As a Western Canadian who feels my vote and never mattered-all parties cater to Ontario and Quebec where all the votes are-this would make me think I have a voice in Canada
The thing is that they don’t cater to Ontario or Quebec either, they play this big acting game of trying to appear like they cater to all of Canada. We have elitist parties that ignore the will of the people. The idea that the parties cater to Ontario and Quebec is demonstrably false on the fossil fuel front. Also in several social policies for the CPC. The CPC& LPC put large living stresses on the working class of Ontario.
My city had a ranked ballot system set up and doug ford made us get rid of it so I'm not quite sure how starting municipally will help when the premiers can force us to get rid of it
Proportional Representation would make parliament so much more democratic. Imagine parties like the greens, ndp being able to prevent harmful legislation from passing.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
"More extreemism, ... more polarization, less choice, more women in politics, more distortion more exaggerated regionalism" hmm, one of these things is not like the others.
WE 100% NEED PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is coming from someone who does not want to see cons lead the country. but still. fair is fair.
Yeah that's what I was thinking too. With this being his second win in a row without winning the popular vote he'll never change the system. I doubt he would even introduce ranked ballots
L Freezin' actually ranked ballots would benefit the liberal party which is why he wanted it as it would effectively turn Canada into a one party state with a permanent liberal majority government.
It got counted, stop saying it didn’t. Like me, you live in an area where it is so heavily favoured in one direction that realistically there is no chance of the candidate you vote for winning.
it will not happen, because the ruling party will not want it. If we had a Senate that actually meant anything, we could start there, and that could work but not under current system
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
@@deanbusch2727 True . GTA area will completely dominate the politics in proportional representation and this will make the other regions feel left out .
@@bobfaam5215 GTA already dominates under our current system just google it and look north of Naigara theres 50 seats in an area the size of PEI, that keeps the Liberals in power.
Look at London Ontario municipal voting system. I never thought of this angel before, but he's absolutely right. Provinces will learn from cities, and the Feds will learn from provinces. It's down top thinking instead of top down thinking 🤔
A better voting system would be "tier voting" where you ranked the candidates 1,2,3,4 etc. They tally the vote and if nobody reaches 50%, they eliminate the person in last place those votes go towards whoever they ranked second. This continues until someone reaches 50%. It stops (for the most part) strategic voting, is more proportional and represents the interests of the community's better.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
Harper had 5 elections in 10 years. While I agree that our system needs work, I highly doubt it will happen because it keeps working for the winning party. All the others want it until they have the power.
how did you get that? 2006 (minority), 2008(minority), and 2011(majority). 2008 was called by a motion of non-confidence by the other parties. 2015 was by law must be held. and that's still four elections, he only started 2 - 2006 and 2011.
Everyone knows that proportional representation works? I don't think that's a true statement. How do you ensure local representation? Who would people be voting for? How are MP's assigned?
Quebecs plan was to have MMP “with regions”, so the extra members that are needed to balance the seats would come from the same general region instead of just “a list”.
Okay I do wonder with those numbers if it is a national number of votes or regional (provinces and territories) because I'd Imagine they would have slightly different outcomes depending on what were going with. The bloc for example is situated yes in the second most populous province but proportional representation on a national level would lower that seat count I'd imagine. Regionally a party like the PPC I feel would suffer more because of how far their vote is spread out across the country. Also something to note, this proportional system leading to a coalition of just these parties (no splintering) would still lead to what we are likely to see with the progressive Liberals and NDP alone having more of a share than all the other parties combined. Not that I expect the greens for example to back the PPC. There would never be a majority again, which may be a good thing but the chances there would be a right leaning win again, I think would become very slim in it's own right. Based off of this and past data I've seen. Not trying to come for anyone favorites.
I would almost expect the liberals and conservatives cease to exist under proportional representation. Why would anyone ever vote for one of those parties if you didn’t have to worry about the other getting into power?
Agreed, the Liberals, NDP and Greens would coalesce and consistently outvote all others. Neither the Liberals or Conservatives would ever want proportional representation given Canada's left leaning populace.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
@@Trythis837 Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
The seat results wouldn't look like that under PR. There's no way we'd implement a purely proportional system and minimum requirement of 5% to receive top up seats is fairly widely accepted. So Green party would still only get two seats under PR (if we had MMP).
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
Yes I would think that a majority of the population would get their choice. Not based on idiotic seat numbers. A liberal or conservative thinking person isn't a box as pushed by this system. Most are a liberal or conservative voter that is over the other side a bit. People vote for whom their riding is going to do their job. Even if they disagree with the leadership. Not a good system. Great managed riding... horrible Ottawa leadership
I think those on the left support it out of principle but the right wing wouldn’t have more power. The Libs/Greens/NDP could form a permanent coalition and block that from happening. A conservative/ppc/bloc coalition wouldn’t be a majority and would produce awkward outcomes
@@dty1207 Politics does not work that way . If NDP and Liberal become a permanent coalition . Then the more centrist Liberal voters will gravitate towards Conservatives . Just like if Conservative party became a far right party , it’s centrist voters will gravitate towards Liberals . Also NDP as an independent political party will cease to exist and will have to merge with Liberals . Why to vote for NDP if they are going to align with the Liberals anyway ? Why not vote for Liberals directly instead ? So if NDP keeps on aligning with Liberals , it’s very existence will be a question mark .?
@@bobfaam5215 you’re ranting with conjecture based off your own partisan political opinions. My statement was based off factual voter opinion data. The overwhelmingly majority of liberal and nbp voters support each other’s party’s as second choices. There is an extremely small faction of liberal voters that would support the conservatives over the NDP as their 2nd choice.
Agreed. PR is a nice idea, but people who push for it don't understand the importance of local members of parliament to their constituency. Ranked ballot is an improvement without having to tear down what works about our current system.
Mixed Member Proportional would keep the districts as it is; but the legislature would expand to ensure that political parties vote share accurately reflect the number of votes they get. You would still have local representative under MMP to represent your district, but you would also have list representatives that will be a representative for the political party. So in this regard, you would have a member still fighting for you.
@@theyoungcentrist9110 again, the simplest change we make is ranked choice voting. Literally only 2 things change and that’s the physical ballot, as well as the way we count the ballots…. That’s it. It’s the first logical step toward a more representative government. Reasoning: if 50%plus one of people in the riding vote for that person chances are that riding isn’t far off. I know where your going with this where one persons vote in Nova Scotia equals one persons vote in BC but the method you have proposed removes the possibility of a person going against their party (which does happen rarely).
Actually, they've had THREE! And in one of them, the voters chose YES... with 57% of the vote. Which is higher support than ANY party has every received in BC. So... there you go.
Dave is correct about PR being the most democratic system that most first world democracies have. Problem in Canada is it's not discussed fully so most are uninformed and don't push for it.
