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.
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.
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.