The best way to protect ourselves against an authoritarian takeover is to end a system that lets parties take total control with just 40% (or less) of the vote.
That’s why it’s time to implement proportional representation across Canada.
Yeah right the moderate conservative party the bc liberals shut down in favour of the extremist bc conservatives to avoid splitting the right vote in bc.
I’m talking about both parties existing but the one that gets the least votes in a riding gets out of the way so the other one gets the seat instead of the fringe alternative.
Exactly like the left did in France.
In one riding the Liberals would get the seat, in another it would be the NDP and in another it would be the Greens and in another it would be the Bloc, in the end the goal is to block the Conservatives. Make it a habit for the parties that are closer to the center and I’m sure most people here won’t care about PR anymore.
Merging parties compromises their values. Instead they should work together to pass proportional representation. We need to shift away from the 2-party system as that creates stagnation.
Or… more likely, you’ll end up with a two-party system as well. America had more than two parties in the past, but FPTP made sure that once a party dissolved, it would be impossible to create a new one with any sliver of a chance.
With Duverger’s Law (i.e., in non-PR electoral systems, a trend towards a two-parties), we are running out of time to act. Canada’s 2021 effective number of parties is 2.76 - this number will decrease over time, and will eventually end Canadian democracy as we know it today.
This trend is very concerning in our country. We need to have more regional parties and to pressure all our elected mps that electoral reform is an important issue.
Look at what the left did in France, they got out of each other’s way and managed to block the far right. With PR it wouldn’t have changed anything to the far right’s result.
Right now they have 142 seats, with PR they would have 214.
I would argue that FPTP should push parties in the center to work together to prevent the extremes from taking over, it’s just not part of Canada’s political culture, that’s all.
Look at what the left did in France, they got out of each other’s way and managed to block the far right.
That’s not a democracy that is healthy. Electoral systems are not supposed to exclude representation that is us citizens are deserving of and are entitled to. If you want to block individuals, do that in the legislature.
I would argue that FPTP should push parties in the center to work together
This doesn’t happen in theory nor practice – it’s usually a race to the bottom and very adversarial (hence party over country politics). We already have extremists from FPTP, and we will continue to have extremists in PR. But at the very least, in PR, we don’t find ourselves locked into fewer and fewer viable options. You’re mistaken in trying to get the electoral system to make political decisions. I have also seen this argument before.
it’s just not part of Canada’s political culture, that’s all.
Is Canada not supposed to be a democracy? And unless it’s written in law, it’s fair game – that’s how democracy works. Even if it’s not part of Canada’s political culture … is that a reason to exclude a particular idea? It was once “part” of Canada’s political culture to send indigenous person to residential schools…
At the very least, shouldn’t ensuring every vote counting to the election outcome be a part of Canada’s political culture? That’s not too much to ask, considering it’s a fundamental tenet of democracy.
The post is about protecting ourselves from authoritarianism, I’m just showing that PR doesn’t necessarily do that, if the majority of people vote right and far right (like in Germany) then you can say “it’s more democratic!” all you want, in the end you’re one handshake away from authoritarianism.
I’m just showing that PR doesn’t necessarily do that
Yes, we already had this discussion. Nobody is disputing that PR doesn’t necessarily prevent authoritarianism. This isn’t new information.
in the end you’re one handshake away from authoritarianism.
But you keep bringing up this separate, and unsubstantiated point. That FPTP is better than PR in terms of preventing authoritarianism? Neither electoral system are intended to prevent authoritarianism.
The closest you’ve gotten is that, under a specific scenario, PR would raise the seat count of an authoritarian party. But this same exact argument could be made against a direct democracy, therefore your argument isn’t actually against PR, it’s against democracy itself. And so I will reject your argument given that we must prioritize democracy (or what you think is a stone’s throw from authoritarianism), over this unsubstantiated claim that FPTP limits extremism/authoritarianism.
You also have not demonstrated that FPTP limits authoritarianism any better than PR (not that either are really intended to). You keep conflating extremism and authoritarianism, but don’t consider the nuances. Under FPTP, we already have this omnipresent extreme ideology: that not all votes should count to the outcome of an election.
Overall, PR is closer to a perfect democracy than FPTP. If you don’t like everyone having the representation they are entitled to, that’s more of a you problem. If you don’t like people espousing specific ideologies, you should speak with them to change their minds - as you should in a healthy democracy. But trying to contort the electoral system to make political decisions (not that any electoral system are actually intended to do so), that fundamentally anti democratic.
Not fully preventing authoritarianism is not the same as the best way of protecting ourselves against authoritarianism.
This is an analogy: it’s like saying, well, why did you get sick with a disease when you’ve already got vaccinated for it? Well, vaccines don’t entirely limit disease, but it is the best way to protect oneself from disease.
PR doesn’t entirely protect from authoritarianism, but PR (and by proxy democracy) is the best way to protect ourselves against an authoritarian takeover.
FPTP can actually protect us from authoritarianism if the parties closest to center work together instead of dividing the vote…
Yeah right the moderate conservative party the bc liberals shut down in favour of the extremist bc conservatives to avoid splitting the right vote in bc.
