Section 3 – Policy Initiatives & 2025 Deliverables
11. Democratic and Electoral Reform
The Parties will work together to create a special legislative all-party committee to evaluate and recommend policy and legislation measures to be pursued beginning in 2026 to increase democratic engagement & voter participation, address increasing political polarization, and improve the representativeness of government. The committee will review and consider preferred methods of proportional representation as part of its deliberations. The Government will work with the BCGC to establish the detailed terms of reference for this review, which are subject to the approval of both parties. The terms of reference will include the ability to receive expert and public input, provide for completion of the Special Committee’s work in Summer 2025, and public release of the Committee’s report within 45 days of completion. The committee will also review the administration of the 43rd provincial general election, including consideration of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report on the 43rd provincial general election, and make recommendations for future elections.
@AlolanVulpix @MyBrainHurts Sorry I know this isn’t directly abt PR for Canada. But isn’t Germany really an example of PR success? AFD is not in government. In the US, a similar movement (MAGA) pretty easily parlayed a small plurality within one party into a takeover of every government branch.
I’m not about to have a full discussion about PR causing success or not. I’m sure there are already articles written on it.
However, if we live in a democracy, we are deserving of and entitled to representation in government, and only proportional representation can get us there. A democracy necessarily requires everyone having a seat at the table, and in a representative democracy, vote percentage must equal seat percentage.
Great question! In the very short term, sort of. (Though from the start I’d point out that it is much harder to envision a party like the AFD gaining traction in an FPTP system)
PR causes 2 different styles of issues with the AFD. 1) It makes politics much less likely to produce significant or helpful change, so people don’t see meaningful political improvements in their lives and are more likely to turn to extremist parties like the AFD. and 2) Because the AFD has so many seats, the winning coalition has to be super broad, basically the same coalition of the Conservative and Progressives that was seen as ineffectual the last time around. Admittedly, this time they can exclude the Greens. The same reasons the previous government collapsed and led to such a significant rise in support for the AFD are still in effect.
@MyBrainHurts living in the us I guess it feels like fptp is producing government that is every bit as unresponsive to people’s problems. (Really a lot more unresponsive, for the problems important to me, like climate and housing.) And given the choice between a party system where it’s a little hard to build a coalition that lasts more than a couple years, and a two party system with one party actively dismantling democracy; I’d so so happily take the first one.
Yeah, a 2 party system is generally not very ideal. Here in Canada we’re lucky enough to have had multiple parties able to nudge one another into various directions.
I’m not sure how PR would stop those attempts. And if anything, it could make them significantly worse.
It’s more that those coalitions have serious trouble creating significant legislation, which still leads to issues like housing and climate change legislation being very unlikely. Except worse, it’s now very hard to assign blame OR to propose bold reforms. So you just muddle through with things getting worse. There’s a reason so many PR systems have started producing great outcomes for hard right parties. (The sort of anti democratic, racist parties that make the republican party look almost progressive.)
@MyBrainHurts Lol, now you’re making my brain hurt. I’m not sure if you realize how bad things are here. Ah well, we won’t convince each other. But wish you all the best up there.
I strongly recommend reading about modern German politics. Actual AfD manifesto “Islam does not belong to Germany. Its expansion and the ever-increasing number of Muslims in the country are viewed by the AfD as a danger to our state, our society, and our values.” As much as we hate them, imagine the Republicans writing something like that in their manifesto.
Yes, the Republican party is doing terrible things. But none of that would be stopped by a PR system. (Especially when the republicans won more than half the votes…)
Your AfD example actually highlights exactly why PR is superior in handling extremism. Yes, their manifesto contains explicitly bigoted views - but the key difference is transparency and containment. In Germany’s PR system, extremist views are visible, democratically represented according to their actual support (no more, no less), and effectively contained through coalition dynamics.
Compare this to the US under FPTP, where extremism doesn’t disappear - it captures one of only two viable parties from within. The Republican Party’s evolution over the past decade demonstrates how FPTP masks extremism until it completely takes over a major party. Under FPTP, extremist factions can gain disproportionate power by capturing a major party with internal support far below what would be required to gain significant representation in a PR system.
When you say “imagine Republicans writing something like that in their manifesto,” you’re missing that they don’t need to be explicit because FPTP incentivizes hiding extremist views within broad platforms. Meanwhile, their members freely express similar sentiments in speeches, bills, and policy positions without facing electoral consequences because voters have nowhere else to go. The Muslim ban, border policies separating families, and statements from many elected Republicans demonstrate this repeatedly.
The difference is accountability. In Germany, the AfD’s 22.9% support translates to proportional representation - significant but contained. They remain excluded from governing coalitions because other parties refuse to work with them. By contrast, when extremists capture a major party in FPTP, they can gain control of entire governments with minority support, as we’ve seen repeatedly in the US and UK.
The “ineffective coalition” argument is contradicted by international measurements of governance effectiveness. The broad coalitions you criticize actually create policies with greater staying power precisely because they represent genuine majorities rather than plurality-supported minorities. This prevents the costly “policy lurch” we see in FPTP systems where each new government undoes its predecessor’s work.
Regarding Israel - you’re cherry-picking one implementation of PR with a very low threshold (1.5% until recently), deliberately designed to create fragmentation. This is why most PR advocates support systems with reasonable thresholds (typically 4-5%) like Germany, New Zealand and the Nordic countries use. Using Israel as your PR example is like judging all presidential systems based only on Belarus.
The mathematical reality is that FPTP systematically discards millions of votes in every election. In rural ridings like Hastings-Lennox and Addington, over 51% of voters had no representation in the last election. This democratic deficit creates precisely the kind of disenfranchisement that feeds extremism.
