• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

He just wasn't ready

Totally disagree see above it is anti-democratic...

Unsupported opinion. As stated, odds are money is going to go to at least one party that at least partially shares your ideas, and even if it didn't there's plenty of things my tax dollars routinely go to that I didn't and don't support; such is the nature of society. The bottom line is that public financing of elections factually makes our political parties less dependent on private donors and the strings/modes of influence associated with their donations, which is precisely why the Conservatives axed the public vote subsidy; they were looking to A: gain a financing advantage over their political rivals and B: attempt to move those political rivals to the right in order to receive donor funds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feder...sequences_of_eliminating_the_per-vote_subsidy

Though stringent donation limits might make public vote subsidies _less_ impactful, it does not rob them of their impact entirely.

It would be pretty incredible if PR did NOT make it less democratic...

NDP has been a part of the Canadian political landscape for a long time, as was the Green party; as we can plainly see, it took the Green party an excruciatingly long time in its 35 years of operation to even begin to have a federal presence, and 56 years later the NDP still has yet to win a federal election.

Moreover, in addition to the fact that we consistently have the ludicrous outcome of majority governments achieving power with 20-30% of the country's votation; meanwhile when this sort of thing isn't happening we then almost invariably have substantial and repetitive issues with kingmakers like the NDP and Bloc Quebecois enjoying vastly disproportionate clout and influence due to their deciding votes in minority governments; damned if you do, damned if you don't, and an affront to democracy and accurate representation either way.

That having been said, while PR may encourage the growth of smaller parties by making their political existence and votation for as much actually meaningful, that's precisely the point: the whole idea of PR is to have a government that is actually representative of the people and their desires rather than being a mess of strategic voting where either ~25% of the population decides who rules us for 5 years, or you have a coalition government with a kingmaker or two. Canadian democracy may not be 'broken', but it is definitely unrepresentative and in desperate need of serious improvements.

What PR actually means is that:

A: Parliament finally has a composition that actually cleaves close to the political desires and preferences of all Canadians.

B: Each vote counts.

C: A 5% or other reasonable votation threshold largely keeps out extremist or one issue parties without unduly compromising representation or splintering the federal govt excessively.

D: The current binary of outcomes between a dominant party with ~25% of the vote and one or two kingmakers having vastly disproportionate power is either replaced with a dominant party who actually has a mandate in that it represents a truly dominant mass of Canadians, or we have a coalition government where kingmaker power is either divided between more players than the NDP and BQ which means that the importance of any individual kingmaker is diminished; if the 'Ontario First' party doesn't want to play ball without ridiculous concessions the 'BC Best' party might.

In light of all these facts PR sounds pretty great to me as a superior alternative to FPTP.

Lastly, the myth of PR engendering unstable elections is precisely that: http://www.fairvote.ca/proportional-representation-and-stability/
 
I certainly invest more credibility with aggregated surveys in their far more comprehensive assessment than your individual opinion, particularly given its recognition and adoption by peer reviewed journals; it's not some sensationalist, inconsequential trash poll.

Moreover it is notable that those democracies which beat us all have publicly funded elections which runs counter to your notion that publicly funded elections are anti-democratic.

In general the point of citing this is that:

A: Norway is indeed likely to be a more vital democracy as a direct counter to your claim and individual opinion that it is not.
Not by any significant amount according to your links so not really

and

B: Public financing of elections may actually be a positive force for vitalizing democracy given that those countries which scored better than us all have substantial public funding for elections/parties.
Yet many have lower rating such as Germany and Austria so I guess it really doesn't o what you claim



What encourages Canadians not to vote is not public funding but the all or nothing FPTP electoral system that makes the emergence of new parties nigh impossible. I very much doubt the vast, vast majority of Canadians had their votation in any way materially impacted by public financing considerations, nevermind that many if not most didn't even know of the public vote subsidy in the first place.
BS PR will destroy the country and its democracy as it WILL result in permanent minority govt with the small parties dictating to the larger ones their terms to stay in power as happens in ALL the pR countries with dioverse populations. PR ONLY works in small mostly homogenous countries. Take a look at your Democracy index there is not 1 single large diverse PR country ranked above Canada. Heck look at the problems Belgium had with their PR system And it is a small diverse country imagine what would happen in Canada where we already have 1 regional party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Belgium
The Economist Intelligence Unit has rated Belgium as "flawed democracy" in 2016.
Ranked well below Canada on the democracy index

Assuming you're right though, and it is a material consideration, in all likelihood it's all the more incentive to vote in order to provide financing for your political party of choice, since odds are you'll agree with at least one party more than the others.
If you support your party enough to give money then give money. There are far too many people who vote to stop someone from winning rather than to help someone win to make that assumption. So No I have never donated to a political party because there is none I agree with enough to support. I know some who have and often after elections they change their minds. Heck I have one personal friend who donated for the first tiem and now is so pissed off he greatly regrets it but the undemocratic system of supporting political parties with public finance would mean his support would actually go towards the next election not the last. And it would still hinder new parties and favor existing ones (which is very undemocratic)

Second, public financing of election presents a two pronged attack against the undue influence of private money in public office; limits are only one tool and can absolutely be supplemented by public finance.

Cont...
Umm no all it does is favor existing parties and it favors those who did well in the last election not the next one So yeah incredibly undemocratic
 
Unsupported opinion. As stated, odds are money is going to go to at least one party that at least partially shares your ideas, and even if it didn't there's plenty of things my tax dollars routinely go to that I didn't and don't support; such is the nature of society. The bottom line is that public financing of elections factually makes our political parties less dependent on private donors and the strings/modes of influence associated with their donations, which is precisely why the Conservatives axed the public vote subsidy; they were looking to A: gain a financing advantage over their political rivals and B: attempt to move those political rivals to the right in order to receive donor funds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feder...sequences_of_eliminating_the_per-vote_subsidy

Though stringent donation limits might make public vote subsidies _less_ impactful, it does not rob them of their impact entirely.



NDP has been a part of the Canadian political landscape for a long time, as was the Green party; as we can plainly see, it took the Green party an excruciatingly long time in its 35 years of operation to even begin to have a federal presence, and 56 years later the NDP still has yet to win a federal election.
And if we had public funding back then it would be even worse for them, The NDP might not even exist
Your assertions are absurd in the extrme

Moreover, in addition to the fact that we consistently have the ludicrous outcome of majority governments achieving power with 20-30% of the country's votation; meanwhile when this sort of thing isn't happening we then almost invariably have substantial and repetitive issues with kingmakers like the NDP and Bloc Quebecois enjoying vastly disproportionate clout and influence due to their deciding votes in minority governments; damned if you do, damned if you don't, and an affront to democracy and accurate representation either way.
You ant to make a minority govt the norm which means permanent minority rule we have had majority govts with majority of the votes btu PR means that will NEVER EVER happen it.
Again you are trying to fix something that isn't broken by braking it and hoping despite all evidence to the contrary that somehow Canada will not end up like Italy.

