Fairvote showing yet again that it’s run by a bunch of idealists who have never talked to someone outside of their bubble.
Canadians like local representation chosen by local elections, whether you agree with the “fairness” of the outcome or not. Ranked choice ballots are the only option that will have the broad support needed to be implemented.
Fairvote showing yet again that it’s run by a bunch of idealists who have never talked to someone outside of their bubble.
You say that when countries such as Ireland and New Zealand completely ditched FPTP and replace it with pr.
Canadians like local representation chosen by local elections, whether you agree with the “fairness” of the outcome or not. Ranked choice ballots are the only option that will have the broad support needed to be implemented.
That’s only true for the party-list system, as the single-transferable vote and mixed-member proportional both have local representation.
Instant runoff ranked choice makes it much more difficult for smaller parties/independents to gain seats and Australia doesn’t perform as well on international rankings like Norway, Switzerland and Denmark do.
Most citizens assemblies have recommended pr after reviewing all the electoral systems.
“Citizens assemblies” do not tend to include normies who aren’t tuned into politics, and so tend to just be another socially isolated bubble
Citizens’ assemblies use stratified random sampling to ensure demographic representation - including people with no prior political involvement. Unlike self-selected political groups, properly designed assemblies deliberately include “normies” from all walks of life who are given time and resources to become informed.
The BC Citizens’ Assembly selected one man and one woman randomly from each electoral district specifically to avoid the “bubble” problem you’re describing. This is fundamentally different from referendums where voters make decisions with minimal information, often influenced by misleading campaigns.
The evidence shows that given adequate time and information, ordinary citizens make remarkably thoughtful policy recommendations. If we want substantive electoral reform, we need processes that combine democratic legitimacy with informed decision-making.
Your last paragraph is provably false, there is plenty of good information out there and there has been for a long time, yet people are less informed and more ignorant than ever.
And again, someone who would agree to participate in a citizens assembly, even if the person is randomly selected, will tend to not be representative of most people because most people would decline to participate.
Fairvote showing yet again that it’s run by a bunch of idealists who have never talked to someone outside of their bubble.
Even if this is true, how does it change the fact that our current system, FPTP, systematically disenfranchises millions of citizens?
Canadians like local representation chosen by local elections
So you should be against parachute candidates (candidates that place their name on the ballot, without being in the electoral district).
And local representation isn’t mutually exclusive with proportional representation…
Ranked choice ballots are the only option that will have the broad support needed to be implemented.
Like it or not, the average Canadian would rather their representative be chosen by local votes, not based on national proportions. I’m not saying it’s ideal, I’m saying it’s realistic.
Like it or not, the average Canadian would rather their representative be chosen by local votes, not based on national proportions. I’m not saying it’s ideal, I’m saying it’s realistic.
This is a false dichotomy that has been perpetuated for too long. Proportional representation and local representation are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Both STV and MMP maintain local representation while ensuring proportional outcomes. In STV, you elect multiple representatives from somewhat larger local districts. In MMP, you have both local representatives and top-up seats to ensure proportionality.
The evidence doesn’t support the claim about what “average Canadians” want either. Recent polls show that 76% of Canadians support electoral reform and over 60% of Ontarians specifically support proportional representation.
What Canadians actually want is for their votes to matter. Under FPTP, millions of perfectly valid ballots have zero effect on representation.
The question isn’t whether we should have local representation or proportionality - we can and should have both. The question is whether we believe in a democracy where every vote counts, or whether we’re content with a system that systematically discards votes.
Polls about electoral reform tend to be responded to by people who care deeply about electoral reform, there’s a huge sampling bias there
In proportional representation, who do I call when I have a local issue that is in a federal responsibility?
If you propose a mixed system, most are local MP with a few extra spread out amongst the other parties, what ridings do they represent?
There is no perfect system, but within a representative democracy where the regional concerns are diverse, unlike most European countries, Canada is the physical size of Europe, proportional representation will always over represent the needs of dense parts of the country.
Why does each candidate need to represent a riding? Have the ridings each have their own representative for local issues, and then have the extra MPs represent the country as a whole.
In proportional representation, who do I call when I have a local issue that is in a federal responsibility?
You still have a local representative under STV…
If you propose a mixed system, most are local MP with a few extra spread out amongst the other parties, what ridings do they represent?
By “mixed system”, I’m interpreting that as meaning MMP. The party MPs represent all of Canada. This is unlike FPTP, where the representatives actually might not represent the communities they were elected from (because they can win with less than half the vote).
There is no perfect system
But surely, we can ensure that every vote counts? This is a fundamental tenet of democracy.
proportional representation will always over represent the needs of dense parts of the country.
How? Proportional representation literally means that virtually every vote counts to the results of the election, and nobody gets more or less representation – exactly how a healthy democracy should be.