- cross-posted to:
- fairvote@lemmy.ca
- canada@lemmy.ca
- ndp@lemmy.ca
- cross-posted to:
- fairvote@lemmy.ca
- canada@lemmy.ca
- ndp@lemmy.ca
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/40034360
With Duverger’s Law (i.e., in non-PR electoral systems, a trend towards a two-parties), we are running out of time to act. Canada’s 2021 effective number of parties is 2.76 - this number will decrease over time, and will eventually end Canadian democracy as we know it today.
The only way to prevent this democratic backsliding is proportional representation: !fairvote@lemmy.ca
To be fair, I can’t say I’m super interested in politics either. I’ve only started looking at it after knowing about how there are other ways to, in a sense, “implement” democracy through different electoral systems, and that the problem is inherently mathematical (which is what I’m interested in; seemingly simple but difficult-to-solve mathematical problems that also isn’t just a number theoretic problem). The rest of what I now know just comes from knowing how broken FPTP is and how it’s essentially destroying the fabric of a democratic society, and it just makes me concerned enough to keep looking further in, hoping we’re actually doing something to save ourselves.
But yeah, I really wonder what goes into their heads, knowing that in a winner-takes-all system, everything you do can easily be undone by those on the other side, and little to no legacy can be easily left behind, assuming you can even get a chance to get back into office. Someone’s got to sit these people down and show them the reality of things, cause it just seems like they either don’t recognize the possibility of what PR would get them (which is to allow them to have a chance at pushing more centrist policies through), can’t have it figured out in their heads, or are actually just against a fairer society, in which case we call them out for it after talking to them.
And yeah, Crombie losing in her own riding should be a sign that she just doesn’t have support from even people in her own riding. Something feels incredibly wrong with the OLP to me, both from this, how they’ve campaigned, and also just how they’ve behaved over the many years we’ve had the PCs. They’re essentially sleepwalking and hoping nobody notices it.
No electoral system can prevent extremists; as long as you’re electing people, you’re bound to have an extremist in the office at some point. We should this frame the question like so: would you rather have an extremist who has full control over your government, or a group of people with extremists mixed in such that they have to work with other people to get their extremists policies enacted? It should be a no brainer from there.
And what are the chances of you having a large group of extremists in power? It’s certainly non-zero. PR isn’t immune to politicians gaming the system by installing multiple extremist candidates that tries to capture a wide range of voters, and then betraying their voters, but it would require a large and coordinated effort for them to do so in a country to be able to effectively consolidate power. Otherwise, it’s just a reflection of the voters around us, and perhaps in a polarized world, that’s a scary thought.
In any case, you’re right, electoral reform is more so the means to the end where we have a fairer electoral system through proportional representation, instead of a winner-takes-all system that encourages polarization. It’s funny to me that Trudeau has repeatedly lamented at how our world (arguably the Western world) is more fragmented and polarized while he continues to advocate for a system that squarely encourages that.
Yes, implement democracy is correct.
Look into policy lurch. Basically, a party will implement “extreme” policies because they know it will be undone in the next election. And in the case it’s not undone, it could also be problematic (e.g., chronic underfunding of public services).
I actually think LPC front-runner, Mark Carney falls into this camp - against a fairer society.
It’s difficult to nail down slimy people.
I would say we already have extremists: those that believe an electoral system that ignores votes is acceptable.
When speaking about democracy, we should start with the most ideal, then work backwards for trade-offs. A direct democracy is the most ideal. And we move to representative democracy, as it’s more practical. But the trade-off for FPTP - it’s simplicity, which no longer is worth it since we can handle more complex electoral systems. Therefore we know that PR is the solution.
At least with PR, we only have ourselves to blame in failure. With winner-take-all, an extreme minority can, and has, taken down the majority.
What’s not funny, unfortunately, is how effective the anti-PR crowd is. But we have principles and fairness on our side, and that will never become disliked.
Policy lurch is exactly what I’m thinking of. Thank you for bringing that term up.
My understanding of intelligence is likely different from others; being intelligent doesn’t mean you should be on the good side. Having a healthy foresight and knowing what should work better for more people over the long term are not qualities of intelligence; they are those of wisdom. Being intelligent just means that you know how to consume information and wield knowledge, not necessarily for good or bad. So I don’t doubt that Mark Carney is intelligent, but he certainly hasn’t shown the wisdom that Canada truly needs, only short-term goals. The latter isn’t always bad, but the world lacks wise visionaries, and Canada seems to be in dire needs of one.
I’ll be honest and say that while there’s a need to fight Trump from down South at the moment, I can’t say Carney has actually demonstrated any traits that makes me trust him. There’s his somewhat question-raising profile about whether he’ll actually be see national problems correctly to be able to do things for ordinary people, or if he’ll just be another corporate-loving minister. He’s tried to use it to distance himself from Trudeau’s government, but that seems unnecessary, especially when there seems to be plenty of ways he could make that distance clear through actually proposing solutions that are clearly different from those of Trudeau’s.
I don’t disagree with the fact that we should find that sentiment abhorrent, but that’s definitely not a classification that people would think of when we say “extremists”.
And this might be controversial to say, but there are lots of people who just don’t want to deal with whom they consider as “extremists”, and would rather have structural barriers in place to keep these voices segregated. Anti-PR people is a mix of misinformed people, actual pro-FPTP people, and those who do view it as an effective tool (though a flawed view) at keeping voices they don’t want to hear out. Cutting people may be a viable strategy for small and/or close group settings, but it’s not the way for a democratic society, and that is where I think more messaging needs to be done to make people know and weigh the benefits of a fairer society over short-term, localized social calmness. Just trying to take a hard look at reality and give my 2 cents there.
Well said.