That having been said, while PR may encourage the growth of smaller parties by making their political existence and votation for as much actually meaningful, that's precisely the point: the whole idea of PR is to have a government that is actually representative of the people and their desires rather than being a mess of strategic voting where either ~25% of the population decides who rules us for 5 years, or you have a coalition government with a kingmaker or two. Canadian democracy may not be 'broken', but it is definitely unrepresentative and in desperate need of serious improvements.
Great idealism reality however shows us that in large non diverse countries PR creates rule of the minority a the minor players hold the balance of power and can dictate to the larger ones to get their policies enacted, policies that have a much much smaller % of the populations support than is the case now.


What PR actually means is that:

A: Parliament finally has a composition that actually cleaves close to the political desires and preferences of all Canadians.

B: Each vote counts.

C: A 5% or other reasonable votation threshold largely keeps out extremist or one issue parties without unduly compromising representation or splintering the federal govt excessively.

D: The current binary of outcomes between a dominant party with ~25% of the vote and one or two kingmakers having vastly disproportionate power is either replaced with a dominant party who actually has a mandate in that it represents a truly dominant mass of Canadians, or we have a coalition government where kingmaker power is either divided between more players than the NDP and BQ which means that the importance of any individual kingmaker is diminished; if the 'Ontario First' party doesn't want to play ball without ridiculous concessions the 'BC Best' party might.

In light of all these facts PR sounds pretty great to me as a superior alternative to FPTP.

Lastly, the myth of PR engendering unstable elections is precisely that: http://www.fairvote.ca/proportional-representation-and-stability/


Every single thing in there is untrue.
Your idealism is destroyed by reality
 
Not by any significant amount according to your links so not really

A half point to a near full point is a pretty significant amount, even if the ranking difference is small; Norway surpasses us by nearly a full point.

Yet many have lower rating such as Germany and Austria so I guess it really doesn't o what you claim

This is true; however this is why I also qualified that with a 'may', because we cannot be sure of the exact role of public financing in enhancing democracy. The fact is that there is really no evidence that public financing is 'undemocratic' as you claim, while it _does_ factually reduce dependence on private money and their conditionals.

BS PR will destroy the country and its democracy as it WILL result in permanent minority govt with the small parties dictating to the larger ones their terms to stay in power as happens in ALL the pR countries with dioverse populations. PR ONLY works in small mostly homogenous countries. Take a look at your Democracy index there is not 1 single large diverse PR country ranked above Canada. Heck look at the problems Belgium had with their PR system And it is a small diverse country imagine what would happen in Canada where we already have 1 regional party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Belgium

Ranked well below Canada on the democracy index

I'm not sure how a singular example like Belgium, with flaws that derive from specific and unique aspects of their system and not standard implementations of PR, is somehow clear cut evidence of ridiculous hyperbole that PR will 'destroy the country', and 'will result in permanent minority govt'. You have literally provided no support for any of your claims. While it may be possible that homogeneity is responsible in part for superior ratings on the Democracy index, we don't know if that's correlation or causation.

If you support your party enough to give money then give money. There are far too many people who vote to stop someone from winning rather than to help someone win to make that assumption. So No I have never donated to a political party because there is none I agree with enough to support. I know some who have and often after elections they change their minds. Heck I have one personal friend who donated for the first tiem and now is so pissed off he greatly regrets it but the undemocratic system of supporting political parties with public finance would mean his support would actually go towards the next election not the last. And it would still hinder new parties and favor existing ones (which is very undemocratic)

To start, a huge part of the reason we vote to stop people winning and engage in nonsense like 'strategic voting' is because of the FPTP system. It's also the same reason we have only three parties with any real clout and following. If you had a PR system, you're almost certainly not voting against a party as for are voting for one.

Second, while the public vote subsidy may indeed favour existing parties, it doesn't actively hinder new ones. That having been said, if you were so concerned with small parties getting a fair shot, you absolutely wouldn't be in support of FPTP which does them far more damage than the public vote subsidy could ever hope to.

Umm no all it does is favor existing parties and it favors those who did well in the last election not the next one So yeah incredibly undemocratic

Incredibly disingenuous; though you're right about these being flaws, the fact is that yes, it does indeed reduce dependence on private money which is its strength. Again, without a public vote subsidy, our parties are 100% dependent on private donations, which means that wealthier donors are going to have more and disproportionate sway than they otherwise would, because they're more motivated to donate (since govt can provide them with massive economic advantages), because they have more to donate, and because they're notoriously able to bend the rules surrounding donation limits (donation bundling for example). If I can admit to a plain weakness of public campaign financing, why can't you admit to an obvious strength? We can disagree about whether or not the pros outweigh the cons, but it is absurd to deny that the pros even exist.

And if we had public funding back then it would be even worse for them, The NDP might not even exist
Your assertions are absurd in the extrme

Proof?

Cont...
 
You ant to make a minority govt the norm which means permanent minority rule we have had majority govts with majority of the votes btu PR means that will NEVER EVER happen it. Again you are trying to fix something that isn't broken by braking it and hoping despite all evidence to the contrary that somehow Canada will not end up like Italy.

First off I don't 'want' perpetual minority governments, I want a govt that is actually representative.

Second, do you seriously think alternating between 5 year majority dictatorships at the behest of ~25% of the population and the NDP/Bloc having way more power than they have any right to isn't a problematic system? Our majorities aren't true majorities due to the nature of FPTP and will never be true majorities. A majority government in PR that actually represents a majority is actually possible even if it's relatively unlikely.

Moreover, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with minority governments, especially if they're actually representative of the population.

What's a problem is when governments become too unstable and shortlived to govern, and the evidence is that this isn't really the case for PR systems per the link I provided; in fact PR governments appear to be more stable than non-PRs; to quote the link I posted (particularly since you mentioned Italy):

"A study of countries over 50 years showed the average number of elections in countries using winner-take-all voting systems was 16.7 and in proportional systems it was 16.

