on an electoral system.
We should use the last citizens assembly’s recommendation on electoral reform and get it passed through.
B.C. Green Caucus on Bluesky
It’s official. The BC NDP and BC Green caucuses have reached a final agreement on how we will work together on our shared priorities and deliver a strong and stable government.
https://bcgreencaucus.ca/b-c-new-democrat-and-b-c-greens-finalize-agreement/
Please, anything but full PR. Please. In a polarized landscape PR is leading to increasingly bad outcomes (Israel, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Poland etc.) In a PR system, the Far Right would be running France.
This is not happening because the citizens of those countries are less good than Canadians.
Austria doesn’t have an extremist government, Poland’s culture on issues is different, Israel’s democracy is flawed as the foundation of the country is dubious. If the majority of the people want fascism it’s going to happen in any electoral system, the 2 big parties are not immune to that corrupting influence look at how Donald Trump and Robert Mugabe reduced their parties to. Winner-take-all systems allow an extremist party to win a majority of the seats with only a minority of the vote thus having full legislative control.
Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom are actually much more polarized under first-past-the-post than say Ireland, Denmark and Switzerland. As proportional representation actually decreases polarization as the politics are much friendlier and it’s much less of us vs them since they’re more than 2 parties vying for our votes.
You also conveniently left out Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland in your argument.
Austria doesn’t have an extremist government
Sure, but Kickl almost came to power in large part as a result of general dissatisfaction with politics in Austrai because… You guessed it, PR leads to not particularly effective government.
Israel’s democracy is flawed as the foundation of the country is dubious.
You can disagree with the creation of Israel etc but I fail to see how that means that we don’t have to pay attention to their experience with PR.
Poland’s culture on issues is different
So the Polish culture is just inherently racist and tends to autocracy? I really hate this line of argument, it’s the same sort of stuff that has been historically used dismiss the humanity of Black and Indigenous people.
If the majority of the people want fascism it’s going to happen in any electoral system,
Not saying FPTP is perfect. 2 party systems tend not to be great either. That’s why I’m really happy that Canada has a wide mix, from NDP to the Bloc, to the Conservatives.
You also conveniently left out Norway, Ireland, Denmark, Switzerland
Yes… And you haven’t pointed out all the successful countries that use FPTP, or do you really think there are no successful countries with FPTP?
Anything less than full PR is less than an ideal representative democracy.
Besides, electoral systems are not supposed to determine the ideological makeup of government. The responsibility of the electoral system is to ensure effective representation in government, that’s it.
If you don’t like the ideological makeup of those countries you mentioned, blame the culture, not the electoral system.
I didn’t realize what community I was in, I thought this was a more general one. Seems rude to come in and argue the merits of PR in a community devoted to it, apologies, I’m happy to let it be.
blame the culture, not the electoral system.
If you read about what’s happening in those countries, you’ll realize it’s not about the culture, it’s that PR incentivizes really bad outcomes. Take Germany for example. Just like here, a small minority of people would vote for really hateful parties that are toxic and should be avoided. However, avoiding them has made the other parties form really broad and thus ineffective coalitions, which are unable to push forward significant legislation. The increasing inability to pass significant legislation has led to Germany’s stalling development, which then further fuels extremist parties.
Similarly, you’ll see in Israel where mainstream parties are held hostage by relatively small extremist parties leading to horrific outcomes that are generally not supported by the public.
I basically agree with the statement:
The responsibility of the electoral system is to ensure **effective **representation in government
but I think you are missing the effective part. Consider, an absolute pure democracy where every bill, item etc was voted on by everyone. That would certainly be the ultimate in democracy, but it would be a terrible way to run a country and likely lead to some insane policy choices. Similarly, an autocracy can pass perfect and brilliant legislation but is completely un democratic. So, we can see that there is give and take between full representation and effective government. My entire point is that PR, while really groovy on paper, tends to produce really bad outcomes and thus sacrifices a lot of the efficiency of government (and of voting frankly) for some (arguably temporary) democratic gain. I know too much about the to be anything but stridently opposed to PR.