The problem with proportional representation is that it will give too much power to densely populated areas like GTA and other areas will loose influence . Also regional parties like BQ will loose influence and majority of Quebec population will not like it and it will lead to calls for independence of Quebec . Even other less populated areas will loose the influence
Yes and no. Individuals vote, this is true. But individuals of any particular community’s interests predominantly tend to align with each other’s. Of course, there’s going to be exceptions, but generally big cities tend to lean left, rural communities lean right. Even in Ontario, GTA, London, Kitchener/Waterloo are usually red, the rest of Ontario is fairly consistently blue.
Would trying to move to PPR not require constitutional amendments? If so, what are the chances of that happening? Imagine the fallout of attempting to open that Pandora's box?
Proportional representation is idiotic. Why have seats at all? Are we voting for the party leader or for individual members of parliament? If it is for the party leader then why give out jobs to party apparatchiks? If you are voting for individual parliamentarians then they need to earn their own mandates. PR is for the feeble minded.
I don't like proportional voting because there will be no MPs fighting for regional issues. Within years of a promotional voting system being implemented you will see lifetime MPs from major cities like Toronto and Canada.
@@PhilipPetrunak They'd spend so much time cobbling together a working majority they'd get nothing done. Or worse, mainstream will have to become more extreme to cater to fringe parties
1. We know from actual, real world experience that governance under such systems actually gets MORE done. The fact that their voters have other viable options of people to vote for means they need to be responsive to the will of the voters. 2. They wouldn't be "fringe parties". IF 10% of the country believes
@@PhilipPetrunak if he cares about fringe party's just set a threshold to get seats we have one for the requirements to the debate at 4%nationally so just set the threshold at 5% or 4% like most country's
My mail in ballot was requested early, mailed to me on sept 11th, i received it on sept 20th so i didnt get to vote. How many people got their ballots too late to vote?
@@susanb4816 they are sent asap you could have mailed it and it would have been counted. there priority mail your loss for not following the instructions.
@@TheNaznine i DID follow the instructions. Sheesh, so judgemental. The ballot had to be received by elections canada on sept 20, 6 p.m. ii was mailed to me on sept 11th, so it took 9 days. I could have walked it here faster. I am in rural ontario and the person who delivered my ballot is the same person who takes my mail so my ballot wouldnt even have been mailed until the 21st. It would not have been counted so i did not mail it.
What sort of proportional representation was used to calculate the projections? It doesn't seem to be MMP because you only end up with one more MP. It has the effect of MMP, though -- regional parties are greatly weakened. I don't think Quebec would support any system that chopped a third off the Bloc caucus. A Western regional party would be similarly weakened. That's why I voted No in the 2007 referendum in Ontario -- under the MMP plan they proposed Northern Ontario (with a population of 800,000) would have been swamped by votes from Southern Ontario (population 14,000,000), and the North would have even less influence in the legislature.
Brexit happened because of Proportional Representation it gave Nigel a voice on national TV that we wouldn't have had if not for the EU system. We could probably get rid of Quebec though, so let's do it. We had a referendum in BC and those systems were defeated handily. I don't disagree with the obviously educated guest, but I don't know. I would like our system more if the Liberals were not so corporate. Why can't we just have a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government? God, I miss Paul Martin.
I'd be worried about the whole splintering concept, if it did happen. I doubt conservatives would splinter, they have their ideological dichotomies in them and the PPC, but I could see NDP doing so.... there is a lot of space to the left of the Liberal party to take up, and the NDP has a hard time covering all those bases.... from fringe expectations like 20$ minimum wage, to more reasonable proposals like pharmacare.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
And that’s why neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will ever get rid of First past the post. I won’t be bothering to vote next time. There is no point to it.
Perhaps we need an even more inclusive form of government that uses the power of the internet to involve everyone, however, it has to be done the right way because in practice not every citizen can vote on or even understand every single issue and proposal. Is there a way that democracy can be respected yet knowledgeable experts who understand particular issues still get to make decisions on those issues.
I don't like that word 'inclusive'. It means putting people in positions of power who don't deserve to be there. You just including them, they haven't earned it.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
@@felixxtcat Israel and Italy are not anomalies, they are the logical outcome, especially with the increasing polarisation we are currently seeing in politics.
The GTA alone has more people than all the Prairies combined. PR would force MPs elected by people in each region to collaborate instead of cynically roadblocking each other at every opportunity.
Like it has been stated main times most large nations should be separated into smaller ones and truly that is always the outcome historically. As the anger at Toronto having power over the rest of Canada will boil over eventually as it always does. No county last forever and most fall from within.
This should be what it is, but swap the numbers between PPC and Green. Far Right wing Parties like theirs need the least amount of a voice as possible.
The countries this guy uses as examples have voter turnouts in the 80 and 90%... Canada has a voter turnout of 63%. You can't have a "proportional" system in Canada with those numbers.
The problem with proportional representation is that it will give too much power to densely populated areas like GTA and other areas will loose influence . Also regional parties like BQ will loose influence and majority of Quebec population will not like it and it will lead to calls for independence of Quebec . Even other less populated areas will loose the influence
I really don't see how this would work well in Canada. We're so physically big that there's so much diversity solely due to geography, which is why I think people being able to vote for someone to represent them in Parliament is so important; the government simply isn't able to spend enough time in every riding to fully understand it. If it was divided up in terms of proportion, would there not be at least some ridings represented by an mp whose party the majority of those constituents didn't vote for? It just seems that all these countries under proportional representation that are used as an example are much smaller than Canada, which means geographic diversity really isn't as big of a consideration.
@Hannah The common "we're too big" excuse, everyone who's either ignorant of the facts or is secretly against something always uses that as an excuse. Republicans use it all the time as an excuse to not implement single payer healthcare across the country because "we're just too big".
@@W.LL1999 i wouldn’t say ignorant, but rather wary. healthcare imo is not a good example - if all healthcare is provided to those who need it, then regional differences in the type of healthcare needed wouldn’t be a factor. the fact is simply that there are no examples of a country comparable to canada who has successfully had a proportional representation system, so i don’t really think that we can look to other countries who are so different than us as an example for why it *will* work here. not saying it never could, but you can’t apply something for one situation to another situation without considering how factors not seen in other examples (such as wider geography) may affect it
Um, isn't the Bloc a fringe party??? regionalism? Do they really deserve that many seats with so little proportional representation? Interesting they weren't mentioned at all.
They are mainstream in Quebec where they operate. The Green Party is fringe. Argueably the PPC is but they pulled in 5% nationally which is the minimum to be an official federal party.
Preferential voting systems such as "ranked-choice voting" are the way forward. Proportional representation voting systems are conceptually flawed because they *require* political parties in order to function. Hence, it would be impossible to elect all independent candidates to government. I am opposed to political parties so I will never support a voting system that effectively mandates them.
Hey Jon! Actually, both MMP and STV allow for independent candidates. In fact, it would be easier to run as independent under either system, than it is under FPTP. (And, if you haven't noticed, we aren't electing any now, under the current system - with a few very rare excaptions!)