But what about Italy? Of the 80+ countries which use proportional systems, opponents love to point to Italy. At one time, over 20 years ago, Italy used what people call a “pure” proportional system – a model unsuited for Canada which has never been proposed – and has changed its electoral system a number of times. Many electoral experts do no longer consider Italy’s system proportional. They use “reinforced” PR which means the party which gets the most votes is automatically given a majority of seats. Then they do the same thing but at the state level for their Senate. This means conflicting results between their House and Senate, and no constitutional structures to resolve disputes between the two. This is the primary source of instability in Italy. This may be a cautionary tale against how not to have an elected Senate, but not against PR. These changes which, have persisted across electoral systems, are the product of a unique and problematic political culture. Between 1945 and today, Italy has had 18 general elections. The number in Canada over the same period is still greater at 23 elections."


Great idealism reality however shows us that in large non diverse countries PR creates rule of the minority a the minor players hold the balance of power and can dictate to the larger ones to get their policies enacted, policies that have a much much smaller % of the populations support than is the case now.

PR creates governments of compromise between members of a coalition, and a member of a coalition can be replaced with another if the demands of one are too onerous and problematic. It is an indisputable fact that PR govts are actually more stable, and while it's possible that smaller parties may end up with disproportionate power, FPTP as is suffers the same problem on a constant, ongoing basis with just about every minority government it has ever had where NDP and/or Bloc play kingmaker.

Every single thing in there is untrue.
Your idealism is destroyed by reality

Evidence please.
 
A half point to a near full point is a pretty significant amount, even if the ranking difference is small; Norway surpasses us by nearly a full point.
The difference between Canaada and Norway is about the same as between Canada and Germany and Germany has the changes your propose.
Lets face it ranked 6th in the world means there is nothing fundamentally wrong with democracy in Canada.



This is true; however this is why I also qualified that with a 'may', because we cannot be sure of the exact role of public financing in enhancing democracy. The fact is that there is really no evidence that public financing is 'undemocratic' as you claim, while it _does_ factually reduce dependence on private money and their conditionals.
While at the same time favoring existing parties forcing the public to fund parties they may not agree with, which can be dealt with far more effectively in other ways.



I'm not sure how a singular example like Belgium, with flaws that derive from specific and unique aspects of their system and not standard implementations of PR, is somehow clear cut evidence of ridiculous hyperbole that PR will 'destroy the country', and 'will result in permanent minority govt'. You have literally provided no support for any of your claims. While it may be possible that homogeneity is responsible in part for superior ratings on the Democracy index, we don't know if that's correlation or causation.
Actually the majority of countries with PR have problems in fact if you look at your list the majority of them are ranked below Canada. The only countries ranked above Canada all have populations roughly the size of Montreal (except Sweden), Canadas 2nd largest city and all have fairly homogenous populations. Making the comparisons rather unequal when looking at PR. The larger/more diverse the country with PR the lower they score, largely due to political instability caused by PR. Your own link shows this. In fact when it comes to functioning govt Canada is tied for the highest mark.

To start, a huge part of the reason we vote to stop people winning and engage in nonsense like 'strategic voting' is because of the FPTP system. It's also the same reason we have only three parties with any real clout and following. If you had a PR system, you're almost certainly not voting against a party as for are voting for one.
Possibly but you just admitted PR would increase the number of political parties leading to less stable govt and a lowering of Canadas ranking on the democracy indeax, the opposite of what you claim to want.

Second, while the public vote subsidy may indeed favour existing parties, it doesn't actively hinder new ones. That having been said, if you were so concerned with small parties getting a fair shot, you absolutely wouldn't be in support of FPTP which does them far more damage than the public vote subsidy could ever hope to.
Nope public financing aside from being undemocratic in principle helps the party who did best in the last election most which would usually be the governing party making it harder for the 2nd/3rd place parties to compete. Private financing means if people are unhappy with the ruling party they will probably fac the next election with less $$ not more than the other parties. Again finance reform is fine, only individuals and only a limited amount. Fairest way there is.



Incredibly disingenuous; though you're right about these being flaws, the fact is that yes, it does indeed reduce dependence on private money which is its strength. Again, without a public vote subsidy, our parties are 100% dependent on private donations, which means that wealthier donors are going to have more and disproportionate sway than they otherwise would, because they're more motivated to donate (since govt can provide them with massive economic advantages), because they have more to donate, and because they're notoriously able to bend the rules surrounding donation limits (donation bundling for example). If I can admit to a plain weakness of public campaign financing, why can't you admit to an obvious strength? We can disagree about whether or not the pros outweigh the cons, but it is absurd to deny that the pros even exist.
If enforce only individual donations and cap the donations it makes 0 difference if someone is wealthy or not. That is the way to go. Doesn't matter if a large corporation wants a certain party to win if they cannot donate they cannot donate. Same with individuals. It is an obvious solution that avoids the problems with public financing. I cannot admit to an obvious strength of public financing when there is absolutely no strength the it at all.

Proof?

Cont...
Cant have proofs of alternative history. The NDP came from the CCF which was largely based in the smaller prairie provinces.
 
This is true. Very true in fact.

We Canucks do like to flaunt our 'nice guy' image, and do tend to stick our heads in the sand when things get weirdly American-like.
And we do like to do the passive-aggressive thing...as a national identity that is. I don't really do passive-aggressive very well.
PM Pixy-Dust does this perfectly. The darling son of the friggin' Holy Grail of Canadian politics, Pierre Elliot Trudeau.

To this subject, I have to give Pixy-Dust a pass...to be fair. He is a rich kid and has rich kid friends. I get that, and wouldn't begrudge him, or any rich kid, from fully enjoying the benefits of running in such circles. But restoring the election regulations and lobby regulations would be a good idea IMO. Its hard to pontify about the bought and paid-for politics of the Americans, when we're quickly headed in the same direction.

Canada...of all places on Earth...must stay relatively 'clean' of corruption, so we can try to moderate the rest of the crazy-ass bastards and bitches who are trying to drive the world to pure chaos. However...once the legalization of pot is done, Justin will have worn out his usefulness, IMO. By then Canada will likely need a stronger leader and federal government.

That's actually a pretty fair analysis...good on you, man, I'm taken a little aback. ;)

The only thing I'll add is that as long as the CPC continue to try to ride Trump's coattails, in terms of branding, scapegoating, and overall divisiveness, they aren't going to get a foothold in the majority, and the Libs and NDP will never work with them. I would love to see the Conservatives put the word Progressive back in their name...were that to happen, we might see a return to Canadian political sanity and blessed boredom (aka, getting the important stuff done, vs. grandstanding). Until then, I'd rather see the Libs have it than the NDP...and you know how left I lean. I just want competent government. Harper couldn't do it, and nothing in the NDP camp really seems all that realistic outside of social media posts, so we're stuck with "Pixy-Dust"... lolz... But as someone who only voted Liberal once, and Conservative every other time, at the federal level, I would really love to see a more responsible, less rabid PC party at the federal level again.
 
