- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,349
- Reaction score
- 6,037
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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/