What is This Group is About?
De Quoi Parle ce Groupe?
The unofficial non-partisan Lemmy movement to bring proportional representation to all levels of government in Canada.
🗳️Voters deserve more choice and accountability from all politicians.
Le mouvement non officiel et non partisan de Lemmy visant à introduire la représentation proportionnelle à tous les niveaux de gouvernement au Canada.
🗳️Les électeurs méritent davantage de choix et de responsabilité de la part de tous les politiciens.
Related Communities/Communautés Associées
Resources/Ressources
Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles
We're looking for more moderators, especially those who are of French and indigenous identities.
Politiques de modération de contenu
Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.
We won't be united on democracy until we adopt a system that ensures governments reflect a broad majority consensus.
Our riding are also too big, they should be 30,000 people max, not 100,000 people to 1 representative.
Add to it that some electoral districts have 140k voters, while others have 30k.
At least give 4 seats to a 140k riding.
God, imagine if an average person got a representative in office that they knew and met. The earth would stop and crumble.
Ummm, I have that. Personnally helped, along with a large group of people, to get the person we knew confirmed as the candidate and then worked to introduce them to as many people in the riding as possible and they won the seat. Not every person in every riding is apathetic about getting involved.
It would cause too much accountability if our representatives had to live on our neighbourhood. :(
But then there'd be 3x the number of representatives. That would cost too much to bribe enough of them.
Ok but here in europe we have elections, several parties come out on top and spend ages fighting over how to govern together, that usually goes wrong at some point and they'll just do a little chairdance rotation with different combinations until the next election with absolutely 0 input from us in the meantime.
Canada is slightly different though because of its sheer size, there is a concern that proportional representation could drown out the interests of some groups. For example, right now, without proportional representation, politicians still have to take the time to campaign in rural and Northern areas, because these people’s votes matter. With proportional representation though, there would be no need for this though, because these people would make up such a small fraction of the total vote. With proportional representation a politician could neglect anyone living more than a 2 hour drive from the US border and it would make barely any difference to how they do on election night.
I’m not saying this because I’m trying to argue against proportional representation, I just don’t know if this is a fair comparison.
Edit for typo
Canada is slightly different though because of its sheer size, there is a concern that proportional representation could drown out the interests of some groups.
That's what's literally happening with undemocratic first past-the-post drowning out 60% of the views in the country, throwing away the votes that didn't go for 2 most popular candidates.
With proportional representation though, there would be no need for this though, because these people would make up such a small fraction of the total vote.
False. It's family of voting systems and it's not a single a single voting system. We should not be generalizing. Under the proportional systems of the single transferable vote and mixed-member proportional politicians still need to to appeal to their local ridings.
Under the proportional systems of the single transferable vote and mixed-member proportional politicians still need to to appeal to their local ridings.
Can you explain how this works please
Under STV voters rank their preferred candidates in a 1 2 3.. order, the candidate that passes the threshold wins a seat this process repeats until all positions in a 3-5 member riding are filled.
Under MMP voters get 2 votes 1 for the local candidate and the other for the party candidate. Most of the mps are elected into local single member seats with the party-list mps being used to top off the seats.
Districts do not cease to exist just because you changed the voting method.
STV - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote
You rank your choice, if your first is eliminated the second gets your vote.... Similar to what Trudeau proposed back then.
Mixed-Member - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation
This is also can be mix of many things, but in general: you vote to your district's candidate, and/or to a party/list of candidates. The representatives are a mix of district representatives and the list. The list can be regional, or nationwide. Germany is an example of this.
There are many more, and Alberta, Manitoba and BC tried some for a few decades. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-single-transferable-vote-1.5271771
Thanks for the info
For example, right now, with proportional representation, politicians still have to take the time to campaign in rural and Northern areas,
I don't follow what you wrote, right now, we don't have proportional representation. Do you mean without?
Also, the current elected official in my district never visited my area, not even sure they ever lived here.
With proportional representation a politician could neglect anyone living more than a 2 hour drive from the US border
What is the logic behind this? Are you just inventing stuff?
that proportional representation could drown out the interests of some groups.
Do you mean the billionaires?
Right now, every district throws away the vote of more than half of the voters. To the point of making some people not even believing in democracy and casting a vote.
There are plenty of groups being ignored and disenfranchised, right now.
Ford was elected in Ontario by less than 20% of the voters. The rest does not have a say. The same goes to other parties, like in BC and federal government.
With proportional representation a politician could neglect anyone living more than a 2 hour drive from the US border
What is the logic behind this? Are you just inventing stuff?
Something like 90% of Canadians live with 2 hours of the US border, so you could in principle get a 90% majority government even if everyone living +2 hours away voted against you. That wouldn't be possible with the current system. Our current system allows people in northern areas to still have a say, even though they only make up a small fraction of Canadians. Things like this are the reason why the current system was designed the way it was.
Things like this are the reason why the current system was designed the way it was.
First-past-the-post was chosen to water down democracy to serve the elites as it’s incredibly confusing on how it works ie strategic voting.
That wouldn’t be possible with the current system.
How is that not possible with the current system? Where are you getting those figures?
Right now, you have a majority with only 20% of voters, 80% of the people are not getting heard it does not matter where they live. This is an edge case of Ontario, but as OP said the figure does not get much better across Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_index#Canada
The only thing that proportional representation tries to do is matching the votes with number of the seats without discarding votes. With proportional representation, if enough people vote for you, you get a seat, that is it. They don't throw those votes away. Right now, it does not matter how many votes you get, if you get 15k votes, and the other candidate gets 15k+1. You have 15k voices silenced.
Are you mistaking proportional representation with something else? Or just being intentionally malicious?
Giving your preference for disenfranchising 80% of voters, I bet it is the second.
Things like this are the reason why the current system was designed the way it was.
No, it was not. Alberta used to have proportional representation, the reason they ended it is that the party in power thought they could stay in power for longer, but it backfired, and they lost to another party some elections later. (it seems that Manitoba and BC had similar stories with PR).
The current system was not designed the way it was for those reasons you are pulling out of a hat. It was just so the parties in power could have better control on who vote so they hold it for longer.
How is that not possible with the current system? Where are you getting those figures?
Compare a map of the ridings in a federal election to a population map and you’ll see that the ridings are distributed much more evenly.
I am going to end this conversation here because you seem to lack a basic understanding of how our current system works and are coming off as excessively hostile. Like I said in my original comment I’m not even trying to argue against proportional representation
No, don't blame your shortcomings on me.
You invent correlation and pass it as universal truth with no backings.
you seem to lack a basic understanding of how our current system works
Just asked you to show data and facts, you took things out of a hat and are playing victim.
I’m not even trying to argue against proportional representation
without proportional representation, politicians still have to take the time to campaign in rural and Northern areas, because these people’s votes matter. With proportional representation though, there would be no need for this
this was exactly in your first message. don't play coy now.
you post something, don't want to clarify and don't want to be corrected.
I don’t even need to guess what kind of person you are IRL.