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.
This is exactly the silliness I’m talking about.
Do you literally believe the Canadian conservative party is seriously comparable to the AfD or Brothers of Italy?
I’m not claiming the current CPC is equivalent to the AfD or Brothers of Italy in their policy positions. That mischaracterizes my argument. What I’ve been pointing out is the mechanism by which extremism manifests differently under different electoral systems.
In PR systems, extremist viewpoints form their own distinct parties with representation proportional to their actual support. In FPTP systems, extremist movements are incentivized to work within mainstream parties, gradually influencing their direction from within rather than forming separate parties that would split the vote.
The Reform Party example illustrates this pattern - not because the CPC today equals the AfD, but because it demonstrates how FPTP doesn’t eliminate ideological factions; it simply forces them to operate within big-tent parties where their influence can grow less visibly. The Reform Party recognized this reality and eventually merged with the PCs rather than remaining a separate entity.
This pattern repeats across FPTP systems globally. In the UK, Brexit was championed by what was once a fringe position within the Conservative Party before capturing the party’s direction. In the US, the transformation of the Republican Party over the past decade shows how rapidly a mainstream party can shift when captured by a movement from within.
What PR provides is transparency and proportionality. When the AfD gets 23% in Germany, they receive exactly that proportion of seats - no more, no less. Meanwhile, the remaining 77% can form coalitions that reflect the majority will. This creates both visibility about extremist support and a containment mechanism that prevents disproportionate influence.
The mathematical reality remains that PR ensures every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, while FPTP systematically discards millions of votes. This democratic deficit is what should truly concern us - a system where majority viewpoints can be ignored while minority-supported governments implement policies opposed by most citizens.
The fundamental question isn’t about comparing specific parties across countries, but about which system better serves democratic principles by accurately representing citizens’ actual voting preferences.
And that mechanism is leading to moderate parties in FPTP systems like ours and hate groups in PR ones.
You admit that
So, why aren’t those tensions which are boiling over repeatedly in PR systems boiling over here? Again, simply put, do you think 1/5 Canadians are angry enough to vote for a far right group?
Your framing mischaracterizes what actually happens in both systems. FPTP doesn’t produce “moderate parties” - it forces diverse viewpoints to consolidate within fewer parties where extremist elements can gradually capture them from within.
Let’s examine Canada’s own history: The Reform Party didn’t disappear because FPTP “moderated” it. Rather, the Reform wing ultimately took over the merged Conservative Party. Stephen Harper came from Reform to lead the CPC and become Prime Minister. This pattern isn’t moderation - it’s the Reform ideology successfully gaining control through internal capture rather than standing alone. The same pattern happens in other FPTP countries - extremist views don’t vanish; they work to take over major parties.
Your question about tensions “boiling over” assumes these tensions don’t exist in Canada, rather than recognizing they’re channeled differently. In PR systems, when segments of the population hold certain views, they can express them through parties that specifically represent those positions. In FPTP, these same views still exist but must operate within big-tent parties to have any chance at representation.
The key difference isn’t in whether tensions exist but in how transparently they’re represented. In Germany, the AfD’s support is visible and proportional, while the remaining 77% can form governments that reflect majority viewpoints. This creates accountability - we know exactly how much support extremist views have, no more and no less.
As for whether 1/5 of Canadians might vote for a far-right party - that’s exactly why democratic principles matter. The purpose of elections isn’t to suppress certain viewpoints by design but to accurately represent citizens’ actual preferences. A democracy worthy of the name trusts its citizens and ensures representation proportional to support, whatever that support may be.
What PR provides isn’t the amplification of extremism but transparency and containment. It’s showing us the photograph rather than retouching it to look nicer. And there’s considerable evidence that this transparency leads to better long-term democratic outcomes than pretending divisions don’t exist until they capture entire mainstream parties.