Political parties are the hall marks of a democracy and there the key to a free society. Also, countries like Norway use party list proportional representation and they are higher score when it comes to functioning government, civil liberties, etc.
What a simplistic and misleading discussion. Here is what often happens in PR systems: not only do extremist parties gain representation; usually, none of the mainstream political parties get anywhere close to enough seats to form government by themselves. So instead, _after_ elections, the party bosses get together behind closed doors to negotiate potential coalitions. This often takes weeks, if not months. So not only is there prolonged uncertainty following election day, party insiders end up getting _even more_ say about what governments ultimately look like, and people end up getting even more cynical: "the parties don't mean what they say during elections, for they end up jettisoning what they said they stood for during the campaign for the sake of reaching agreements to form coalition governments." All the mainstream parties end up looking the same, regardless of what they might say during elections, and _no one_ actually votes for the governments that are formed after elections. Here's an example: he cites Germany. The main center-left party, the SDP, pulled a rabbit out of the hat during the last election. But it very nearly collapsed because it went into a "Grand Coalition" for many years with the main center-right party, the CDU/CSU, and many German voters, particularly on the left, began writing off the SDP as CDU-lite, and as hypocritical sellouts -- as saying social democratic stuff during elections, but ultimately entering into conservative government afterwards. "Collaborative governance." At least under the Canadian/British system, given that there is usually (although not always) one party that wins a majority, it is easy to judge whether it is fulfilling its election promises: "you have the authority to enact what you proposed, so did you or did you not fulfill your promises?" PR also usually gets voters to choose around half of their elected officials from party lists, meaning that you vote for a party, and the party then chooses who represents the party. So you end up getting politicians who are really just party insiders and loyalists, and who have zero connection to any specific constituency. This is not to say that Canada has a perfect system. But all electoral systems have pluses and minuses. To pretend otherwise is disingenous. Plus, to lump the American system in with the Canadian/British system because they share first-past-the-post is just wrong. First-past-the-post is just one dimension of those electoral systems, and the American system is much more complex (and I believe much more problematic in all sorts of ways). Totally different systems.
@@Flint-g4h Any system of government needs to actually be efficient. Would the Canadian people countenance three months worth of negotiations before a government is formed, as was the case just recently in the Netherlands? I think not. And if people are already complaining that parties don’t deliver what they promised during elections, just you wait until PR. The government as a de facto rule almost can never enact the platform of any party. More than that, PR is more susceptible to the influence of extremist parties. So representation is not the only factor that should be taken into account. It is fine to prefer PR, but one must be honest about the drawbacks. The guy promoting it in this video is not. He is extremely disingenuous. As a case in point, to compare the Canadian system with the American system is laughable. He would flunk any Political Science 101 course for making that comparison.
@@ER1CwC So you would rather a political ping pong between the conservatives and the liberal party in Canada rather than people actually choosing what they want, also, just look at Britain and Canada where the Liberals and the conservatives have ruined both these two countries to the ground, so much for efficiency.
@@Flint-g4h I live abroad, and I think that for all the problems Canada has, that it is in much better shape than most places. We have not nearly the problems that currently face comparable societies. The far right has cannibalized much of the center right in several countries, many of which are more proportional. Canada does not have that problem. Our system is not perfect, but there are a lot of unintended consequences that might emerge from PR. Again, it is fine to prefer PR. But one should be transparent about the potential problems, and this guy here is plainly not.
I'd rather a tiered voting system where the elected party is from a choice of 2 top choices. Meaning, when Canadians vote, they vote their #1 choice, their #2 choice, their #3 choice and so on. A computer system takes all of their #1 choices and tallies them up. The two parties with the most #1 choice are the only two that make the cut. Then, if a person's vote of #1 didn't make the cut, their number #2 will count (if that #2 party is in the cut) or their #3 vote (if that #3 party made the cut). This will eliminate the problem of having 5 parties to vote for. Canadians would obviously have the option to JUST putting down #1 vote without the need of others, if they choose so.
OH hell NO move to the USA if you want to reduced government to a 2 party system. One of the best things about the multi party system is if there is a minority the party's have to find common ground and WORK to get things done.
This is a distinction without a difference, except for some noise in the system. First past the post gets you: A Lib minority government (159) that's backed by NDP support (25) for a majority vote in parliament of 184 seats, minus the circus noises from a leaderless PPC. Proportional representation gets you: A Lib minority government (109) that's backed by NDP support (65) for a majority vote in parliament of 174 seats plus the circus noises from a leaderless PPC. I'd prefer to see a change where any Federal party has to run candidates in every province and at least 51% of all national ridings to get seats in the parliament, preventing parties that choose not to honestly attempt to represent all of Canada from having seats.
Dear person is reading this you're about to overcome something you've been dealing with!You mind & heart will be at peace again!The weight is being lifted off you right now!Breath! Be Patient!You're going to make it!.Everything will be ok!✊🏾🙌🏾🙏🏽
False name the modern stable successful you are talking about. Australia Canada Singapore Sweden all rich successful country have a Westminster like systems. France is a mess
The real problem is that members can't vote on issues independantly, so we have Partyism where they vote along party lines. In the USA, the only important thing is how many representatives or senators voted for a particular issue. You can both Republicans and Democrats switching sides and voting how they like. That's a strong system. The downside is that it leads to tons of little additions to bills, in order to win over people.
Such nonsense. The goverment continues to ship in millions of people from other countries, and then you complain about the percentage of people. There were more conservative votes than any other party in both previous elections. So by your argument, the other parties should not exist.
And we would have the same issues that Europe has..... Yeah, no, thanks. People will turn to extremes to protest vote. Others will use new parties to split vote. Breeding grounds for populism. Not new voices.
Most PR systems have a minimum support bar that has to be reached like 5% in Germany and 3 in israel i think canada should set it at 10, u gotta convince 1 in 10 Canadians i think thats a decent standard. So ppc and greens would be out bloc as well unless ppl changed how they vote
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada . Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
Just because u don’t like them does not mean that people don’t like them 😂😂 What about Far left fringe luna:tic parties like NDP gaining too much seats ?
@@bobfaam5215 And how is the NDP 'far left fringe'? I mean, they're looking at doubling ODSP, Universal Basic Income, and an increased minimum wage. How is any of that BAD?
@@bobfaam5215 And yeah, there's people who like the PPC. Unfortunately, there's a problem with racism in the PPC, and then on top of that anti-multiculturalism.
@@ChristopherLaHaise If you don’t like Liberals . Then believe me NDP = 4 * Liberals . 4 times much wor:se than Liberals 😂 You can tolerate Liberals in power but you can’t tolerate NDP in power . They will run the country to the ground . And even in the Woke and Social justice policies , they are even more extreme than Liberals . Sorry , I can tolerate Liberals but not NDP . Their leader Jagmeet is anti Gun rights and pro immigration too .