First off I don't 'want' perpetual minority governments, I want a govt that is actually representative.
But PR is promotes minority governments and doesn't make the govt representative as the smaller parties hold power out of proportion to the number of votes they get. It basically does exactly the opposite of what you claim to want.

Second, do you seriously think alternating between 5 year majority dictatorships at the behest of ~25% of the population and the NDP/Bloc having way more power than they have any right to isn't a problematic system? Our majorities aren't true majorities due to the nature of FPTP and will never be true majorities. A majority government in PR that actually represents a majority is actually possible even if it's relatively unlikely.
we can and have had majority govts that have had majority support, PR removes any chance of that realistically happening. As to dictatorships that's rather hyperbolic as a major drop in the polls will and has finished off party leaders in and out of govt.

Moreover, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with minority governments, especially if they're actually representative of the population.
In our present system they aren't too bad but there are problems. First they are instable, the more fractured the electoral map the less stable they become (PR promotes this) 2nd with a more fractured political map very small parties can hold the balance of power demanding some of their policies be imposed for their support. Imagine la muete or a similar extremist party holding the balance of power.

What's a problem is when governments become too unstable and shortlived to govern, and the evidence is that this isn't really the case for PR systems per the link I provided; in fact PR governments appear to be more stable than non-PRs; to quote the link I posted (particularly since you mentioned Italy):

"A study of countries over 50 years showed the average number of elections in countries using winner-take-all voting systems was 16.7 and in proportional systems it was 16.

But what about Italy? Of the 80+ countries which use proportional systems, opponents love to point to Italy. At one time, over 20 years ago, Italy used what people call a “pure” proportional system – a model unsuited for Canada which has never been proposed – and has changed its electoral system a number of times. Many electoral experts do no longer consider Italy’s system proportional. They use “reinforced” PR which means the party which gets the most votes is automatically given a majority of seats. Then they do the same thing but at the state level for their Senate. This means conflicting results between their House and Senate, and no constitutional structures to resolve disputes between the two. This is the primary source of instability in Italy. This may be a cautionary tale against how not to have an elected Senate, but not against PR. These changes which, have persisted across electoral systems, are the product of a unique and problematic political culture. Between 1945 and today, Italy has had 18 general elections. The number in Canada over the same period is still greater at 23 elections."
We are comparing Canada to PR systems Canada has the highest ranking for govt functioning according to democracy index. Italy, Germany, Israel, etc. If you remove all the small mostly monogenous countries that have PR you will see the others are not nearly as stable as Canada. Canada is a large diverse country and thus PR will not function well here.

PR creates governments of compromise between members of a coalition, and a member of a coalition can be replaced with another if the demands of one are too onerous and problematic. It is an indisputable fact that PR govts are actually more stable, and while it's possible that smaller parties may end up with disproportionate power, FPTP as is suffers the same problem on a constant, ongoing basis with just about every minority government it has ever had where NDP and/or Bloc play kingmaker.
Yes but lets face it compromise tends to be done by the larger parties small one issue parties cannot compromise much on their core principle leading to the problem. You aren't going to get a left wing party decidint that some single issue party of the left asks too much going to a right wing party for support and vice versa. Thus you end up with the small parties who dont care if there is an election holding the balance of power.

Evidence please.

Actually you made the original claim you have to back them up. But I have shown you why PR doesn't work for a large diverse country like Canada and why public financing is not the way to go.
 
That's actually a pretty fair analysis...good on you, man, I'm taken a little aback. ;)

The only thing I'll add is that as long as the CPC continue to try to ride Trump's coattails, in terms of branding, scapegoating, and overall divisiveness, they aren't going to get a foothold in the majority, and the Libs and NDP will never work with them. I would love to see the Conservatives put the word Progressive back in their name...were that to happen, we might see a return to Canadian political sanity and blessed boredom (aka, getting the important stuff done, vs. grandstanding). Until then, I'd rather see the Libs have it than the NDP...and you know how left I lean. I just want competent government. Harper couldn't do it, and nothing in the NDP camp really seems all that realistic outside of social media posts, so we're stuck with "Pixy-Dust"... lolz... But as someone who only voted Liberal once, and Conservative every other time, at the federal level, I would really love to see a more responsible, less rabid PC party at the federal level again.

Ya...I would like to see the PCs become the 'friendly' nationalists. Responsible social policy, strong protection for Canada and its people, and a smile that says...'If yer just bloody nutz...expect us to call ya bloody nutz'.
 
The difference between Canaada and Norway is about the same as between Canada and Germany and Germany has the changes your propose.
Lets face it ranked 6th in the world means there is nothing fundamentally wrong with democracy in Canada.

Being ranked 6th means we have flaws and we could do better, especially given the margin other democracies have beaten us by.

While at the same time favoring existing parties forcing the public to fund parties they may not agree with, which can be dealt with far more effectively in other ways.

I prefer an all of the above approach to dealing with monied corruption.

Actually the majority of countries with PR have problems in fact if you look at your list the majority of them are ranked below Canada. The only countries ranked above Canada all have populations roughly the size of Montreal (except Sweden), Canadas 2nd largest city and all have fairly homogenous populations. Making the comparisons rather unequal when looking at PR. The larger/more diverse the country with PR the lower they score, largely due to political instability caused by PR. Your own link shows this. In fact when it comes to functioning govt Canada is tied for the highest mark.

This is an argument that PR may not be responsible for superior democratic function, not that PR is a hinderance to superior democratic function.

Moreover, I've provided evidence showing that PR govts actually feature less instability than all or nothing governance, whereas you've yet to validate your assertion that PR is specifically the causation of political instability as opposed to other sources; my links do not actually support your claims.

Possibly but you just admitted PR would increase the number of political parties leading to less stable govt and a lowering of Canadas ranking on the democracy indeax, the opposite of what you claim to want.

Again, the idea that PR inherently results in less stable govt is factually untrue as demonstrated per my link. Further, once again, you have not proven your assertion that PR is a hindrance to ratings on the democracy index.
 
Nope public financing aside from being undemocratic in principle helps the party who did best in the last election...

