Electoral Renewal Canada
@electoralrenewalca.bsky.social
📊 Discussing elections in Canada
🗳️ Advocating for Proportional Representation
📷 @ElectoralRenewalCA on Instagram
🗳️ Advocating for Proportional Representation
📷 @ElectoralRenewalCA on Instagram
In some jurisdictions they pull a name out of a hat, which happened recently in Yukon.
But in Canada federally it's by-elections, yeah.
Here's an interesting article: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
But in Canada federally it's by-elections, yeah.
Here's an interesting article: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
List of close election results - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
May 15, 2025 at 2:35 PM
In some jurisdictions they pull a name out of a hat, which happened recently in Yukon.
But in Canada federally it's by-elections, yeah.
Here's an interesting article: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
But in Canada federally it's by-elections, yeah.
Here's an interesting article: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...
And by the way, backroom deals and small party leverage describes our FPTP system.
PR means that power is more evenly distributed across more parties, and coalitions are made in the house, not among party insiders (see: LPC-NDP CASA).
It means the government usually lasts for more than 2 years.
PR means that power is more evenly distributed across more parties, and coalitions are made in the house, not among party insiders (see: LPC-NDP CASA).
It means the government usually lasts for more than 2 years.
May 15, 2025 at 2:19 PM
And by the way, backroom deals and small party leverage describes our FPTP system.
PR means that power is more evenly distributed across more parties, and coalitions are made in the house, not among party insiders (see: LPC-NDP CASA).
It means the government usually lasts for more than 2 years.
PR means that power is more evenly distributed across more parties, and coalitions are made in the house, not among party insiders (see: LPC-NDP CASA).
It means the government usually lasts for more than 2 years.
Man, I'm not sure what to say. The evidence doesn't align with your claims.
The highest rated democracies in the world use PR. The US uses FPTP.
The fact that you are refusing the provide any evidence and just giving talking points leads me to believe this is a bad faith discussion.
The highest rated democracies in the world use PR. The US uses FPTP.
The fact that you are refusing the provide any evidence and just giving talking points leads me to believe this is a bad faith discussion.
May 15, 2025 at 2:13 PM
Man, I'm not sure what to say. The evidence doesn't align with your claims.
The highest rated democracies in the world use PR. The US uses FPTP.
The fact that you are refusing the provide any evidence and just giving talking points leads me to believe this is a bad faith discussion.
The highest rated democracies in the world use PR. The US uses FPTP.
The fact that you are refusing the provide any evidence and just giving talking points leads me to believe this is a bad faith discussion.
I can tell we're not going anywhere here but I'll tell you that the irresponsibility of the "illiterate masses" was one of the main arguments for a limited suffrage in the past.
If democracy is going to survive the social media age, we need to encourage more thinking, not less.
If democracy is going to survive the social media age, we need to encourage more thinking, not less.
May 14, 2025 at 7:36 PM
I can tell we're not going anywhere here but I'll tell you that the irresponsibility of the "illiterate masses" was one of the main arguments for a limited suffrage in the past.
If democracy is going to survive the social media age, we need to encourage more thinking, not less.
If democracy is going to survive the social media age, we need to encourage more thinking, not less.
I've always found the complexity argument to be borderline insulting to Canadians.
Is there really something that makes us less capable and discerning than the citizens of just about every other democratic country?
Is there really something that makes us less capable and discerning than the citizens of just about every other democratic country?
May 14, 2025 at 4:38 PM
I've always found the complexity argument to be borderline insulting to Canadians.
Is there really something that makes us less capable and discerning than the citizens of just about every other democratic country?
Is there really something that makes us less capable and discerning than the citizens of just about every other democratic country?
That's the thing about PR, the biggest parties have a choice among multiple coalition partners.
Under FPTP and IRV, where there's usually just 1 or 2 small parties, these minor parties DO have an intense amount of leverage, because they are the only option for a "minority government" to be stable.
Under FPTP and IRV, where there's usually just 1 or 2 small parties, these minor parties DO have an intense amount of leverage, because they are the only option for a "minority government" to be stable.
May 10, 2025 at 4:42 PM
That's the thing about PR, the biggest parties have a choice among multiple coalition partners.
Under FPTP and IRV, where there's usually just 1 or 2 small parties, these minor parties DO have an intense amount of leverage, because they are the only option for a "minority government" to be stable.
Under FPTP and IRV, where there's usually just 1 or 2 small parties, these minor parties DO have an intense amount of leverage, because they are the only option for a "minority government" to be stable.
We're dealing in hypotheticals now. If we used PR, I believe Carney would probably still be Prime Minister.