Seems rude to come in and argue the merits of PR in a community devoted to it, apologies, I’m happy to let it be.
I mean, we live in a democratic society, so free speech is encouraged.
Edit: also if there were a hypothetical system superior to proportional representation, I’d be in favour of it after rigorous consideration. I’m not bound to any particular electoral system.
If you read about what’s happening in those countries, you’ll realize it’s not about the culture, it’s that PR incentivizes really bad outcomes. Take Germany for example. Just like here, a small minority of people would vote for really hateful parties that are toxic and should be avoided
How is that a “bad outcome” when it’s literally what people voted for. Electoral systems are not supposed to decide the ideological makeup of government.
It’s not PR you are against, you are against a characteristic inherent of democracy itself.
has made the other parties form really broad and thus ineffective coalitions, which are unable to push forward significant legislation
Is this worse than the big tent parties we have now, that members can’t vote or think independent of their party leaders?
an absolute pure democracy where every bill, item etc was voted on by everyone. That would certainly be the ultimate in democracy, but it would be a terrible way to run a country and likely lead to some insane policy choices
What does this have anything to do with our conversation? We aren’t discussing representative democracy versus direct democracy. We are discussing proportional representation vs non-proportional representation.
My entire point is that PR, while really groovy on paper, tends to produce really bad outcomes and thus sacrifices a lot of the efficiency of government (and of voting frankly) for some (arguably temporary) democratic gain
- Tends to produce bad outcomes how exactly? You would need to describe an outcome that you would not see under any democracy.
- Sacrifices the efficiency of government how? And is “efficiency” more important than policy that the majority actually agree on?
- Your argument against PR is that voting is “inefficient”, therefore we should allow non-proportional governments?
- How is it “temporary” democratic gain, when there are more mathematical criteria satisfied under PR systems for producing democratic systems?
@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:
- In a democracy, we are entitled to and deserving of representation in government.
- I am not trying to argue whether democracy (and by proxy PR) itself is successful (or unsuccesful), because that is an entirely different discussion.
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.
Yeah, a 2 party system is generally not very ideal. Here in Canada we’re lucky enough to have had multiple parties able to nudge one another into various directions.
and a two party system with one party actively dismantling democracy; I’d so so happily take the first one.
I’m not sure how PR would stop those attempts. And if anything, it could make them significantly worse.
where it’s a little hard to build a coalition that lasts more than a couple years,
It’s more that those coalitions have serious trouble creating significant legislation, which still leads to issues like housing and climate change legislation being very unlikely. Except worse, it’s now very hard to assign blame OR to propose bold reforms. So you just muddle through with things getting worse. There’s a reason so many PR systems have started producing great outcomes for hard right parties. (The sort of anti democratic, racist parties that make the republican party look almost progressive.)
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%.
What you’re seeing as a broad ineffective coalition happens in Canada within the parties themselves, prior to the election
Sort of? That coalition still comes forward with a set of proposals that they generally have a chance to enact (or, they choose not to and bear the electoral consequences for it.) This is different than going forward with a set of proposals, then in a murky set of compromises behind close doors with multiple parties, some other result happens. How to assign blame or credit?
Has happened to our PC party which got split in two, then reunited again under the extreme part’s leadership.
Come on. I don’t think a serious or well informed adult can honestly look at the PC party and say that it is seriously comparable to the Hard Right like the AfD. While some of those folks are swept up into a faction, their outcomes get moderated by the PC party because of the FPTP incentives to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate.
They just delay the knowledge of those problems and therefore any serious solution.
I mean, you’ve seen this learning happen pretty quickly to the Liberal party. People got fed up about inflation and housing, started abandoning the party. There’s a reason the guy who crushed the Liberal party election was the only one who could credibly say he’d had nothing to do with those bad decisions.