Since you apparently refused to read the contents of the link I provided you with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feder...sequences_of_eliminating_the_per-vote_subsidy

"Composition of participation
With the per-vote subsidy, 100% of voters of eligible parties (99% of all valid votes in 2009) participate in determining the distribution of the funds, and do so all on an equal basis. The participants are all the Canadian citizens over the age of 18 that voted in the preceding federal election, and numbered 13,675,146 Canadians in 2009.

With political contributions, the participants - numbering only a nationwide total of between 196,186 and 278,620 unique individuals in 2009, and representing less than 1.2% of the number of registered voters - tend to be individuals that have more disposable income. The poor, by and large, do not make political contributions, and, according to University of Calgary political finance expert Lisa Young, people that have more comfortable means, and that can expect to obtain a larger tax credit against their income, are more likely to make political contributions.

According to McMaster University political scientist Henry Jacek, political contributions tend to come from the wealthy, and not the poor. It is also clear from other jurisdictions in the world that political donors typically are people that have more disposable income.

While political contributions can only be made by Canadian citizens, there is no age restriction in place, which allows political contributions to be made in the name of children to bypass contribution limits.

In 2006, Liberal leadership candidate Joe Volpe returned $27,000 in political contributions that had been made in the name of children - after it was revealed that his campaign donors included 11-year-old twin boys and a 14-year-old boy who donated $5,400 each, the allowed maximum. The children and several other donors that had contributed the maximum allowable $5,400 each - for a total of $108,000 - were all in some way connected to the top corporate executives of one pharmaceutical company. No law was broken.

Consequences of eliminating the per-vote subsidy
Elimination of the per-vote subsidy, with all other things remaining equal, would mean that a very small number of individuals - somewhere between 0.8% and 1.2% of registered voters in 2009 - would control and direct 100% of all the funding to their preferred political parties and candidates.

By the same token, approximately 98-99% of all registered voters would no longer have any participation in how any of the funding is directed - including having no say at all in how any of the taxpayer money involved gets allocated.

In April 2011, Canada's former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who served in the position for 17 years, stated that if the per-vote subsidy were to be eliminated, there would be an increased risk of Canada's political parties turning back toward corporations to obtain money, also to the detriment of Canadian democracy.

The elimination of the per-vote subsidy could also have the effect of further reducing an already low voter turnout by removing an incentive that encourages many Canadian citizens to vote. Under the first-past-the-post system, the per-vote subsidy ensures that a voter's participation at the ballot box will at least still make a difference even if their preferred riding candidate has very little chance of winning or is assured of a win."


In reality, what the elimination of the public vote subsidy does is favour those who are most cozy with the tiny minority of prolific political donors and bundlers. Yes, stringent donations limits help, but the lack of public financing unquestionably increases exposure to influence from private financing through the increase of dependence on private financing; for example, you can have groups that solicit and effectively 'bundle' individual donations among people sympathetic to their aims so that they effectively retain a significant degree of influence and leverage over political parties; interest groups hold these aggregates of individual donations ransom in exchange for policy concessions. Other nasty and legal loopholes that skirt the intent of donation limits include donations made in the name of children and other family members.

Moreover, the reality of political donations is that they overwhelmingly come from the rich and upper middle class; you can bet your ass that's going to skew policy unduly. Compounding this you have truly undemocratic public subsidies, which I do oppose, unlike the per-vote subsidy, that substantially magnify the donations of a relative few, thereby further increasing their influence.
 
Last edited:
Cant have proofs of alternative history...

So in otherwords, this is just a blind, unsupported assertion.

But PR is promotes minority governments and doesn't make the govt representative as the smaller parties hold power out of proportion to the number of votes they get...

Again, minority governments aren't necessarily a bad thing.

Second, issues with kingmakers and disproportionate power is actually likely to be less pronounced in PRs due to multiple choices for coalition partners than vs FPTP where you have to make a devil's deal with NDP or the Bloc, on top of FPTP not being at all representative in the first place.

we can and have had majority govts that have had majority support, PR removes any chance of that realistically happening...

Which majority governments in the past century have had support from 50+% of the population? PR doesn't really remove any chance of a majority govt with actual majority support happening so much as that the chance of this actually happening was infinitesimal to begin with, and if it's 'impossible' under PR, it's because people are voting for parties that actually represent them, as opposed to being pressganged into one of the big three, or voting strategically against one or more of them.

Majority governments aren't inherently a virtue either; it's not necessarily something to aspire to or to be desired.

And by dictatorship, I of course mean a party that can act essentially unchallenged and unimpeded for five years; it's obviously not a literal dictatorship.

In our present system they aren't too bad but there are problems. First they are instable, the more fractured the electoral map the less stable they become (PR promotes this) 2nd with a more fractured political map very small parties can hold the balance of power demanding some of their policies be imposed for their support. Imagine la muete or a similar extremist party holding the balance of power.

In our present system minority governments are likely worse than in a PR system because you have no alternatives for your coalition: you play ball with the Bloc or NDP or you call an election. In PR, you can replace a coalition member with another party that doesn't have such inane demands. Further, as repeatedly stated, PR systems are actually more stable than non PR systems.

Second, truly extremist parties aren't likely to make their way to power with adequate votation thresholds; I very much doubt that a nationalist or communist party would hit 5%+ anytime soon.

We are comparing Canada to PR systems Canada has the highest ranking for govt functioning according to democracy index...

Dude, you literally just responded to a passage you quoted which showed you that even Italy ended up with more stable government than we did in terms of general elections called over time; functioning != stability. Stability is a facet /aspect of function.

And yes, we have a highly functional government; unfortunately we don't have a particularly representative one.

Yes but lets face it compromise tends to be done by the larger parties small one issue parties cannot compromise much on their core principle leading to the problem...

Larger parties may not compromise much on their core issues, but if a party that's less aligned is asking for more sane concessions than one that is ostensibly more aligned with you, of course you're going to go with the former, all else being equal.

Ultimately, as can be seen in this study, PR governments do tend to cleave closer to the desires of the median voter overall: http://www.fairvote.ca/wp-content/u...ew-of-Evidence-updated-version-2016-01-13.pdf

Actually you made the original claim you have to back them up. But I have shown you why PR doesn't work for a large diverse country like Canada and why public financing is not the way to go.

You've provided exactly no evidence in direct support of your claims; at best you've demonstrated correlation in some cases, whereas I've linked studies, study conclusions and authorities by contrast in support of mine

Moreover, you've yet to specifically prove your claims, as you've stated, that the following is 'untrue'

A: That Parliament wouldn't have a composition more representative of the actual preferences and political alignments of Canadians.

