The image is an infographic titled “The Liberal’s Broken Promise: Electoral Reform” that displays a vertical timeline with colored dots and information boxes chronicling electoral reform events in Canada.
The timeline shows six key events:
-
June 2015 (pink dot): Campaign Promise - Justin Trudeau pledges: “We are committed to ensuring the 2015 election will be the last election using first-past-the-post.”
-
October 2015 (blue dot): Election Victory - Liberals win a majority government with 39.5% of the popular vote, securing 184 seats (54% of the House of Commons).
-
June 2016 (light blue dot): Special Committee Created - The Electoral Reform Committee (ERRE) is established to study options. The committee conducts consultations across Canada.
-
December 2016 (red dot): Committee Recommendations - The ERRE recommends proportional representation. 88% of electoral experts consulted favoured proportional representation.
-
February 2017 (blue dot): Promise Abandoned - PM Trudeau abandons electoral reform, claiming “no consensus” despite clear committee recommendations and public consultations.
-
October 2024 (black dot): Looking Back - Trudeau admits he should have “immediately shut down talk about proportional representation” and that Liberals were “deliberately vague.”
Below the timeline is a “Key Statistics” box showing:
- 63% of voters cast ballots for parties promising electoral reform
- 80% of town hall participants asked for proportional representation
- 71% wanted parties to govern together
The infographic includes a Creative Commons license icon in the bottom left corner and a QR code in the bottom right. The footer cites sources: House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform, Fair Vote Canada, Policy Options.
The prospect of a madman pushing annexation and meeting lukewarm opposition from a career politician whose only argument is this exact argument doesn’t give anyone the warm fuzzies.
Was Trudeau’s tenure a roaring success? Doesn’t matter, that’s yesterday’s news .
Agreed. I’ll take a party that broke our trust over a party that wants to break our country.
Sadly, there is not a realistic 3rd option at this time.
I get the frustration, I really do. But look, there are actually other options out there - NDP🟧, Greens🟢, and Bloc⚜️ all support proportional representation.
The thing is, this feeling that we only have two choices? That’s exactly what our First-Past-The-Post system wants us to believe. It’s working as designed. Canada’s effective number of parties has already shrunk to 2.76 - we’re literally sliding toward that American two-party nightmare thanks to Duverger’s Law.
Every time we hold our noses and vote strategically for parties that have zero interest in fixing the system, we’re just keeping this broken cycle going.
Your vote is yours. It doesn’t “belong” to either of the big parties by default. And honestly, if you’re voting for a party that refuses to fix our democracy, that’s when your vote is truly wasted.
I have been an NDP member for over 20 years. I have always voted my conscience. This will be the first time since the 90s i have voted for the liberal party.
Why?
Because this election is too important. If we allow Poilievre to form government, our country could very likely fall completely under his watch.
Let’s be completely clear. If you want to vote in 5 years in a CANADIAN election, there isn’t even 2 choices, there is only 1.
Singh knew the danger of Poilievre, which is why he propped up the Liberals for 3 years.
We are at war. It may be a war of economics, but it’s still a war. And when you are at war, you want your most experienced and equipped soldier in charge. Right now, today… that is Carney.
I hate FPTP, and I have been angry at Trudeau for a decade for breaking his promise of reform… but the barbarians are at the gate. We as Canadians, for this election, need to not let perfect be the enemy of survival.
Carney is not the perfect leader, but he’s the best option by far to keep the barbarians out because Poilievre will happily open the gates for them.
Also, a big part of why the NDP is losing ground is a completely uninspiring leader. Today would be a different conversation if Angus, who was my vote for leadership, had won in 2017. But here we are…
I hate FPTP, and I have been angry at Trudeau for a decade for breaking his promise of reform
Then after the election, you better be fighting your hardest to get proportional representation.
Get started with this link: Simple things you can do right now, to grow the proportional representation movement—so we never have to vote for the lesser of the evils, have a two party system, “split the vote”, or strategic vote.
I have done all of those things and will continue to do them in the future. But it doesn’t change the reality of the present.
I have done all of those things and will continue to do them in the future
Thanks! Let’s keep growing the PR movement!
Some of us live in areas where Liberals and Conservatives are neck and neck. A vote for anyone but Liberal is effectively a vote for Conservative under FPTP, and I’m not going to make it any easier for those traitors and bigots to ruin the country. Sure, Liberals are not what I want, but falling to fascism is a lot more not what I want. I very much want PR but where I live a vote for the parties that support it is just going to result in one more Conservative MP. I hate it, but we have seen in the US election what happens when people let fascists get a foot in the door.
My riding is pretty solidly Conservative. I don’t think it has been anything else in its various incarnations since WWII. All I expect to get this time around is a protest vote, but I will be making my voice heard with it, and I will be telling them how they are failing us as Canadian citizens by sticking with FPTP when there are much more democratic options available.
I very much want PR
Then after the election, you better be fighting your hardest to get proportional representation.
Get started with this link: Simple things you can do right now, to grow the proportional representation movement—so we never have to vote for the lesser of the evils, have a two party system, “split the vote”, or strategic vote.
This is me. My riding is a tossup Conservative/Liberal, with NDP currently given a pity 1% chance of winning and nobody else even given that.
This means that as angry as I am at the Liberals for the FPTP stab-in-the-back, that very FPTP system now requires that I vote Liberal for the sake of my country.
I am not happy about this. But in times of war you sometimes need to do unpleasant things you’re not happy about.
I’m in Poilievre’s riding. My buddy who is so hardcore left, he votes communist, is actively campaigning to get the Liberal here elected.
Call out to Bruce Fanjoy. I have no idea who you are, or what you look like, but I’m voting for you to kick the smug asshole out of government.