Like, political parties aren’t only informed about public opinion during elections. (Otherwise, their campaign promises and platforms would just be wild guesses.) There’s all sorts of public opinion polling etc. And thanfully, we have a strong system that can address these issues instead of just muddle through with a coalition that’s too broad to actually address those issues.
Look at Germany. Does it seem likely that the coalition government will be able to do anything about the AfD or will they just muddle through while the problems fester and the AfD gets more popular? I’d put heavy money on the latter. Whereas Canada, has already started broad plans to create housing etc (these are the sorts of plans that take a long time to materialize, a sad irony about the upcoming election is that whatever party wins will likely be credited for dealing with housing developments spurred by the current Liberal government.)
How is that a “bad outcome” when it’s literally what people voted for.
You don’t see how abhorrent racist parties taking power is a bad outcome?
Is this worse than the big tent parties we have now,
Yes. We’ve just passed a national school lunch program, are working on affordable day care and expanding healthcare to cover dental work. For better or worse, the Liberals have a very clear record you can vote on, whether you think they allowed too much immigration or you support their work on childcare, they have a clear record that they own and we are thus able to vote on it. This is not possible in a PR system. (What were the things your party actually made happen vs the results of messy compromises with a dozen parties? In the German context, as they’ll need literally every party to avoid working with the AFD, how are you possibly able to apportion blame or praise on any party?)
We are discussing proportional representation vs non-proportional representation.
Again, I refer you to your quote: “The responsibility of the electoral system is to ensure **effective **representation in government” I’m pointing out that there are trade offs. You could establish 100% representation but it would be terrible. Similarly, sure you can argue that PR leads to more representation but that doesn’t mean that it is effective representation.
Tends to produce bad outcomes how exactly? You would need to describe an outcome that you would not see under any democracy.
The ability of small parties to hold a majority hostage. Think about the extreme right in Israel, who despite being fairly unpopular are pushing ahead some fairly aggressive anti-Palestinian moves. This caaaaaaaaan happen in a fptp system but is much less likely.
Sacrifices the efficiency of government how? And is “efficiency” more important than policy that the majority actually agree on?
Again, I refer you to pretty much everything I’ve already written about the German system. Being paralyzed means the government can’t pass significant legislation, which has led to significant problems and perversely, the rise of groups like the AFD.
Your argument against PR is that voting is “inefficient”, therefore we should allow non-proportional governments?
That’s not at all what I’ve said.
How is it “temporary” democratic gain, when there are more mathematical criteria satisfied under PR systems for producing democratic systems?
In the short run, if you can vote for any party but none of the parties are able to really affect change, how democratic or useful is your vote?
In the long run, it leads to more people being willing to abandon democracy as PR systems tend to be unable to deliver significant change. If democracy doesn’t help, more people are willing to turn to autocrats.
You don’t see how abhorrent racist parties taking power is a bad outcome?
I’m not making a position on whether a particular ideology is good or bad. In a democracy, people are entitled to and deserving of representation. If you don’t like that, then you are against democracy itself. If that is what people voted for, then they are entitled to a representative that aligns with their interests. Once again, electoral systems are not supposed to determine the ideological makeup of government.
We’ve just passed a national school lunch program, are working on affordable day care and expanding healthcare to cover dental work
To suggest that these policies are solely thanks to an electoral system is nonsensical. The point I was making was that in non-PR systems, we have members that too often don’t vote their conscience, and just keep in line with party policy.
they have a clear record that they own and we are thus able to vote on it. This is not possible in a PR system
So you’ve never seen mixed-member proportional (MMP)? And what aspect of our FPTP system allows you to vote for parties???
the results of messy compromises with a dozen parties
Yes, that is a characteristic inherent of democracy itself. Are you arguing for autocracy?
Again, I refer you to your quote: “The responsibility of the electoral system is to ensure **effective **representation in government” I’m pointing out that there are trade offs. You could establish 100% representation but it would be terrible. Similarly, sure you can argue that PR leads to more representation but that doesn’t mean that it is effective representation.