B: That appropriate votation thresholds won't succeed at keeping dangerous extremists and single issue/ultraniche parties out of parliament (even if it doesn't succeed at keeping _all_ of them out; obviously it's not going to be 100% successful).

C: That PR governments wouldn't feature more legitimate majority governments when they happen, and that the problem of kingmakers with disproportionate power aren't diminished by the number of alternative coalition partners.
 
Last edited:
Being ranked 6th means we have flaws and we could do better, especially given the margin other democracies have beaten us by.
Again There is nothing fundamentally wrong with democracy in Canada and other countries using the systems you propose do worse then us, some significantly
These countries tend to be like Canada large and more diverse, You are ignoring the actual differences in the countries involved and ONLY looking at the 5 countries that rank higher. None of which are more stable than Canada

I prefer an all of the above approach to dealing with monied corruption.
I prefer to keep democracy intact and not have public finances go towards trying to influence how people vote. Lets do financing reform that actually works rather than makes someone just feel good.


This is an argument that PR may not be responsible for superior democratic function, not that PR is a hinderance to superior democratic function.
So getting a lower ranking on the democracy index means a country is more democratic? Sorry that aint gonna fly

Moreover, I've provided evidence showing that PR govts actually feature less instability than all or nothing governance, whereas you've yet to validate your assertion that PR is specifically the causation of political instability as opposed to other sources; my links do not actually support your claims.
Your evidence wasn't about Cnada and ignored the differences between large diverse populations and small homogenous ones. I agree in a small homogenous country it can work. There are no large homogenous countries in which it does. When it comes to stability Canada is not surpassed by anyone on your index .


Again, the idea that PR inherently results in less stable govt is factually untrue as demonstrated per my link. Further, once again, you have not proven your assertion that PR is a hindrance to ratings on the democracy index.
Again you are cherry picking the data, remove all the small homogenous countries and PR far far worse. Now compare them to Canada and your argument is just a complete sham.
 
Since you apparently refused to read the contents of the link I provided you with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feder...sequences_of_eliminating_the_per-vote_subsidy

"Composition of participation
With the per-vote subsidy, 100% of voters of eligible parties (99% of all valid votes in 2009) participate in determining the distribution of the funds, and do so all on an equal basis. The participants are all the Canadian citizens over the age of 18 that voted in the preceding federal election, and numbered 13,675,146 Canadians in 2009.

It is forced participation in supporting a party for the next election, one they may noot approve of.
Very undemocratic.

With political contributions, the participants - numbering only a nationwide total of between 196,186 and 278,620 unique individuals in 2009, and representing less than 1.2% of the number of registered voters - tend to be individuals that have more disposable income. The poor, by and large, do not make political contributions, and, according to University of Calgary political finance expert Lisa Young, people that have more comfortable means, and that can expect to obtain a larger tax credit against their income, are more likely to make political contributions.
limit donations is the answer say 250$ yeah the poorest will still be less likely to donate but 250$ will not allow anyone to buy a politician. Problem soved without resort to extoring it from taxpayers.

According to McMaster University political scientist Henry Jacek, political contributions tend to come from the wealthy, and not the poor. It is also clear from other jurisdictions in the world that political donors typically are people that have more disposable income.
Yeah and if they are limited to a small amount they will exercise no political pressure

While political contributions can only be made by Canadian citizens, there is no age restriction in place, which allows political contributions to be made in the name of children to bypass contribution limits.
Good get rid of it, that has nothing to do with the undemocratic idea of forcing taxpayers to pay.

In 2006, Liberal leadership candidate Joe Volpe returned $27,000 in political contributions that had been made in the name of children - after it was revealed that his campaign donors included 11-year-old twin boys and a 14-year-old boy who donated $5,400 each, the allowed maximum. The children and several other donors that had contributed the maximum allowable $5,400 each - for a total of $108,000 - were all in some way connected to the top corporate executives of one pharmaceutical company. No law was broken.
Just said get rid of the loophole, easy peasy no reason to go to an undemocratic system forcing all Canadian to pay.

Consequences of eliminating the per-vote subsidy
Elimination of the per-vote subsidy, with all other things remaining equal, would mean that a very small number of individuals - somewhere between 0.8% and 1.2% of registered voters in 2009 - would control and direct 100% of all the funding to their preferred political parties and candidates.
If you limit the amount they can give it will limit any influence they have.

By the same token, approximately 98-99% of all registered voters would no longer have any participation in how any of the funding is directed - including having no say at all in how any of the taxpayer money involved gets allocated.
There should be no taxpayer money involved problem solved.

In April 2011, Canada's former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley, who served in the position for 17 years, stated that if the per-vote subsidy were to be eliminated, there would be an increased risk of Canada's political parties turning back toward corporations to obtain money, also to the detriment of Canadian democracy.
Make it illegal for anyone other than individual to donate, problem solved
 
The elimination of the per-vote subsidy could also have the effect of further reducing an already low voter turnout by removing an incentive that encourages many Canadian citizens to vote. Under the first-past-the-post system, the per-vote subsidy ensures that a voter's participation at the ballot box will at least still make a difference even if their preferred riding candidate has very little chance of winning or is assured of a win."[/i]
Yeah only not borne out by reality
The average voter turnout for Canada's general elections since 1867 has been 70.7%
The highest voter turnouts were in 1958, 1960, and 1963, when voter turnout was over 79%.
The lowest voter turnout on record was in 2008, when voter turnout fell to only 58.8%.
Voter turnout in the 2011 federal election, at 61.4%, was the third lowest in Canadian history.
Voter turnout rose sharply in the 2015 federal election to 68.5%, the highest turnout since 1993.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_Canada
In reality, what the elimination of the public vote subsidy does is favour those who are most cozy with the tiny minority of prolific political donors and bundlers. Yes, stringent donations limits help, but the lack of public financing unquestionably increases exposure to influence from private financing through the increase of dependence on private financing; for example, you can have groups that solicit and effectively 'bundle' individual donations among people sympathetic to their aims so that they effectively retain a significant degree of influence and leverage over political parties; interest groups hold these aggregates of individual donations ransom in exchange for policy concessions. Other nasty and legal loopholes that skirt the intent of donation limits include donations made in the name of children and other family members.
When the amounts are so small it wont help them at all.

Moreover, the reality of political donations is that they overwhelmingly come from the rich and upper middle class; you can bet your ass that's going to skew policy unduly. Compounding this you have truly undemocratic public subsidies, which I do oppose, unlike the per-vote subsidy, that substantially magnify the donations of a relative few, thereby further increasing their influence.