I’m talking about both parties existing but the one that gets the least votes in a riding gets out of the way so the other one gets the seat instead of the fringe alternative.
Exactly like the left did in France.
In one riding the Liberals would get the seat, in another it would be the NDP and in another it would be the Greens and in another it would be the Bloc, in the end the goal is to block the Conservatives. Make it a habit for the parties that are closer to the center and I’m sure most people here won’t care about PR anymore.
Merging parties compromises their values. Instead they should work together to pass proportional representation. We need to shift away from the 2-party system as that creates stagnation.
Again, I’m not talking about parties merging.
Or… more likely, you’ll end up with a two-party system as well. America had more than two parties in the past, but FPTP made sure that once a party dissolved, it would be impossible to create a new one with any sliver of a chance.
We have four major one, one small one and another small one without a seat. The Bloc was created in the 90s, green in the 80s, PPC in 2018…
Doesn’t seem too worrisome.
With Duverger’s Law (i.e., in non-PR electoral systems, a trend towards a two-parties), we are running out of time to act. Canada’s 2021 effective number of parties is 2.76 - this number will decrease over time, and will eventually end Canadian democracy as we know it today.
This trend is very concerning in our country. We need to have more regional parties and to pressure all our elected mps that electoral reform is an important issue.
If the parties closest to centre work together, FPTP can actually protect us from authoritarianism?
But winner-take-all systems like FPTP incentivize parties to work at the very least non-cooperatively. So the premise of your statement never happens.
Even if the parties closest to the centre work together, what characteristic unique to FPTP protects us from authoritarianism?
Look at what the left did in France, they got out of each other’s way and managed to block the far right. With PR it wouldn’t have changed anything to the far right’s result.
Right now they have 142 seats, with PR they would have 214.
I would argue that FPTP should push parties in the center to work together to prevent the extremes from taking over, it’s just not part of Canada’s political culture, that’s all.
That example doesn’t work because France uses a two-round electoral system.
Still not proportional and relies on FPTP to determine who takes power, they just eliminate some of the smaller parties during the electoral process.
That’s not a democracy that is healthy. Electoral systems are not supposed to exclude representation that is us citizens are deserving of and are entitled to. If you want to block individuals, do that in the legislature.
This doesn’t happen in theory nor practice – it’s usually a race to the bottom and very adversarial (hence party over country politics). We already have extremists from FPTP, and we will continue to have extremists in PR. But at the very least, in PR, we don’t find ourselves locked into fewer and fewer viable options. You’re mistaken in trying to get the electoral system to make political decisions. I have also seen this argument before.
Is Canada not supposed to be a democracy? And unless it’s written in law, it’s fair game – that’s how democracy works. Even if it’s not part of Canada’s political culture … is that a reason to exclude a particular idea? It was once “part” of Canada’s political culture to send indigenous person to residential schools…
At the very least, shouldn’t ensuring every vote counting to the election outcome be a part of Canada’s political culture? That’s not too much to ask, considering it’s a fundamental tenet of democracy.
The post is about protecting ourselves from authoritarianism, I’m just showing that PR doesn’t necessarily do that, if the majority of people vote right and far right (like in Germany) then you can say “it’s more democratic!” all you want, in the end you’re one handshake away from authoritarianism.
Yes, we already had this discussion. Nobody is disputing that PR doesn’t necessarily prevent authoritarianism. This isn’t new information.
But you keep bringing up this separate, and unsubstantiated point. That FPTP is better than PR in terms of preventing authoritarianism? Neither electoral system are intended to prevent authoritarianism.
The closest you’ve gotten is that, under a specific scenario, PR would raise the seat count of an authoritarian party. But this same exact argument could be made against a direct democracy, therefore your argument isn’t actually against PR, it’s against democracy itself. And so I will reject your argument given that we must prioritize democracy (or what you think is a stone’s throw from authoritarianism), over this unsubstantiated claim that FPTP limits extremism/authoritarianism.
You also have not demonstrated that FPTP limits authoritarianism any better than PR (not that either are really intended to). You keep conflating extremism and authoritarianism, but don’t consider the nuances. Under FPTP, we already have this omnipresent extreme ideology: that not all votes should count to the outcome of an election.
Overall, PR is closer to a perfect democracy than FPTP. If you don’t like everyone having the representation they are entitled to, that’s more of a you problem. If you don’t like people espousing specific ideologies, you should speak with them to change their minds - as you should in a healthy democracy. But trying to contort the electoral system to make political decisions (not that any electoral system are actually intended to do so), that fundamentally anti democratic.
Then why post about PR protecting us from authoritarianism if you agree that it doesn’t?
Not fully preventing authoritarianism is not the same as the best way of protecting ourselves against authoritarianism.
This is an analogy: it’s like saying, well, why did you get sick with a disease when you’ve already got vaccinated for it? Well, vaccines don’t entirely limit disease, but it is the best way to protect oneself from disease.
PR doesn’t entirely protect from authoritarianism, but PR (and by proxy democracy) is the best way to protect ourselves against an authoritarian takeover.