Govern themselves, and the country, accordingly!? Accepting minority mediocrity ?! How uninspired ! How boring ! A lack of imagination !
Didn’t we end up in this situation because the leaders and campaigns failed to inspire or present new ideas?! A lack of a coherent vision of where the country is going.
More proof that Canadians are slow and risk averse and acting in regional self interest.
I don’t have the answer but I’m hoping someone can come up with some ideas to reach beyond the geographic and demographic divides. It’s been done before and I think we can do it again.
I'm always disappointed when articles like this fail to acknowledge that the issues or concerns the writer identifies are a consequence of the First-Past-the-Post electoral system, and nothing else. That's right, nothing else.
"The country remains divided by region and demography" only because of the perverse electoral incentives caused by FPtP. Divisiveness is good politics under FPtP. It's bad for public policy, but it's good politics in an election campaign.
Canadians in every region and from every demographic--in every electoral district--voted for Liberal, Conservatives, NDP, and Green candidates. You can be sure, too, that there would even have been votes for the Bloc Quebecois had the party ran candidates across Canada.
The problem is First-Past-the-Post. The problem is NOT Canadians.
The PPC, like any party, should be represented in the House of Commons proportional to the number of citizens who voted for its candidates.
The electoral system should, I suggest, not be rigged to deny citizens with whom some have disagreements from being equally and fairly represented in their legislature. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't say the rights of citizens others find distasteful should be denied.
I'm wondering, if you'd like to ensure people who vote PPC should be denied rights, who else, in your view, should have their rights denied because you, it seems, find them unacceptable as citizens?
You seem to think discouraging protest movements and encouraging people to temper their views are good things. Yet, all of the social progress ever made that helped people who were not powerful and wealthy was due to protest movements and people who did not temper their views.
Of course, if you're personally comfortable with current conditions, I can understand why you might prefer an electoral system that silenced people who might want to change things for the better.
There is nothing inherently wrong or undesirable with 20 or more political parties. And stability is not a desirable quality, necessarily, especially if we have stable bad government.
Lastly you're right, FPtP does discourage protest movements or single issue parties; it's for that reason it's likely unconstitutional because it's diminishing freedom of expression and association.
True, the PPC would have had representation. I'm not sure that is such a bad thing though. Many of their voters were actually discontent Conservative voters who were 'punishing' their Party for moving to the centre (a result of FPTP). Having proper representation means they can show their true colours and we can see them for who they are. In a PR system they would be relegated to a fringe party without the concern that they could take over the mainstream party as has arguably happened south of the border. Also, the Cons can concentrate on being Cons without feeling like they have to appeal to crackpots. We shouldn't be afraid of letting people decide who represents them. This is the essence of democracy.
Govern themselves, and the country, accordingly!? Accepting minority mediocrity ?! How uninspired ! How boring ! A lack of imagination !
Didn’t we end up in this situation because the leaders and campaigns failed to inspire or present new ideas?! A lack of a coherent vision of where the country is going.
More proof that Canadians are slow and risk averse and acting in regional self interest.
I don’t have the answer but I’m hoping someone can come up with some ideas to reach beyond the geographic and demographic divides. It’s been done before and I think we can do it again.
I'm always disappointed when articles like this fail to acknowledge that the issues or concerns the writer identifies are a consequence of the First-Past-the-Post electoral system, and nothing else. That's right, nothing else.
"The country remains divided by region and demography" only because of the perverse electoral incentives caused by FPtP. Divisiveness is good politics under FPtP. It's bad for public policy, but it's good politics in an election campaign.
Canadians in every region and from every demographic--in every electoral district--voted for Liberal, Conservatives, NDP, and Green candidates. You can be sure, too, that there would even have been votes for the Bloc Quebecois had the party ran candidates across Canada.
The problem is First-Past-the-Post. The problem is NOT Canadians.
Government stability is not a good thing if it's a bad government, is it?
Moreover, there's no difference between PR and FPtP in terms of stability. Rather than laughing, you might consider looking at https://www.fairvote.ca/factcheckstability/.
The PPC, like any party, should be represented in the House of Commons proportional to the number of citizens who voted for its candidates.
The electoral system should, I suggest, not be rigged to deny citizens with whom some have disagreements from being equally and fairly represented in their legislature. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn't say the rights of citizens others find distasteful should be denied.
I'm wondering, if you'd like to ensure people who vote PPC should be denied rights, who else, in your view, should have their rights denied because you, it seems, find them unacceptable as citizens?
You could look at Israel or if you wanted to strongman PR you could look at a country MUCH more similar to Canada who has adopted PR - New Zealand.
You seem to think discouraging protest movements and encouraging people to temper their views are good things. Yet, all of the social progress ever made that helped people who were not powerful and wealthy was due to protest movements and people who did not temper their views.
Of course, if you're personally comfortable with current conditions, I can understand why you might prefer an electoral system that silenced people who might want to change things for the better.
There is nothing inherently wrong or undesirable with 20 or more political parties. And stability is not a desirable quality, necessarily, especially if we have stable bad government.
Lastly you're right, FPtP does discourage protest movements or single issue parties; it's for that reason it's likely unconstitutional because it's diminishing freedom of expression and association.
Indeed that reality is raised in the constitutional challenge to FPtP underway now. See https://www.charterchallenge.ca/
True, the PPC would have had representation. I'm not sure that is such a bad thing though. Many of their voters were actually discontent Conservative voters who were 'punishing' their Party for moving to the centre (a result of FPTP). Having proper representation means they can show their true colours and we can see them for who they are. In a PR system they would be relegated to a fringe party without the concern that they could take over the mainstream party as has arguably happened south of the border. Also, the Cons can concentrate on being Cons without feeling like they have to appeal to crackpots. We shouldn't be afraid of letting people decide who represents them. This is the essence of democracy.