If the amounts are ONLY individuals and only small amounts I see no skewing of anything. Lets fix the problem with actual solutions not undemocratic BS hoping that a crappy idea will somehow actually work in reality.
 
So in otherwords, this is just a blind, unsupported assertion.
Based on a study of history and how the systems work in other countries. Unlike yours which is just unsupported assertion based on looking at only som of the data to support a pre-determined conlusion.

Again, minority governments aren't necessarily a bad thing.
From tiem to tiem but when you are having elections every year or more often then yeah they become problematic

Second, issues with kingmakers and disproportionate power is actually likely to be less pronounced in PRs due to multiple choices for coalition partners than vs FPTP where you have to make a devil's deal with NDP or the Bloc, on top of FPTP not being at all representative in the first place.
Nope you are assuming they can pick and choose, getting small parties to support them, but it doesn't matter which small parties you choose they wil all demand that their issue that only a small % of Canadians voted for get implemented thus it is anti-democratic. If it is a coalition of 1 big and 3 tiny then you have 3 tiny parties dictating their policies. If the large party has 6 tp choose from it still changes nothing about the smaller parties controlling the agenda it is just a question if which small parties will control it.


Which majority governments in the past century have had support from 50+% of the population?
Mulroney in 1984
R doesn't really remove any chance of a majority govt with actual majority support happening so much as that the chance of this actually happening was infinitesimal to begin with, and if it's 'impossible' under PR, it's because people are voting for parties that actually represent them, as opposed to being pressganged into one of the big three, or voting strategically against one or more of them.
It is impossible or nearly so t get a majority govt with a PR system in a country as large and diverse as Canada, the smaller parties as noted will have power far beyond their popular support and the larger groups will have less say. That is the opposite of what you claim to want.

Majority governments aren't inherently a virtue either; it's not necessarily something to aspire to or to be desired.
It provides stability, though I dont mind the occasional minority govt constant minorities with several parties forming coalitions tend to be unstable resulting in near permanent elections. This is bad for democracy as nothing tends to get accomplished, costs taxpayers lots of money and what will be done is the agenda of the small parties coming first in order to buy their support.

And by dictatorship, I of course mean a party that can act essentially unchallenged and unimpeded for five years; it's obviously not a literal dictatorship.
Yes they can as long as the party sees that it hasnt completely lost public support, when that happens they tend to remove their leader and change tact.

In our present system minority governments are likely worse than in a PR system because you have no alternatives for your coalition: you play ball with the Bloc or NDP or you call an election. In PR, you can replace a coalition member with another party that doesn't have such inane demands. Further, as repeatedly stated, PR systems are actually more stable than non PR systems.
In a PR system you will have many smaller parties and need several of them to govern. The smaller parties will be smaller because they will be regional, 1 issue or extreme in their views. There will be no good options and replacing a party with another that may demand a reversal of a previous policy. Do this too often and you will find the demands of the smaller parties will be higher as they trust you less.
Again look at the large diverse countries that have PR none of them are particularly stable.

Second, truly extremist parties aren't likely to make their way to power with adequate votation thresholds; I very much doubt that a nationalist or communist party would hit 5%+ anytime soon.
Communist no, I dont see that but looking south I do see nationalist parties emerging under PR system. We already has the Wild Rose party in Alberta and La Meute in Quebec. Hoping that extremists wont emerge is to ignore them emerging in most countries at some point in their history. PR and public finance can only help them.
 
Dude, you literally just responded to a passage you quoted which showed you that even Italy ended up with more stable government than we did in terms of general elections called over time; functioning != stability. Stability is a facet /aspect of function.
And Italy, Germany, Israel are all less stable than Canada due largely to PR.

And yes, we have a highly functional government; unfortunately we don't have a particularly representative one.
There are no easy fixes but what you propose will give us ales functioning govt. and a less representative one.

Larger parties may not compromise much on their core issues, but if a party that's less aligned is asking for more sane concessions than one that is ostensibly more aligned with you, of course you're going to go with the former, all else being equal.
The main issues will tend to be national issues for the main parties, the smaller parties will tend to be regional/ethnic/single issues, they will be able to find ways to accommodate the smaller parties in order to form a govt. The compromise will be on the end of the larger parties.

Ultimately, as can be seen in this study, PR governments do tend to cleave closer to the desires of the median voter overall: http://www.fairvote.ca/wp-content/u...ew-of-Evidence-updated-version-2016-01-13.pdf

You've provided exactly no evidence in direct support of your claims; at best you've demonstrated correlation in some cases, whereas I've linked studies, study conclusions and authorities by contrast in support of mine
I think perhaps you should read this one
https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/Choosing Electoral Systems.pdf
Therefore there is no single 'best' system: these arguments represent irresolvable value conflicts.
For societies, which are raven by deep-rooted ethnic, religious or ethnic divisions, like Mali, Russia or
Israel, the proportional system may prove more inclusive (Lijphart 1977), but it may also reinforce rather
than ameliorate these cleavages (Tsebelis 1990). For states, which are already highly centralized, like
Britain or New Zealand, majoritarian systems can insulate the government from the need for broader
consultation and democratic checks and balances. In constitutional design it appears that despite the
appeal of 'electoral engineering' there are no easy choices.

Moreover, you've yet to specifically prove your claims, as you've stated, that the following is 'untrue'

A: That Parliament wouldn't have a composition more representative of the actual preferences and political alignments of Canadians.

B: That appropriate votation thresholds won't succeed at keeping dangerous extremists and single issue/ultraniche parties out of parliament (even if it doesn't succeed at keeping _all_ of them out; obviously it's not going to be 100% successful).

C: That PR governments wouldn't feature more legitimate majority governments when they happen, and that the problem of kingmakers with disproportionate power aren't diminished by the number of alternative coalition partners.

That's nice theory but you haven proven any of that to be true however PR has been shown to cause the problems I stated when dealing with a large diverse country
 
Again There is nothing fundamentally wrong with democracy in Canada and other countries using the systems you propose do worse then us, some significantly
These countries tend to be like Canada large and more diverse, You are ignoring the actual differences in the countries involved and ONLY looking at the 5 countries that rank higher. None of which are more stable than Canada

Okay, I'm going to wrap this up since you're getting into unbearably disingenuous territory at this point, in addition to your arguments becoming circular without providing any actual new evidence in support of your claims.