The CPC would split into two parties, and the more moderate one would enter a coalition with Carney's Liberals. Another party may need to sign on (Bloc, Greens, social democrats) to hit 50%.
The CPC would split into two parties, and the more moderate one would enter a coalition with Carney's Liberals. Another party may need to sign on (Bloc, Greens, social democrats) to hit 50%.
May 10, 2025 at 4:42 PM
We're dealing in hypotheticals now. If we used PR, I believe Carney would probably still be Prime Minister.
The CPC would split into two parties, and the more moderate one would enter a coalition with Carney's Liberals. Another party may need to sign on (Bloc, Greens, social democrats) to hit 50%.
The CPC would split into two parties, and the more moderate one would enter a coalition with Carney's Liberals. Another party may need to sign on (Bloc, Greens, social democrats) to hit 50%.
I didn't listen to them, but I found this. Was it one of these? There's a few here that deal with democratic institutions and how to improve them.
www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/...
www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/...
IDEAS asks Canadians: How can we revitalize democracy and inspire national change? | CBC Radio
With a federal election approaching, there's a growing sense that our political system prioritizes short-term gains over the long-term health of our democracy. To address this, our series IDEAS for a ...
www.cbc.ca
May 10, 2025 at 4:32 PM
I didn't listen to them, but I found this. Was it one of these? There's a few here that deal with democratic institutions and how to improve them.
www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/...
www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/...
I do my best. I appreciate when people engage in good faith, even if they disagree with me. That's what the whole democracy thing is supposed to be about.
May 10, 2025 at 3:53 PM
I do my best. I appreciate when people engage in good faith, even if they disagree with me. That's what the whole democracy thing is supposed to be about.
In Australia, Instant Run-Off Voting was adopted for the Lower House specially because they thought it was going to be exclusive against third parties.
Labour unexpectedly won a by-election and the Nationalist Party government put in the reforms to prevent results like that from happening again.
Labour unexpectedly won a by-election and the Nationalist Party government put in the reforms to prevent results like that from happening again.
May 10, 2025 at 3:52 PM
In Australia, Instant Run-Off Voting was adopted for the Lower House specially because they thought it was going to be exclusive against third parties.
Labour unexpectedly won a by-election and the Nationalist Party government put in the reforms to prevent results like that from happening again.
Labour unexpectedly won a by-election and the Nationalist Party government put in the reforms to prevent results like that from happening again.
But why is that better? I don't trust any one party to get full control over the government without the consent of a majority of the voters.
Besides, why should the NDP, Bloc, or Greens care that they have more seats if someone else is just going to form a majority. It re-creates the same problem.
Besides, why should the NDP, Bloc, or Greens care that they have more seats if someone else is just going to form a majority. It re-creates the same problem.
May 10, 2025 at 3:52 PM
But why is that better? I don't trust any one party to get full control over the government without the consent of a majority of the voters.
Besides, why should the NDP, Bloc, or Greens care that they have more seats if someone else is just going to form a majority. It re-creates the same problem.
Besides, why should the NDP, Bloc, or Greens care that they have more seats if someone else is just going to form a majority. It re-creates the same problem.
I would prefer to live somewhere with more than two political parties, so that we don't end up like the United States.
May 10, 2025 at 3:01 PM
I would prefer to live somewhere with more than two political parties, so that we don't end up like the United States.
Lastly, I'd argue compromise is a good thing. It leads to more stable policy, a less division, and more accountability.
"Coalitions" exist regardless of the system, the question is whether they ought to be forged before an election behind closed doors, or after the election in the house (4/4).
"Coalitions" exist regardless of the system, the question is whether they ought to be forged before an election behind closed doors, or after the election in the house (4/4).
May 10, 2025 at 2:53 PM
Lastly, I'd argue compromise is a good thing. It leads to more stable policy, a less division, and more accountability.
"Coalitions" exist regardless of the system, the question is whether they ought to be forged before an election behind closed doors, or after the election in the house (4/4).
"Coalitions" exist regardless of the system, the question is whether they ought to be forged before an election behind closed doors, or after the election in the house (4/4).
People love to point to gridlock, but the overwhelming majority of the world's democracies use proportional systems. The world isn't at a standstill.
Belgium and Israel are outliers, not the rule. There are 40 other stable PR democracies, and at least 20 that are more stable than Canada. (3/4)
Belgium and Israel are outliers, not the rule. There are 40 other stable PR democracies, and at least 20 that are more stable than Canada. (3/4)
May 10, 2025 at 2:53 PM
People love to point to gridlock, but the overwhelming majority of the world's democracies use proportional systems. The world isn't at a standstill.