@@ChristopherLaHaise PPC was just created by Bernier to spite the CPC because he was bitter about the fact that he was removed from the party . PPC is more of a protest movement than a real political party . I believe that his immigration policies make sense and he is correct about reducing the immigration . But his other policies are too extreme for mainstream Canadians to digest . It will always remain a Fringe party with more of a nuisance value than having any real impact .
Did this guy say more women in politics is a bad thing? shocking! I personally approve of the current system. The fisheries out east is a perfect example of why it works for such a large and diverse country like canada. Under proportional representation the liberals likely would have won, so while federally it may have its pros, the cons come at the regional level. I don't think it is a settled matter that PR is superior.
He dismissed Israel and Italy as cherry picked counter-arguments, but didn't present how the countries that he cherry picked as being better and how PR has faired for those countries.
Counter argument, install proportional representation it leads to political stability mainly because if 50%, 40% or 30% of the electorate voted for this party than they should get the government that they voted for. Also, first past the post creates false majority government and only produces single party government that can make a whole a bunch of changes, and in the next election the other party just needs a swing of 5% to take back the government with a massive majority and they spend their time undoing what the previous government worked to complete. This disease is what the United States is facing and why our government has become dysfunctional mainly because the Republicans & Democrats only care about winning elections rather than cooperating with each other to achieve policies that benefit all of society. If we had proportional representation than it will lead to coalition governments in which the major parties & smaller parties will be forced to work together in order to get their policies implemented, and it will be far harder to undo legislation of the previous government.
This guy actually thinks more parties in parliamentary system is a good idea....here is I brilliant idea have term limits for the PM like the US president no more than 2 terms,then leadership change by primarying new parties leadership candidates instead of the parties delegates selecting their choice .
Norway has proportional representation and they are ranked high of being a truly democratic nation. As a an American that has lived with first past the post voting, it is an utter mess in my country because the 2 major parties have no interests in cooperating with each other; since they are more concern in winning elections rather than the producing policies that can make our country a better place. Proportional Representation will lead to true majority governments because it will make the legislature truly beholden to the people. Since they have to get 50% of the votes to get a majority of seats to actually govern alone. But this rarely happens because voters are provided with more choices on Election Day which ultimately result in a government that is made up by more than one party. PR strengthens the ideal of majority rule because it is coalitions of smaller parties that team up with the big parties to get the votes they need to earn their mandate to govern.
Also way more people would vote for who they want, not the lesser of two evils.
Yes! Huge benefit is the absence of "strategic voting".
Hence why nether of them will ever allow this.
@@4633-c1t Then we need to stop voting for them and instead choose someone who will.
The problem is that the governing party needs to implement it. And they surely wouldn't boot the electoral system that made them the governing party.
An opposition coalition could push it through without the consent of a governing minority.
would you???
As a Western Canadian who feels my vote and never mattered-all parties cater to Ontario and Quebec where all the votes are-this would make me think I have a voice in Canada
wexit. turn the oil piplines off to the east. boycott all quebec and ontario products
The thing is that they don’t cater to Ontario or Quebec either, they play this big acting game of trying to appear like they cater to all of Canada. We have elitist parties that ignore the will of the people. The idea that the parties cater to Ontario and Quebec is demonstrably false on the fossil fuel front. Also in several social policies for the CPC. The CPC& LPC put large living stresses on the working class of Ontario.
My city had a ranked ballot system set up and doug ford made us get rid of it so I'm not quite sure how starting municipally will help when the premiers can force us to get rid of it
London?
@@michaelrobb9542 Yupper
London's reply to Doug Ford should have been "F you, we'll set up our cities democracy how we want".
Proportional Representation would make parliament so much more democratic. Imagine parties like the greens, ndp being able to prevent harmful legislation from passing.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
What a novel concept! To bad the things in power will never allow that, we need to take it.
things? what things?
@@redddedd1974 The vile creatures that are currently holding power, they need to be dealt with.
@@yomielepus1348 exactly
"More extreemism, ... more polarization, less choice, more women in politics, more distortion more exaggerated regionalism" hmm, one of these things is not like the others.
surely he must have misspoke and meant "less women in politics" in this case?
@@stephanesiewecke I think that must be the case, he didn't catch it when he said it though so who knows.
WE 100% NEED PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! this is coming from someone who does not want to see cons lead the country. but still. fair is fair.
THis is why we will never get proportional representation Justin will never give up his advantage.
Yeah that's what I was thinking too. With this being his second win in a row without winning the popular vote he'll never change the system. I doubt he would even introduce ranked ballots
L Freezin' actually ranked ballots would benefit the liberal party which is why he wanted it as it would effectively turn Canada into a one party state with a permanent liberal majority government.
the day he broke his promise on proportional representation was the day the liberals lost my vote under his leadership
Excellent speaker. Please have him on CBC again!
it would mean the world to me to have a vote that got counted
It got counted, stop saying it didn’t. Like me, you live in an area where it is so heavily favoured in one direction that realistically there is no chance of the candidate you vote for winning.
Wait...did he just say "more women in politics" like it's a bad thing?! What?
That was a funny brow-raising misspeak. He meant the opposite because ProRep is proven to increase elected women and minorities.
Yes he said that. I have only just started to look into this but he said it aaaaand he seems to be very educated on this subject.
@@howbeu What are you implying?
Was definitely an error in what he said. He misspoke. That's definitely not what their position is though.
I guess sometimes there can be too much of a good thing LOL
it will not happen, because the ruling party will not want it. If we had a Senate that actually meant anything, we could start there, and that could work but not under current system
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
@@bobfaam5215 proportional representation is a nightmare, you just have to look at some of the countries that have it.
@@deanbusch2727 True . GTA area will completely dominate the politics in proportional representation and this will make the other regions feel left out .
@@bobfaam5215 GTA already dominates under our current system just google it and look north of Naigara theres 50 seats in an area the size of PEI, that keeps the Liberals in power.
@@deanbusch2727 Yes but why didn’t conservative’s reduce those seats when they were in power under Harper ?
Look at London Ontario municipal voting system. I never thought of this angel before, but he's absolutely right. Provinces will learn from cities, and the Feds will learn from provinces. It's down top thinking instead of top down thinking 🤔
Isn't Australia our sister country? If they do it well, why can't we?
Over 92% vote in Australia. Canada sits at just over 60%. Canadians seem to simply not care.
@@InvisiMan2006And Australia has compulsory voting
The NDP and the Greens have PR in their platform
So did the Liberals in 2015.
A better voting system would be "tier voting" where you ranked the candidates 1,2,3,4 etc. They tally the vote and if nobody reaches 50%, they eliminate the person in last place those votes go towards whoever they ranked second. This continues until someone reaches 50%.
It stops (for the most part) strategic voting, is more proportional and represents the interests of the community's better.