What you’re really arguing for is a system that allows minority-supported parties to implement policies the majority opposes, while calling this “efficiency.” But this isn’t efficiency - it’s undemocratic governance that produces unstable policies lacking broad support. PR doesn’t prevent bold action; it ensures bold action has genuine majority support.
Your fears about extremist parties gaining influence in PR systems ignore the far more dangerous reality of extremist factions capturing major parties in FPTP systems. PR provides early warning and containment mechanisms for extremism that FPTP fundamentally lacks. The transparent representation of all viewpoints according to their actual support is not a bug of PR - it’s a feature of proper democratic representation.
To make it very plain.
Yes, more democracy is a bonus. Let’s call that a plus for the PR side. No one is disputing that.
On the downsides are the effect on Canada. I’m a fun uncle for a bunch of my friends’ cool kids and I care about the country they’ll get.
Some countries have done well historically with PR. But, as we enter incredibly turbulent times with almost half a dozen threats ranging from deadly serious to existential on the horizon, the weaknesses of PR are becoming apparent.
Germany is not only struggling with the AfD but despite being in a recession for almost three years been unable to pass significant legislation, in part as a result of the coalitions required to keep out the AfD. PR is not going well there and I do not want that for the aforementioned children.
Israel has been unable to stop a deeply unpopular war in large part because of PR.
Austria is trying to cobble together a government to keep out an extremist party that won the most votes.
Tusk is struggling to undo the damage wreaked by PiS.
The Dutch are bending over backwards to keep Wilders out.
The Brothers of Italy are running the country.
Times are only going to get tougher. For those groovy kids, I want a government that can effect serious and meaningful change, which FPTP makes more likely. Even though my vote is often less effective, that’s a trade-off I’ll take to avoid the catastrophes above.
(You are also misremembering 2015, yes, housing was mentioned but mostly in the context of social housing and renters. As you’ve read through the chat with Avid Amoeba, you’re either ignoring or already forgetting those realities which I’ve already pointed out. Feel free to look at the party platform I already linked.)
Your arguments against PR continue to rest on selective examples, while ignoring the fundamental democratic deficits inherent in FPTP and the significant evidence contradicting your claims about effectiveness.
First, your framing reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what an electoral system should accomplish. You acknowledge that “more democracy is a bonus” for PR, as if democratic representation is merely a nice-to-have feature rather than the core purpose of elections. This mindset exemplifies precisely what’s wrong with FPTP defenders - treating democratic representation as secondary to other considerations.
The turbulent times you mention actually strengthen the case for PR rather than weakening it. When facing multiple existential threats, we need governance systems that incorporate diverse perspectives and build genuine majority consensus around solutions. FPTP’s tendency to produce false majorities implementing policies opposed by most citizens creates precisely the kind of policy instability that undermines effective long-term responses to complex challenges.
Ok, so let’s look at the examples you brought up: Germany: You claim Germany has been “unable to pass significant legislation” due to its coalition government. This ignores their substantial climate legislation (far outpacing Canada’s), comprehensive pandemic response, and extensive Ukraine support package. The “struggling economy” argument is misleading - Germany faces structural challenges related to energy dependency and demographic shifts that would exist under any electoral system. Their PR system has successfully contained the AfD’s influence despite its growing support - exactly as designed.
Israel: Again, Israel uses an extreme form of PR with an exceptionally low threshold (1.5% until recently) specifically designed to create fragmentation. I’ve already addressed this previously.
Austria: The recent Austrian election actually demonstrates PR working correctly - the Freedom Party won 28% of the vote and received proportional representation, while the system prevents them from unilaterally implementing policies opposed by the 72% who didn’t vote for them. Under FPTP, that 28% could easily translate to a governing majority with unchecked power.
Poland: Poland’s transition from PiS to Tusk’s coalition government shows PR’s strength, not weakness. After PiS undermined democratic institutions, PR enabled a broad coalition to form and begin restoring them. The coalition reflects the will of the majority of Polish voters - exactly what an electoral system should facilitate.
Netherlands: The Dutch coalition negotiations reflect the genuine divisions within Dutch society. Far from being a failure, this is democracy working as intended - ensuring government reflects the actual distribution of voter preferences rather than artificially manufacturing majorities.
Italy: The Brothers of Italy received 26% of the vote and needed to form a coalition to govern. This ensures they can’t implement policies without broader support, protecting democratic guardrails. Contrast this with the UK, where the Conservatives implemented Brexit with profound national consequences based on a 43.6% vote share.
What you characterize as “effectiveness” is actually undemocratic governance that produces unstable policies lacking broad support. True effectiveness comes from policies with genuine democratic legitimacy and staying power. The most pressing challenges we face - climate change, economic inequality, democratic backsliding - require sustained, long-term policy approaches that survive beyond electoral cycles. PR systems produce exactly this kind of stability through consensus-building.
Your concern for future generations is admirable, but consider what system those “groovy kids” would actually prefer: one where every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, or one where millions of votes are systematically discarded? One where parties must build genuine consensus for policies, or one where minority-supported parties can implement whatever they want? One with transparent representation of all viewpoints according to their actual support, or one that masks extremism until it captures a major party? The polls show 76% of Canadians support electoral reform, 62% of Ontarians support proportional representation in government.
The mathematical reality remains: PR produces governments that more accurately reflect how people actually vote. This isn’t a minor technical detail - it’s the fundamental purpose of representative democracy. A system that routinely discards over half the votes in many districts betrays the very concept of democracy itself.
What we actually need is a system where:
PR delivers this democratic accountability that FPTP fundamentally cannot. The turbulent times ahead require more democracy, not less - more voices at the table, more genuine consensus, and governance that truly represents the will of the people. That’s what PR offers, and what those “groovy kids” you care about deserve.