Belgium and Israel are outliers, not the rule. There are 40 other stable PR democracies, and at least 20 that are more stable than Canada. (3/4)
Belgium and Israel are outliers, not the rule. There are 40 other stable PR democracies, and at least 20 that are more stable than Canada. (3/4)
For gridlock, I don't know what the specific argument is, but I disagree that Canada is more efficient than the average PR democracy.
Think about how much time was wasted on the carbon tax debate. If the policy was developed in consultation with other parties, it would be a closed debate. (2/4)
Think about how much time was wasted on the carbon tax debate. If the policy was developed in consultation with other parties, it would be a closed debate. (2/4)
May 10, 2025 at 2:53 PM
For gridlock, I don't know what the specific argument is, but I disagree that Canada is more efficient than the average PR democracy.
Think about how much time was wasted on the carbon tax debate. If the policy was developed in consultation with other parties, it would be a closed debate. (2/4)
Think about how much time was wasted on the carbon tax debate. If the policy was developed in consultation with other parties, it would be a closed debate. (2/4)
I disagree that federalism works similar to PR. Alberta for example: FPTP causes 90% of the seats to go to the same party. Alberta gets locked out of Liberal governments.
PR would mean every province would have a seat at the table, because they would each elect a diverse slate of MPs. (1/4)
PR would mean every province would have a seat at the table, because they would each elect a diverse slate of MPs. (1/4)
May 10, 2025 at 2:53 PM
I disagree that federalism works similar to PR. Alberta for example: FPTP causes 90% of the seats to go to the same party. Alberta gets locked out of Liberal governments.
PR would mean every province would have a seat at the table, because they would each elect a diverse slate of MPs. (1/4)
PR would mean every province would have a seat at the table, because they would each elect a diverse slate of MPs. (1/4)
I guess my questions are: what do you like about IRV? and what are your concerns about PR?
Based on my understanding, Instant Run-Off Voting fails to solve a lot of the issues with our current First-Past-the-Post system (safe seats, two-party politics, lesser evil voting).
Based on my understanding, Instant Run-Off Voting fails to solve a lot of the issues with our current First-Past-the-Post system (safe seats, two-party politics, lesser evil voting).
May 10, 2025 at 1:28 PM
I guess my questions are: what do you like about IRV? and what are your concerns about PR?
Based on my understanding, Instant Run-Off Voting fails to solve a lot of the issues with our current First-Past-the-Post system (safe seats, two-party politics, lesser evil voting).
Based on my understanding, Instant Run-Off Voting fails to solve a lot of the issues with our current First-Past-the-Post system (safe seats, two-party politics, lesser evil voting).
The Australian House uses Instant Run-Off voting, but the Senate uses Single Transferable Vote (which is proportional). Both use ranked ballots.
I assume you're talking about Instant Run-Off voting?
I assume you're talking about Instant Run-Off voting?
May 10, 2025 at 11:50 AM
The Australian House uses Instant Run-Off voting, but the Senate uses Single Transferable Vote (which is proportional). Both use ranked ballots.
I assume you're talking about Instant Run-Off voting?
I assume you're talking about Instant Run-Off voting?
I address your argument, offer counterpoints. You cherrypick the one thing from my post which you think aligns with your point?
I dont expect people to approach my account informed. But if you want to use talking points and say I'm wrong, I expect you to at least know what system France uses. (2/2)
I dont expect people to approach my account informed. But if you want to use talking points and say I'm wrong, I expect you to at least know what system France uses. (2/2)
May 10, 2025 at 11:47 AM
I address your argument, offer counterpoints. You cherrypick the one thing from my post which you think aligns with your point?
I dont expect people to approach my account informed. But if you want to use talking points and say I'm wrong, I expect you to at least know what system France uses. (2/2)
I dont expect people to approach my account informed. But if you want to use talking points and say I'm wrong, I expect you to at least know what system France uses. (2/2)
And, sorry, this bothers me because it happens so often.
You have a clear agenda in mind. You drop the talking points like PR and extremism, coalitions are unstable.
(By the way, FPTP has completely failed to restrain right-wing extremism in the US and UK) (1/2)
You have a clear agenda in mind. You drop the talking points like PR and extremism, coalitions are unstable.
(By the way, FPTP has completely failed to restrain right-wing extremism in the US and UK) (1/2)
May 10, 2025 at 11:47 AM
And, sorry, this bothers me because it happens so often.
You have a clear agenda in mind. You drop the talking points like PR and extremism, coalitions are unstable.
(By the way, FPTP has completely failed to restrain right-wing extremism in the US and UK) (1/2)
You have a clear agenda in mind. You drop the talking points like PR and extremism, coalitions are unstable.
(By the way, FPTP has completely failed to restrain right-wing extremism in the US and UK) (1/2)