Definitely better that FPSP. But then we will forever have Liberals at the helm -- because they are the "middle" choice.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
We need proportional representation badly.
This is the best piece of CBC journalism I have seen in decades
Toronto used to be called Tory Toronto, tons of blue voters in Toronto but many dont even bother because they know their vote doesnt make a difference
That was back when people had jobs and went to work.
Canada needs proportional representation to get Canada working with a government that represents all of us and will most likely address our issues.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
@@bobfaam5215
So...Canada shouldn't be a proper democracy because people will vote for far right or far left parties?
Transparent, rational enough views😎
Intelligent discussion. I am now convinced that this is the way to go. Thank you.
Woohoo!! One more convert. : )
Harper had 5 elections in 10 years. While I agree that our system needs work, I highly doubt it will happen because it keeps working for the winning party. All the others want it until they have the power.
Watch to the end of the video. He addresses this.
"Harper had 5 elections in 10 years."
Huh?? Care to explain that one?
how did you get that? 2006 (minority), 2008(minority), and 2011(majority). 2008 was called by a motion of non-confidence by the other parties. 2015 was by law must be held. and that's still four elections, he only started 2 - 2006 and 2011.
Roll call how they are voting on bills, against Universal Pharmacare & Wealth tax. We need PR, to recouple wages to productivity 2
while they are at, why not cut the seats from 338 to say about 200, less overstaffing in Ottawa!
Everyone knows that proportional representation works? I don't think that's a true statement. How do you ensure local representation? Who would people be voting for? How are MP's assigned?
Quebecs plan was to have MMP “with regions”, so the extra members that are needed to balance the seats would come from the same general region instead of just “a list”.
@@pepperpillow I hadn't ever heard of an MMP system. Thanks for replying with that info!
@@Kingbobco no problem!
Okay I do wonder with those numbers if it is a national number of votes or regional (provinces and territories) because I'd Imagine they would have slightly different outcomes depending on what were going with. The bloc for example is situated yes in the second most populous province but proportional representation on a national level would lower that seat count I'd imagine. Regionally a party like the PPC I feel would suffer more because of how far their vote is spread out across the country.
Also something to note, this proportional system leading to a coalition of just these parties (no splintering) would still lead to what we are likely to see with the progressive Liberals and NDP alone having more of a share than all the other parties combined. Not that I expect the greens for example to back the PPC.
There would never be a majority again, which may be a good thing but the chances there would be a right leaning win again, I think would become very slim in it's own right. Based off of this and past data I've seen. Not trying to come for anyone favorites.
I would almost expect the liberals and conservatives cease to exist under proportional representation. Why would anyone ever vote for one of those parties if you didn’t have to worry about the other getting into power?
Agreed, the Liberals, NDP and Greens would coalesce and consistently outvote all others. Neither the Liberals or Conservatives would ever want proportional representation given Canada's left leaning populace.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
@@Trythis837 Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
@@bobfaam5215 500,000 immigrants a year and a ban on 50% of the firearms in the country isn’t extremist?
The seat results wouldn't look like that under PR. There's no way we'd implement a purely proportional system and minimum requirement of 5% to receive top up seats is fairly widely accepted. So Green party would still only get two seats under PR (if we had MMP).
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
Thresholds are undemocratic.
WHAT IS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION? Can someone EXPLAIN THAT before going into lengthy discussion next time.
when you get 15% of the vote then you get 15% of the power. Currently 15% of the vote gets 100% of the power.
Ironic that most supporters of PR are left-of-centre, but the right-wing would have more power under PR based on these numbers.
Yes I would think that a majority of the population would get their choice. Not based on idiotic seat numbers. A liberal or conservative thinking person isn't a box as pushed by this system. Most are a liberal or conservative voter that is over the other side a bit. People vote for whom their riding is going to do their job. Even if they disagree with the leadership. Not a good system. Great managed riding... horrible Ottawa leadership
I don't think it's ironic. I support democracy, and even if those I disagree with get power, it would be the will of the people.
I think those on the left support it out of principle but the right wing wouldn’t have more power. The Libs/Greens/NDP could form a permanent coalition and block that from happening. A conservative/ppc/bloc coalition wouldn’t be a majority and would produce awkward outcomes
@@dty1207 Politics does not work that way . If NDP and Liberal become a permanent coalition . Then the more centrist Liberal voters will gravitate towards Conservatives .
Just like if Conservative party became a far right party , it’s centrist voters will gravitate towards Liberals .
Also NDP as an independent political party will cease to exist and will have to merge with Liberals .
Why to vote for NDP if they are going to align with the Liberals anyway ?
Why not vote for Liberals directly instead ?
So if NDP keeps on aligning with Liberals , it’s very existence will be a question mark .?
@@bobfaam5215 you’re ranting with conjecture based off your own partisan political opinions. My statement was based off factual voter opinion data. The overwhelmingly majority of liberal and nbp voters support each other’s party’s as second choices. There is an extremely small faction of liberal voters that would support the conservatives over the NDP as their 2nd choice.
I still believe ranked choice is the best option.
Agreed. PR is a nice idea, but people who push for it don't understand the importance of local members of parliament to their constituency. Ranked ballot is an improvement without having to tear down what works about our current system.
Mixed Member Proportional would keep the districts as it is; but the legislature would expand to ensure that political parties vote share accurately reflect the number of votes they get. You would still have local representative under MMP to represent your district, but you would also have list representatives that will be a representative for the political party. So in this regard, you would have a member still fighting for you.
@@theyoungcentrist9110 again, the simplest change we make is ranked choice voting. Literally only 2 things change and that’s the physical ballot, as well as the way we count the ballots…. That’s it. It’s the first logical step toward a more representative government. Reasoning: if 50%plus one of people in the riding vote for that person chances are that riding isn’t far off. I know where your going with this where one persons vote in Nova Scotia equals one persons vote in BC but the method you have proposed removes the possibility of a person going against their party (which does happen rarely).
British Columbia had two referendums on this. They both failed.
Actually, they've had THREE! And in one of them, the voters chose YES... with 57% of the vote. Which is higher support than ANY party has every received in BC. So... there you go.
Journalists & politicians mislead many in filling out the ballots in BC. 2 questions, yet if u only answered 1 the ballot was thrown out
Dave is correct about PR being the most democratic system that most first world democracies have. Problem in Canada is it's not discussed fully so most are uninformed and don't push for it.
The problem with proportional representation is that it will give too much power to densely populated areas like GTA and other areas will loose influence .
Also regional parties like BQ will loose influence and majority of Quebec population will not like it and it will lead to calls for independence of Quebec .
Even other less populated areas will loose the influence
Cities don't bunch up and vote for the same party, individuals vote.
Yes and no. Individuals vote, this is true. But individuals of any particular community’s interests predominantly tend to align with each other’s. Of course, there’s going to be exceptions, but generally big cities tend to lean left, rural communities lean right. Even in Ontario, GTA, London, Kitchener/Waterloo are usually red, the rest of Ontario is fairly consistently blue.
