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.
I wonder if this is really true. It feels true, and I can certainly see proportional representation being more resistant. Certainly more than FPTP. However I’ve grown up in a country with PR that’s pretty well captured by the owner class. Maybe the specific conditions in that country made that easier to happen. Perhaps the economic shock therapy helped that.
I can certainly see proportional representation being more resistant [to authoritarian takeover?]. Certainly more than FPTP.
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.
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada said:
A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity.
However I’ve grown up in a country with PR that’s pretty well captured by the owner class.
Hmm, I’d be interested to hear which country! However, I’m not going to give you a fairytale and tell you that proportional representation will solve all our problems – it won’t. But to have every vote count is a real good start.
Perhaps Canada is unique in that in spite of having a non-PR electoral system, we still defy expectations.
With PR, Bernier would have had a seat, so would the conservative party in Quebec… The only reason they don’t have seats is because of FPTP.
Look at Germany, the fascists now have a pretty big presence at 152 seats out of 630 and the Conservatives could just add well have made an alliance with them if they felt like it.
Sure, but it would still be a coalition and the afd would still be held in check to a large degree. With FPTP one majority will end your democracy if an afd like party gets in.
With PR, Bernier would have had a seat, so would the conservative party in Quebec
You mean democracy would be working how it should be? That people are entitled and deserving to representation in government?
The only reason they don’t have seats is because of FPTP.
You need to establish what unique characteristic of FPTP excludes the candidates you don’t like. There are plenty of “extreme” candidates that have seats that FPTP allowed in. I can think of at least 1 current representative that would vote to reverse marriage equality.
Look at Germany, the fascists now have a pretty big presence at 152 seats out of 630 and the Conservatives could just add well have made an alliance with them if they felt like it.
The task of the electoral system is not to make political decisions, but to ensure effective and proportionate representation. The legislature is the appropriate domain to handle those whose ideology you disagree with.
You’ve been mislead to believe that FPTP “limits” extremism, yet the most extreme, anti-democratic ideology is already omnipresent: that us citizens are not entitled nor deserving of having every vote count to the outcome of an election. Why hasn’t FPTP excluded this extreme ideology?
The article is about authoritarian takeover, I’m showing that PR doesn’t prevent that and might even give them more space than with FPTP, that’s all. You’re going off on a tangent that wasn’t part of the original discussion.
It increases accountability and political party competition. Why force moderate conservatives to stay with PP instead of providing them with better alternatives through a fairer electoral system.
If all far right parties end up getting a couple of seats through PR or FPTP, it’s only a matter of time before they unite in order to have more seats under the same brand to increase their visibility. PR doesn’t protect us from authoritarianism if most of the population votes for it or for parties that might work with the authoritarians.
PR is just that, more proportional and more representative of the population’s will, but if the right is what the population wants (no matter how they were convinced to vote for it), that’s what the whole country gets. The only consolation is that “Welp, that’s what people wanted 🤷”
You’re going off on a tangent that wasn’t part of the original discussion.
I’m literally just responding to you, lol
I’m showing that PR doesn’t prevent [authoritarian takeover]
Nobody said PR prevents authoritarian takeover, we just said it protects. And ensuring our democracy is actually representative of its people, does protect us against authoritarianism – precisely because the power is vested in the people.
I think you need to do a lot of thinking about the functions of electoral systems. I’ve seen this kind of argument before – FPTP limits extremism … but that is far from the truth. And PR simply gets us closer to a better democracy, and yes your argument that “right” wingers get representation – is a “flaw” with democracy not with PR.
Oh, sorry, the RN is both extremist AND authoritarian, so yeah, with PR the authoritarians would have about 50% more seats. So tell me how PR would have helped compared to the left just working together to not split their vote?
I wonder if this is really true. It feels true, and I can certainly see proportional representation being more resistant. Certainly more than FPTP. However I’ve grown up in a country with PR that’s pretty well captured by the owner class. Maybe the specific conditions in that country made that easier to happen. Perhaps the economic shock therapy helped that.
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.
In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada said:
Reference Question: Secession of Quebec [from Canada].
Hmm, I’d be interested to hear which country! However, I’m not going to give you a fairytale and tell you that proportional representation will solve all our problems – it won’t. But to have every vote count is a real good start.
Perhaps Canada is unique in that in spite of having a non-PR electoral system, we still defy expectations.
With PR, Bernier would have had a seat, so would the conservative party in Quebec… The only reason they don’t have seats is because of FPTP.
Look at Germany, the fascists now have a pretty big presence at 152 seats out of 630 and the Conservatives could just add well have made an alliance with them if they felt like it.
Sure, but it would still be a coalition and the afd would still be held in check to a large degree. With FPTP one majority will end your democracy if an afd like party gets in.
You mean democracy would be working how it should be? That people are entitled and deserving to representation in government?
You need to establish what unique characteristic of FPTP excludes the candidates you don’t like. There are plenty of “extreme” candidates that have seats that FPTP allowed in. I can think of at least 1 current representative that would vote to reverse marriage equality.
The task of the electoral system is not to make political decisions, but to ensure effective and proportionate representation. The legislature is the appropriate domain to handle those whose ideology you disagree with.
You’ve been mislead to believe that FPTP “limits” extremism, yet the most extreme, anti-democratic ideology is already omnipresent: that us citizens are not entitled nor deserving of having every vote count to the outcome of an election. Why hasn’t FPTP excluded this extreme ideology?
The article is about authoritarian takeover, I’m showing that PR doesn’t prevent that and might even give them more space than with FPTP, that’s all. You’re going off on a tangent that wasn’t part of the original discussion.
It increases accountability and political party competition. Why force moderate conservatives to stay with PP instead of providing them with better alternatives through a fairer electoral system.
If all far right parties end up getting a couple of seats through PR or FPTP, it’s only a matter of time before they unite in order to have more seats under the same brand to increase their visibility. PR doesn’t protect us from authoritarianism if most of the population votes for it or for parties that might work with the authoritarians.
PR is just that, more proportional and more representative of the population’s will, but if the right is what the population wants (no matter how they were convinced to vote for it), that’s what the whole country gets. The only consolation is that “Welp, that’s what people wanted 🤷”
I’m literally just responding to you, lol
Nobody said PR prevents authoritarian takeover, we just said it protects. And ensuring our democracy is actually representative of its people, does protect us against authoritarianism – precisely because the power is vested in the people.
I think you need to do a lot of thinking about the functions of electoral systems. I’ve seen this kind of argument before – FPTP limits extremism … but that is far from the truth. And PR simply gets us closer to a better democracy, and yes your argument that “right” wingers get representation – is a “flaw” with democracy not with PR.
France’s far right party would have 214 seats instead of 142 with PR, but sure, PR protects countries from extremism!
Any links to back that up? Seems suspect.
Look at the results
142 seats right now with 37% of the votes and 577 seats total
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_French_legislative_election
Who said PR protects from extremism? Not even a direct democracy would protect from extremism.
Oh, sorry, the RN is both extremist AND authoritarian, so yeah, with PR the authoritarians would have about 50% more seats. So tell me how PR would have helped compared to the left just working together to not split their vote?