Fanjoy is getting a lot of support. He actually gives a shit about the riding, unlike pp who is only using it as a stepping stone.
That’s good to hear. Since we may be stuck with him for 5 years.
But TBH, I would vote for a sack of potatoes right now if it had a red L on it.
This means that as angry as I am at the Liberals for the FPTP stab-in-the-back, that very FPTP system now requires that I vote Liberal for the sake of my country.
I am not happy about this.
Then after the election, you better be fighting your hardest to get proportional representation.
Get started with this link: Simple things you can do right now, to grow the proportional representation movement—so we never have to vote for the lesser of the evils, have a two party system, “split the vote”, or strategic vote.
Yeah, I hear what you’re saying.
But doing that is exactly what led to the fascist morons being in charge down there.
We can figure out proportional representation after the very real existential threat to our country is dealt with.
We can figure out proportiobal representation after
Then after the election, you better be fighting your hardest to get proportional representation.
Get started with this link: Simple things you can do right now, to grow the proportional representation movement—so we never have to vote for the lesser of the evils, have a two party system, “split the vote”, or strategic vote.
The thing is, this feeling that we only have two choices? That’s exactly what our First-Past-The-Post system wants us to believe.
No, that’s exactly what our first-past-the-post system gives us. It’s not a question of belief, it’s a mathematical reality.
There are probably a few ridings out there with plausible three-way battles where one could influence it in any of those ways. And there are many more ridings where one party is already a shoo-in, and in those cases you can vote your conscience as well knowing that it at least won’t negatively impact anything and will “send a message” in whatever small way the popular vote matters. But in many ridings there are only two plausible choices, and one of those choices could quite possibly lead to the ruin of Canada. This is the reality of first-past-the-post systems. I hate it, but it’s what we currently have.
I hate it, but it’s what we currently have.
Then after the election, you better be fighting your hardest to get proportional representation.
Get started with this link: Simple things you can do right now, to grow the proportional representation movement—so we never have to vote for the lesser of the evils, have a two party system, “split the vote”, or strategic vote.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
While I appreciate the point about immediate geopolitical concerns, I’d argue that our democratic weaknesses make us more vulnerable to external threats, not less.
A country that is governed by its people, and truly so with proportional representation, is the strongest force there can be against an authoritarian takeover. It provides true and uncompromising democratic legitimacy to the government – as a healthy democracy demands.
This isn’t just about Trudeau - it’s about a pattern across Liberal leadership (since Mackenzie King in 1919) of promising proportional representation then abandoning it once in power. Now Mark Carney continues this tradition with his non-committal stance on electoral reform despite his economic expertise.
The timing is actually perfect for this discussion. When facing external threats, we need a strong, legitimate democracy where every Canadian’s vote counts. Our current system regularly allows minority governments to rule for the majority, creating democratic vulnerabilities that potential adversaries can exploit.
The solution to threats isn’t less democracy - it’s making our democracy stronger through proportional representation. That’s not yesterday’s news; it’s tomorrow’s national security.
We’re facing a very real threat to our very existence. Splitting the votes in the middle and left will only guarantee that the conservatives win.
Also, I don’t trust anyone who won’t get security clearance, seriously what is he hiding?
I understand the concern about threats to Canada - that’s precisely why we need a stronger democracy, not a weaker one.
The “vote splitting” fear is exactly what keeps our broken system in place. Under proportional representation, this wouldn’t be an issue - your vote would actually count toward electing someone who represents your values.
On security clearances, I agree they’re important. They should be administered by an independent body with transparent criteria and applied equally to all candidates. This isn’t contradictory to electoral reform - they’re complementary.
A country with true democratic legitimacy, where every vote matters, is actually more resilient against external threats, not less. Fixing our democracy strengthens our sovereignty, it doesn’t weaken it.
Security clearance should not be administered by any independent anything. It needs to be done by the intelligence arm of the government that has access to everything they need to access. Any candidate that won’t apply should not be able to run. Period.
What party do you think who has any chance of forming a majority government will fix our broken FPTP electoral system?
OP does realize that it is possible to be equally frustrated at the minority parties right?
The NDP has broken my trust with their poor performance as of late. Ditch Singh as a leader, and I’ll be on board with the party again. Singh’s lack of effective leadership skills as a party leader would NOT translate well if it came to him being a COUNTRY leader.
Also the Green party broke my trust with all the backdoor nonsense they had to elect Annamie Paul as party leader when it was clear as day Dimitri Lascaris had better skills as party leader. While they’ve been winning me back a little seeing Pedneault’s performance as a co-leader, May still being the main leader of the party is a hard sell seeing how her work in getting Paul elected as leader literally ended up fracturing the party.
I hear you on leadership frustrations - that’s completely valid. But I think we’re conflating two different issues here.
Electoral systems are separate from party leadership. The beauty of proportional representation is that it actually gives voters more power to hold parties accountable, not less.
Under PR systems like STV, you could vote for NDP candidates you respect while avoiding Singh if you wanted. Or support certain Green candidates but not May. That’s because PR gives voters more nuanced choices rather than forcing all-or-nothing decisions.
The current winner-take-all system is precisely what traps us with leadership we don’t fully support. It forces us to accept entire party packages because our electoral districts only elect one representative.
I’m not asking you to support any particular leader - I’m suggesting we fix the system that limits our choices. With PR, we’d have more parties, more diverse voices, and more accountability for leaders who aren’t performing.
What if you could vote your actual preferences instead of being trapped in this system that makes us settle?
I have such a bad feeling about Carney. This is classic Shock Doctrine shit. Our collective attention is so focused on this one totally engineered thing that may or may not even be real. We are unable to protect ourselves, and we are at risk of being severely exploited no matter who wins.