4:08 anyone else hear someone taking a bong hit?
HAHAHA -- when he listed "more women in politics" as one of many problems I laughed out loud. Anyway -- let's have real elections
Would trying to move to PPR not require constitutional amendments? If so, what are the chances of that happening? Imagine the fallout of attempting to open that Pandora's box?
Proportional representation is idiotic. Why have seats at all? Are we voting for the party leader or for individual members of parliament? If it is for the party leader then why give out jobs to party apparatchiks? If you are voting for individual parliamentarians then they need to earn their own mandates. PR is for the feeble minded.
I've been waiting for this for a long time. Other countries have improved their government and we doddle.
I don't like proportional voting because there will be no MPs fighting for regional issues. Within years of a promotional voting system being implemented you will see lifetime MPs from major cities like Toronto and Canada.
Not so there mixed proportional systems too like German. We have the least fair system like USA and Britain
There's nothing radical about the PPC or Boris Johnson.
So Parliament would become even more divided, but with increasingly extreme parties moving closer to the levers of power.
No it wouldn't. Parliament would be forced to work together.
the exact opposite
@@PhilipPetrunak They'd spend so much time cobbling together a working majority they'd get nothing done. Or worse, mainstream will have to become more extreme to cater to fringe parties
1. We know from actual, real world experience that governance under such systems actually gets MORE done. The fact that their voters have other viable options of people to vote for means they need to be responsive to the will of the voters.
2. They wouldn't be "fringe parties". IF 10% of the country believes
@@PhilipPetrunak if he cares about fringe party's just set a threshold to get seats we have one for the requirements to the debate at 4%nationally so just set the threshold at 5% or 4% like most country's
Wait, did he say our system was likely to lead to more women in politics like that's a bad thing?
No, he was saying that a proportional style voting system would lead to more women in politics, which he is saying as a positive.
My mail in ballot was requested early, mailed to me on sept 11th, i received it on sept 20th so i didnt get to vote. How many people got their ballots too late to vote?
Covid. You still could have voted. All you had to do is present yourself
@@truckerdaddy-akajohninqueb4793
Covid - the be all and end all of excuses.
@@truckerdaddy-akajohninqueb4793 i am away from my riding so mail in voting was the only option
@@susanb4816 they are sent asap you could have mailed it and it would have been counted. there priority mail your loss for not following the instructions.
@@TheNaznine i DID follow the instructions. Sheesh, so judgemental. The ballot had to be received by elections canada on sept 20, 6 p.m. ii was mailed to me on sept 11th, so it took 9 days. I could have walked it here faster. I am in rural ontario and the person who delivered my ballot is the same person who takes my mail so my ballot wouldnt even have been mailed until the 21st. It would not have been counted so i did not mail it.
Stop voting Lib/Con and maybe we can get electoral reform!
And a country in shambles.
What sort of proportional representation was used to calculate the projections? It doesn't seem to be MMP because you only end up with one more MP. It has the effect of MMP, though -- regional parties are greatly weakened. I don't think Quebec would support any system that chopped a third off the Bloc caucus. A Western regional party would be similarly weakened. That's why I voted No in the 2007 referendum in Ontario -- under the MMP plan they proposed Northern Ontario (with a population of 800,000) would have been swamped by votes from Southern Ontario (population 14,000,000), and the North would have even less influence in the legislature.
Brexit happened because of Proportional Representation it gave Nigel a voice on national TV that we wouldn't have had if not for the EU system. We could probably get rid of Quebec though, so let's do it. We had a referendum in BC and those systems were defeated handily. I don't disagree with the obviously educated guest, but I don't know. I would like our system more if the Liberals were not so corporate. Why can't we just have a socially liberal, fiscally conservative government? God, I miss Paul Martin.
I honestly don't understand....so why vote at all??
I wish we had proportional representation
Is that with the ranked ballot system or MMP?
MMP or STV, ranked choice ballot is not a proportional system.
@@DLCguy So you want Party List PR.
@@timmanto1022 Any proportional system would be fine with me.
@@DLCguy ranked ballot scares the right because over 60% of Canada voted left wing parties.
I'd be worried about the whole splintering concept, if it did happen. I doubt conservatives would splinter, they have their ideological dichotomies in them and the PPC, but I could see NDP doing so.... there is a lot of space to the left of the Liberal party to take up, and the NDP has a hard time covering all those bases.... from fringe expectations like 20$ minimum wage, to more reasonable proposals like pharmacare.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
And that’s why neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will ever get rid of First past the post. I won’t be bothering to vote next time. There is no point to it.
Always vote. Your choice needs to know where the support is. or isn't.
What about equal representation / from the popular vote
That is literally the entire point of the video.
the numbers would be different but the results would be the same a minority government supported by the NDP, right?
Perhaps we need an even more inclusive form of government that uses the power of the internet to involve everyone, however, it has to be done the right way because in practice not every citizen can vote on or even understand every single issue and proposal. Is there a way that democracy can be respected yet knowledgeable experts who understand particular issues still get to make decisions on those issues.
I don't like that word 'inclusive'. It means putting people in positions of power who don't deserve to be there. You just including them, they haven't earned it.
Notice that this PR model would only result in what we currently have under FPP. A Liberal minority govt if supported by more progressive parties.
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
Electoral Reform Party Anyone???
It would be a mess. Overtime it would lead to many many parties , fringe parties, unruly, incoherent opportunistic coalitions
Just like it has in all the most stable, developed countries which use PR...
@@felixxtcat Israel and Italy are not anomalies, they are the logical outcome, especially with the increasing polarisation we are currently seeing in politics.
338 grownups yelling at each other - that is canadian parliament saaaaad
Not a fan of proportional. I’d prefer ranked choice
anything over FPTP honestly. I like ranked because you can vote your conscience and know you aren't wasting it. Approval would be nice, also
If you want a truly fair votijg system there is no argunent against it unless, "like most" people blatantly straw man you.
The Prairies already feel disenfranchised by having less seats combined than the GTA alone. PR would only make that worse.
The GTA alone has more people than all the Prairies combined. PR would force MPs elected by people in each region to collaborate instead of cynically roadblocking each other at every opportunity.
Why do you think it would make it worse?
Like it has been stated main times most large nations should be separated into smaller ones and truly that is always the outcome historically. As the anger at Toronto having power over the rest of Canada will boil over eventually as it always does. No county last forever and most fall from within.
did this guy imply more woman in politics was a bad thing?
I think he mispoke and probably meant less women participate
Hey Kissan! I just mixed up my words. haha. ; p
Proportional voting would elect MORE women... which is (of course) a good thing.
Lady in Borgen and Madame Jacinda is waiting for Proportional Rep.
yes please!
This should be what it is, but swap the numbers between PPC and Green. Far Right wing Parties like theirs need the least amount of a voice as possible.
