this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2024
125 points (99.2% liked)

Canada

7275 readers
242 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/24368090

The seat make up would look more like the left if we had a more fair and accountable proportional representation over the obsolete first past the post.

top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 45 points 5 months ago (4 children)

We repeat that every time this chart looks like this. Which is almost every election. We even elected a guy on the promise to change it. 🥹

[–] Mereo@lemmy.ca 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yup, and now it will bite him in the ass. Imagine if we had coalition governments in Canada that actually represented the Canadian voice. The parties will have to make concessions and actually talk to each other like in a marriage.

[–] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 17 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's plausible that Trudeau could want to push through voting reform as one last move to salvage something since him losing the next election likely spells the end of his political career.

The problem is the Liberals as a whole. It pretty predictable Conservatives are going to do a horrible job and by the 2029ish election the tables will be flipped and Liberal will only need to campaign on not being a disaster of a party like the incumbents.

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

As much as I hate to pin hopes on a hail mary like that, this is likely the only scenario where we will get voting reform to happen. The party in power has no incentive to change the system that brought them to power in the first place, so we're basically gambling on an outgoing party using their last days of holding onto power to make it happen. Just writing this out makes me wonder how we ever got here in the first place. Who thought first-past-the-post was anywhere near a functional system to begin with?

[–] Grimpen@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

FPTP was fine when elections were held within a riding, and results were delivered by horseback. You were voting based on a local candidate, not the national party.

Then the railroad, telegraph, telephone, and internet were invented, politics became national, and we're still using FPTP.

[–] ZC3rr0r@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

Thanks, that does actually help out of into context and explains how we got here. I think the better question (and the one I should've asked) is why are we still using a system that predates the railroad?

[–] SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I don't think the Liberal are willing to sacrifice their entire future as the one of the two alternating parties in order to gain a few more seats.

338 on a federal level projects them for 67 seats and 24% ± 3% on the popular vote. That translates to 85-91 seats which is a decent gain.

However this would mean the Liberal will likely never get anything close to majority again. I would also believe they would slowly dwindle in popularity with a rise of smaller parties. That's a lot give up for 24 more seats for 4 years.

[–] dgmib@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Proportional representation isn’t the only alternative to FPTP.

Something like STV or even just IRV tends to put centrist parties in charge which would likely benefit the liberals.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 months ago

We can build up the pressure further on the prime minister if we can continue educating others about this.

[–] bradbeattie@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 months ago

Its the same "power corrupts" story again and again. Karina Gould gave an impassioned speech on electoral reform (http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/house/sitting-64/hansard#Int-8963139). But after replacing Maryam Monsef as Minister of Democratic Institutions, her views suddenly became far more simplistic. In a 2017 interview on CBC's Metro Morning, she was asked "Why is it important that people at the very least believe every vote counts?". She replies "Because they do. … We literally count them: 1, 2, 3, 4, up to the majority that wins."

[–] Thelemmybud@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago

The people have the power not the conservatives or the liberals and research has shown the Canadian public wants proportional representation however we’re currently not putting enough pressure about the unfair system of first past the post. There was a vote on national citizen’s assembly that went like this

“On February 7, Parliament voted on Motion M-86 for a National Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. The result was: YES 101 NO 220 In addition to the support of the NDP, Green Party and Bloc MPs, 40 Liberals and 3 Conservatives voted for the motion. To see how your MP voted, scroll to the bottom of this email.”

Source: https://www.fairvote.ca/21/02/2024/vote-result-mps-from-all-parties-vote-for-motion-m-86-for-a-citizens-assembly-but-not-enough-to-win/

[–] Sami@lemmy.zip 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's incredibly depressing to know that my vote in federal elections is useless just because of where I live.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] evranch@lemmy.ca 15 points 5 months ago

Interesting to see the charts there showing a steady 25% against. Even when asked if a majority government should have the support of a majority of voters!

Who are these guys! Its hard to believe that a quarter of people surveyed appear to not want our democracy to function.

[–] IronKrill@lemmy.ca 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Good luck convincing the government to enact it when they've already decided our poor populace just doesn't have "enough interest" in the idea.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Not sure why this is down voted. This is exactly what happened. Trudeau ran on electoral reform in 2015. That was gonna be the last FPTP election, he said. Then they did some consultations with the public and said that not enough people wanted it. Shortly after, they threw the whole thing down the garbage chute.

[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Then they did some consultations with the public and said that not enough people wanted it.

Worse than that, Trudeau straight up said "People wanted electoral reform because they were unsatisfied under the Harper government, now that we're in power everything is fine and people don't care about electoral reform anymore."

Source article in Le Devoir (French), I'll quote the relevant part here:

« Sous M. [Stephen] Harper, il y avait tellement de gens mécontents du gouvernement et de son approche que les gens disaient “ça prend une réforme électorale pour ne plus avoir de gouvernement qu’on n’aime pas”. Or, sous le système actuel, ils ont maintenant un gouvernement avec lequel ils sont plus satisfaits. Et la motivation de vouloir changer le système électoral est moins percutante [ou moins criante] »

[–] MacroCyclo@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago

That quote aged like milk

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Oof, got the receipts and all. Nice job 👍

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

They are in power and you remain unrepresented in government. A huge win for the status quo

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well the fact that other parties wouldn't agree with the Liberals' solution didn't help (even though it would have been better than what we have at the moment).

[–] PuddingFeeling907@lemmy.world 10 points 5 months ago

You’re giving the liberals too much slack here when they need more pressure to do the right thing. The smaller parties and independents only want a fairer system that the most democracies use such as Norway or Sweden, which is proportional representation.

People don’t want to be forced into two camps they don’t like.

[–] bardmoss@linux.community 14 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That graphic doesn't tell me anything. Maybe it should be defined better?

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 18 points 5 months ago

Left is based on popular vote while right is based on how many seats favouring the parties.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"Vote"

votes for electoral reform

"Fuck you. Anyways... don't forget you HAVE TO vote for us if you don't want the conservatives again."

Man, we really are more alike then we think

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago

The Corporate Liberals and Pierre Poilievre Conservatives need to be held accountable

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 months ago

If that's the batshit crazy we'd release to the rest of the country then I'm good with FPTP. We can keep our elitist "i've got mine so fuck you" conservative asshats to ourselves while we learn from that mistake. If we can. Holy fuck I wasn't aware the ignorant hillbillies were that enraged at actually getting services despite a pandemic that they want to elect the absolute worst group to ever manage something, ever.

[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Now do the Maritimes.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world -5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Proportional representation isn’t the cure-all everyone thinks it is. Vote-splitting goes away, sure, but then you get lots of small parties forming coalitions. If you want to see that in action, look no further than Israel’s government.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Israel is bad example because that government is corrupt and upheld by corporate interests from America. Norway is a better example.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world -5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Norway is upheld by $1.6 trillion sovereign wealth funds built with oil money. If that’s what it takes then good luck to the rest of us.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago

That’s a red herring, stay on topic.