By effective representation, I mean every vote would actually elect someone. I don’t mean that every single person would have a dedicated representative (nor even resembling that notion).
So yes, when you say “pure democracy where every bill, item etc was voted on by everyone” versus “an autocracy can pass perfect and brilliant legislation but is completely un democratic”, the axis you are referring to is concentration of power.
Whereas PR vs non-PR doesn’t really deal with that, it’s more about whether votes actually elect someone. This is really getting into semantics, but the takeaway is that we aren’t having the same conversation.
The ability of small parties to hold a majority hostage…This caaaaaaaaan happen in a fptp system but is much less likely.
We already have a small minority holding the majority hostage.
Virtually every single majority government has been a minority holding the majority hostage… You really need to do your research.
Being paralyzed means the government can’t pass significant legislation
- This isn’t true.
- At least in PR, every single bill enacted would be majority supported.
- So you’re saying that it’s better that a minority passes legislation, despite being unpopular?
In the short run, if you can vote for any party but none of the parties are able to really affect change, how democratic or useful is your vote?
It’s definitely better than being strangled by a minority, like we have all the time.
In the long run, it leads to more people being willing to abandon democracy as PR systems tend to be unable to deliver significant change. If democracy doesn’t help, more people are willing to turn to autocrats.
True democracy is extremely slow, but that doesn’t we should abandon our principles just to maintain a broken and unfair winner-take-all electoral system.
I’m sorry, but the points you raised are problems with democracy itself, not inherently with PR. PR only gets us closer to the ideals of democracy, and democracy is extremely flawed, slow, and yes can be strangled, but at the very least, policies must be enacted with majority support.
The notion that we should maintain our systems because we can pass more legislation (despite how unpopular it might be), is ridiculous and goes against the principles of democracy itself.
What benefits does FPTP achieve? It doesn’t do anything it sets out to do, it doesn’t guarantee local representation (we can have parachute candidates), it doesn’t guarantee effective representation (we have many votes cast that elect nobody), and FPTP isn’t even supposed to do any of the things you laud it for doing!
You haven’t even addressed the point about PR electoral systems being mathematically superior to FPTP… perhaps because it doesn’t fit your narratives? PR can be mathematically demonstrated to have its citizens better off, every single time than FPTP (or any winner-take-all system for that matter).
I’m saddened that you are cherry picking particular pieces of evidence to support your case, and you are so staunchly opposed to PR. I think about, if there is anything possible to change your mind, and since the answer is likely no, then there is no point in discussing further (not that I am opposed to it). Because, it’s not clear what objective you want to achieve in an electoral system, that isn’t a problem with democracy itself.
You are correct, we aren’t talking about the same thing. I am talking about the actual mechanics and serious downsides of PR. You seem to be talking about how PR does one thing well and then leaping to the conclusion that it is a good thing. Personally, I care about people and the country and PR would harm both. (To you, it seems the harms are just, well, other people’s problems.)
It is utterly irresponsible to advocate for a system with significant downsides and then casting pointing out those downsides as not being a fan of democracy.
Have a good night.
You are correct, we aren’t talking about the same thing. I am talking about the actual mechanics and serious downsides of PR. You seem to be talking about how PR does one thing well and then leaping to the conclusion that it is a good thing.
Well, this is a good example of evading the points being made…
I care about people and the country
Me too, I recognize when options are mathematically superior.
it seems the harms are just, well, other people’s problems
I could literally say the same thing about FPTP! Again, at least with PR, every single policy that is enacted is supported by the majority, can you say that about FPTP?
It is utterly irresponsible to advocate for a system with significant downsides
I agree, FPTP is the least democratic option when choosing democratic electoral systems.
those downsides as not being a fan of democracy.
And yet you still haven’t been able to refute the point, only complain about it. Yes, the downsides you bring up about PR are the same downsides you would have in a democracy, and provide no tangible upsides for FPTP…