Ah yes the non-radical extreme-left Green party that calls Omar Khadr a hero and make Trudeau's deficits look like peanuts.
U can't just swap the numbers because u don't like them
Didn't know having a house is far right...thanks for the insite.
@@lornemyers6638 Imagine thinking that having a house makes you far right🙄
@@Nephalem2002 or paying taxes. Lots of taxes.
Is the only qualification one needs to be considered an expert is having declared yourself one?
The countries this guy uses as examples have voter turnouts in the 80 and 90%... Canada has a voter turnout of 63%. You can't have a "proportional" system in Canada with those numbers.
The problem with proportional representation is that it will give too much power to densely populated areas like GTA and other areas will loose influence .
Also regional parties like BQ will loose influence and majority of Quebec population will not like it and it will lead to calls for independence of Quebec .
Even other less populated areas will loose the influence
The prairie provinces gave women the right to vote in 1916. The federal government followed three years later, not thirty.
Also the origin of Canadian public health care, in Saskatchewan. Those darn progressive westerners and their long history of out progressing the east.
He referred to municipal versus federal voting. I looked up municipal and found it to be 1884.
Municipal first. Then provincial. Then federal.
I really don't see how this would work well in Canada. We're so physically big that there's so much diversity solely due to geography, which is why I think people being able to vote for someone to represent them in Parliament is so important; the government simply isn't able to spend enough time in every riding to fully understand it. If it was divided up in terms of proportion, would there not be at least some ridings represented by an mp whose party the majority of those constituents didn't vote for? It just seems that all these countries under proportional representation that are used as an example are much smaller than Canada, which means geographic diversity really isn't as big of a consideration.
@Hannah The common "we're too big" excuse, everyone who's either ignorant of the facts or is secretly against something always uses that as an excuse. Republicans use it all the time as an excuse to not implement single payer healthcare across the country because "we're just too big".
@@W.LL1999 i wouldn’t say ignorant, but rather wary. healthcare imo is not a good example - if all healthcare is provided to those who need it, then regional differences in the type of healthcare needed wouldn’t be a factor. the fact is simply that there are no examples of a country comparable to canada who has successfully had a proportional representation system, so i don’t really think that we can look to other countries who are so different than us as an example for why it *will* work here. not saying it never could, but you can’t apply something for one situation to another situation without considering how factors not seen in other examples (such as wider geography) may affect it
There are ways to give representatives by using STV or MMP.
@@hannahmarie08 Australia is not much different than us. population on the sides and nothing in the middle.
So basically you want to just call people extreme and then use your labels as an arguments against giving them representation.
Um, isn't the Bloc a fringe party??? regionalism? Do they really deserve that many seats with so little proportional representation? Interesting they weren't mentioned at all.
Not fringe. They represent millions of Quebecers.
They are mainstream in Quebec where they operate. The Green Party is fringe. Argueably the PPC is but they pulled in 5% nationally which is the minimum to be an official federal party.
Quebecois is the “backup” Government for Quebec in the event they secede.
Preferential voting systems such as "ranked-choice voting" are the way forward.
Proportional representation voting systems are conceptually flawed because they *require* political parties in order to function. Hence, it would be impossible to elect all independent candidates to government.
I am opposed to political parties so I will never support a voting system that effectively mandates them.
Hey Jon! Actually, both MMP and STV allow for independent candidates. In fact, it would be easier to run as independent under either system, than it is under FPTP. (And, if you haven't noticed, we aren't electing any now, under the current system - with a few very rare excaptions!)
Ranked choice voting. So you just gamble with who you think is going to win, and put down your first and second choice? lol
Political parties are the hall marks of a democracy and there the key to a free society. Also, countries like Norway use party list proportional representation and they are higher score when it comes to functioning government, civil liberties, etc.
You don't want wackos with a couple of %. If someone says the earth is flat you don't debate them you walk away. Glad he brought up Italy.
I agree the Green party are clearly disconnected from reality, and want us to all live as hunter gatherers
That is what Parlament is for, to give voice to all views and allow for public debate and consensis building.
lmao advocating for less democracy and if that's what people want then they get it you just bringing up a fringe case
What about Far left fringe luna:tic parties like NDP gaining too much seats under proportional representation ?
@@kippie80
What about Far left fringe luna:tic parties like NDP gaining too much seats under proportional representation ?
What a simplistic and misleading discussion. Here is what often happens in PR systems: not only do extremist parties gain representation; usually, none of the mainstream political parties get anywhere close to enough seats to form government by themselves. So instead, _after_ elections, the party bosses get together behind closed doors to negotiate potential coalitions. This often takes weeks, if not months. So not only is there prolonged uncertainty following election day, party insiders end up getting _even more_ say about what governments ultimately look like, and people end up getting even more cynical: "the parties don't mean what they say during elections, for they end up jettisoning what they said they stood for during the campaign for the sake of reaching agreements to form coalition governments." All the mainstream parties end up looking the same, regardless of what they might say during elections, and _no one_ actually votes for the governments that are formed after elections.
Here's an example: he cites Germany. The main center-left party, the SDP, pulled a rabbit out of the hat during the last election. But it very nearly collapsed because it went into a "Grand Coalition" for many years with the main center-right party, the CDU/CSU, and many German voters, particularly on the left, began writing off the SDP as CDU-lite, and as hypocritical sellouts -- as saying social democratic stuff during elections, but ultimately entering into conservative government afterwards. "Collaborative governance."
At least under the Canadian/British system, given that there is usually (although not always) one party that wins a majority, it is easy to judge whether it is fulfilling its election promises: "you have the authority to enact what you proposed, so did you or did you not fulfill your promises?"
PR also usually gets voters to choose around half of their elected officials from party lists, meaning that you vote for a party, and the party then chooses who represents the party. So you end up getting politicians who are really just party insiders and loyalists, and who have zero connection to any specific constituency.
This is not to say that Canada has a perfect system. But all electoral systems have pluses and minuses. To pretend otherwise is disingenous. Plus, to lump the American system in with the Canadian/British system because they share first-past-the-post is just wrong. First-past-the-post is just one dimension of those electoral systems, and the American system is much more complex (and I believe much more problematic in all sorts of ways). Totally different systems.
The pros of PR outweighs the cons, parliament is about representation not a sport club between two sides
@@Flint-g4h Any system of government needs to actually be efficient. Would the Canadian people countenance three months worth of negotiations before a government is formed, as was the case just recently in the Netherlands? I think not. And if people are already complaining that parties don’t deliver what they promised during elections, just you wait until PR. The government as a de facto rule almost can never enact the platform of any party. More than that, PR is more susceptible to the influence of extremist parties. So representation is not the only factor that should be taken into account. It is fine to prefer PR, but one must be honest about the drawbacks. The guy promoting it in this video is not. He is extremely disingenuous. As a case in point, to compare the Canadian system with the American system is laughable. He would flunk any Political Science 101 course for making that comparison.