To summarize:

#1: You routinely confuse, or disingenuously association causation with correlation, citing problems in other democracies as being specifically attributable to a PR system without any actual evidence. This also applies to votation trends, where you try to imply that an upsurge of participation in the 70s somehow means that the public vote subsidy has no voter participation benefit regardless of other potential factors causing disenfranchisement (while simultaneously and ironically lamenting the fact that the public vote subsidy 'forces' people to vote so parties most closely matching their political preferences receive funding).

#2: You fail to acknowledge the glaring flaws of the current system of FPTP, including its binary state of either being an unrepresentative majority with ~25% of the population's support on average (even Mulroney only had the support of ~37% of the population; he did not achieve 50+%), or a state of kingmaker where one, or at absolute best, two political parties plays kingmaker with no alternatives. Moreover, you state, again without citing supporting evidence or studies, that kingmaker parties would be a worse problem in PR despite the increased choice of coalition partners, and that PR govts would therefore be less representative despite the evidence suggesting on average, which I linked to you, that PR govts are more representative of the median voter.

#3: You respond to the evidence I have provided on the superior representative nature of PR on _average_ with a study that doesn't at all condemn or refute the idea or potential of Canadian PR specifically so much as that it states that there is no 'best' electoral system, and each has its pros and cons whose overall strengths are specific to each country; well no ****.

#4: You either fail to understand what govt stability is, or choose to ignore the evidence I linked earlier which shows that PR govts are more stable than FPTP on average; again, even relatively unstable Italy, hardly a shining example of PR, if it can even truly be considered one, had to call fewer elections over a period of 50 years than we did as an example; morever Denis Pilon's study (which was does not feature 'cherrypicked' data contrary to more of your unproven assertions) of FPTP vs non-FPTP over 50 years found that the former actually averaged 0.7 elections more over than time than the latter; in otherwords, to be perfectly clear, PR is more stable than FPTP on average.

#5: You assert that one issue and extremist parties would become crippling problems for Canadian PR despite this not actually happening in a vast majority of PR countries, while failing to provide evidence again of this being a typical problem.

#6: You gloss over/ignore the flaws and fundamental limitations of donation limits to curb anti-democratic outcomes, such as de facto donation bundling by special interests/voter syndicates and the reality that the demographic of the wealthy/upper middle class (and therefore largely the economic right), a tiny proportion of the Canadian electorate, will control the majority of donation funding, and thus policies will skew towards that demographic (even if individual donation limits are small; that doesn't actually tackle the problem). Moreover you fail to acknowledge the fundamental reality that public voting factually reduces dependence on this demographic and thus the influence they wield.

#7: You assert PR can only really work well in small or homogeneous countries without providing evidence. Again you confuse correlation with causation, asserting PR success in certain countries due to the presence of those factors, and failures in others due to their absence while ignoring any other possibilities and differentials, as well as the slew of majoritarian countries that underperform on the Democracy Index.

#8: You dismiss claims I've provided evidence for by alluding to claims you have no provided evidence for.

In general this is tiresome and futile; I'm done.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'm going to wrap this up since you're getting into unbearably disingenuous territory at this point, in addition to your arguments becoming circular without providing any actual new evidence in support of your claims.

To summarize:

#1: You routinely confuse, or disingenuously association causation with correlation, citing problems in other democracies as being specifically attributable to a PR system without any actual evidence. This also applies to votation trends, where you try to imply that an upsurge of participation in the 70s somehow means that the public vote subsidy has no voter participation benefit regardless of other potential factors causing disenfranchisement (while simultaneously and ironically lamenting the fact that the public vote subsidy 'forces' people to vote so parties most closely matching their political preferences receive funding).

#2: You fail to acknowledge the glaring flaws of the current system of FPTP, including its binary state of either being an unrepresentative majority with ~25% of the population's support on average (even Mulroney only had the support of ~37% of the population; he did not achieve 50+%), or a state of kingmaker where one, or at absolute best, two political parties plays kingmaker with no alternatives. Moreover, you state, again without citing supporting evidence or studies, that kingmaker parties would be a worse problem in PR despite the increased choice of coalition partners, and that PR govts would therefore be less representative despite the evidence suggesting on average, which I linked to you, that PR govts are more representative of the median voter.

#3: You respond to the evidence I have provided on the superior representative nature of PR on _average_ with a study that doesn't at all condemn or refute the idea or potential of Canadian PR specifically so much as that it states that there is no 'best' electoral system, and each has its pros and cons whose overall strengths are specific to each country; well no ****.

#4: You either fail to understand what govt stability is, or choose to ignore the evidence I linked earlier which shows that PR govts are more stable than FPTP on average; again, even relatively unstable Italy, hardly a shining example of PR, if it can even truly be considered one, had to call fewer elections over a period of 50 years than we did as an example; morever Denis Pilon's study (which was does not feature 'cherrypicked' data contrary to more of your unproven assertions) of FPTP vs non-FPTP over 50 years found that the former actually averaged 0.7 elections more over than time than the latter; in otherwords, to be perfectly clear, PR is more stable than FPTP on average.

#5: You assert that one issue and extremist parties would become crippling problems for Canadian PR despite this not actually happening in a vast majority of PR countries, while failing to provide evidence again of this being a typical problem.

#6: You gloss over/ignore the flaws and fundamental limitations of donation limits to curb anti-democratic outcomes, such as de facto donation bundling by special interests/voter syndicates and the reality that the demographic of the wealthy/upper middle class (and therefore largely the economic right), a tiny proportion of the Canadian electorate, will control the majority of donation funding, and thus policies will skew towards that demographic (even if individual donation limits are small; that doesn't actually tackle the problem). Moreover you fail to acknowledge the fundamental reality that public voting factually reduces dependence on this demographic and thus the influence they wield.

#7: You assert PR can only really work well in small or homogeneous countries without providing evidence. Again you confuse correlation with causation, asserting PR success in certain countries due to the presence of those factors, and failures in others due to their absence while ignoring any other possibilities and differentials, as well as the slew of majoritarian countries that underperform on the Democracy Index.

#8: You dismiss claims I've provided evidence for by alluding to claims you have no provided evidence for.

In general this is tiresome and futile; I'm done.

Yes it is tiresome you keep claiming Canadian democracy is broken somehow event though your own links consider it one of the best in the world. You ignore the fact that the majority of countries with the systems you advocate do far worse than Canada and refuse to look at the reasons why.
You failed to provide 1 single compelling reason to make the changes you want and failed to refute anything I said on why it is a bad idea.
 
Back
Top Bottom