@@ER1CwC
So you would rather a political ping pong between the conservatives and the liberal party in Canada rather than people actually choosing what they want, also, just look at Britain and Canada where the Liberals and the conservatives have ruined both these two countries to the ground, so much for efficiency.
@@Flint-g4h I live abroad, and I think that for all the problems Canada has, that it is in much better shape than most places. We have not nearly the problems that currently face comparable societies. The far right has cannibalized much of the center right in several countries, many of which are more proportional. Canada does not have that problem. Our system is not perfect, but there are a lot of unintended consequences that might emerge from PR. Again, it is fine to prefer PR. But one should be transparent about the potential problems, and this guy here is plainly not.
@@ER1CwC
Ok...
I'd rather a tiered voting system where the elected party is from a choice of 2 top choices. Meaning, when Canadians vote, they vote their #1 choice, their #2 choice, their #3 choice and so on. A computer system takes all of their #1 choices and tallies them up. The two parties with the most #1 choice are the only two that make the cut. Then, if a person's vote of #1 didn't make the cut, their number #2 will count (if that #2 party is in the cut) or their #3 vote (if that #3 party made the cut). This will eliminate the problem of having 5 parties to vote for. Canadians would obviously have the option to JUST putting down #1 vote without the need of others, if they choose so.
OH hell NO move to the USA if you want to reduced government to a 2 party system. One of the best things about the multi party system is if there is a minority the party's have to find common ground and WORK to get things done.
I’d prefer ranked ballot. I like to choose my rep instead of having a party lifer appointed which I believe happens with proportional rep
Not necessarily a lifer; some systems have the electorate vote for party's representatives in the government.
I completely agree. PR means a party decides who your MP is.
Revolution not reform
Great interview.
Thanks! : )
@@dave_meslin You did a really good job.
Kudos and respect.
stink just like the current mob system
probably look alot more fair
More women in politics?
This is a distinction without a difference, except for some noise in the system.
First past the post gets you: A Lib minority government (159) that's backed by NDP support (25) for a majority vote in parliament of 184 seats, minus the circus noises from a leaderless PPC.
Proportional representation gets you: A Lib minority government (109) that's backed by NDP support (65) for a majority vote in parliament of 174 seats plus the circus noises from a leaderless PPC.
I'd prefer to see a change where any Federal party has to run candidates in every province and at least 51% of all national ridings to get seats in the parliament, preventing parties that choose not to honestly attempt to represent all of Canada from having seats.
Why would I even bother to vote Conservatives if I live in a Liberal district?
Vote in another district then. That's what I did.
Dear person is reading this you're about to overcome something you've been dealing with!You mind & heart will be at peace again!The weight is being lifted off you right now!Breath! Be Patient!You're going to make it!.Everything will be ok!✊🏾🙌🏾🙏🏽
Cool. Thanks! (...?)
False name the modern stable successful you are talking about. Australia Canada Singapore Sweden all rich successful country have a Westminster like systems. France is a mess
The real problem is that members can't vote on issues independantly, so we have Partyism where they vote along party lines. In the USA, the only important thing is how many representatives or senators voted for a particular issue. You can both Republicans and Democrats switching sides and voting how they like. That's a strong system. The downside is that it leads to tons of little additions to bills, in order to win over people.
@@fredsky7131 Its really the parties that like PR, I would prefer to vote for a candidate that would repesent the riding where I live.
The problem with that argument is the CONS or the right are good for 38% of the vote at best.
no problem with that. we should be represented for what we really are.
@@gregsantiago1669
Nation wide, all right wing parties are less than 40%.
So Conservatives have no business in politics at the federal level.
okay so get more support or just work with ohter parties instead of winning a false majority
Such nonsense. The goverment continues to ship in millions of people from other countries, and then you complain about the percentage of people. There were more conservative votes than any other party in both previous elections. So by your argument, the other parties should not exist.
And we would have the same issues that Europe has..... Yeah, no, thanks.
People will turn to extremes to protest vote. Others will use new parties to split vote. Breeding grounds for populism. Not new voices.
Most PR systems have a minimum support bar that has to be reached like 5% in Germany and 3 in israel i think canada should set it at 10, u gotta convince 1 in 10 Canadians i think thats a decent standard. So ppc and greens would be out bloc as well unless ppl changed how they vote
Proportional representation is not good because it will give the Fringe Left like NDP and Fringe Right like PPC too much power which is not good for Canada .
Fringe extremists will gain more power which will be harmful to the country
This is not good
Disgusting
THIS TELLS YOU ITS ABOUT GOVT !! NOT PEOPLE !!
This guy does a bad job making a good case.
Well, that's better than if I did a good job making a bad case.
Too many seats for the PPC, though the rest is fine.
Just because u don’t like them does not mean that people don’t like them 😂😂
What about Far left fringe luna:tic parties like NDP gaining too much seats ?
@@bobfaam5215 And how is the NDP 'far left fringe'? I mean, they're looking at doubling ODSP, Universal Basic Income, and an increased minimum wage. How is any of that BAD?
@@bobfaam5215 And yeah, there's people who like the PPC. Unfortunately, there's a problem with racism in the PPC, and then on top of that anti-multiculturalism.
@@ChristopherLaHaise If you don’t like Liberals .
Then believe me NDP = 4 * Liberals .
4 times much wor:se than Liberals 😂
You can tolerate Liberals in power but you can’t tolerate NDP in power .
They will run the country to the ground .
And even in the Woke and Social justice policies , they are even more extreme than Liberals .
Sorry , I can tolerate Liberals but not NDP .
Their leader Jagmeet is anti Gun rights and pro immigration too .
@@ChristopherLaHaise PPC was just created by Bernier to spite the CPC because he was bitter about the fact that he was removed from the party . PPC is more of a protest movement than a real political party .
I believe that his immigration policies make sense and he is correct about reducing the immigration .
But his other policies are too extreme for mainstream Canadians to digest .
It will always remain a Fringe party with more of a nuisance value than having any real impact .
Yes to PR!
Did this guy say more women in politics is a bad thing? shocking! I personally approve of the current system. The fisheries out east is a perfect example of why it works for such a large and diverse country like canada. Under proportional representation the liberals likely would have won, so while federally it may have its pros, the cons come at the regional level. I don't think it is a settled matter that PR is superior.
He dismissed Israel and Italy as cherry picked counter-arguments, but didn't present how the countries that he cherry picked as being better and how PR has faired for those countries.
Keep first past the post it breaks stalemates
We would be going to the polls monthly
@@seanwojcik6068 Under a system of representation yes but not under our current system.
SO WHAT! it does NOT represent the will of the people.
Counter argument, install proportional representation it leads to political stability mainly because if 50%, 40% or 30% of the electorate voted for this party than they should get the government that they voted for. Also, first past the post creates false majority government and only produces single party government that can make a whole a bunch of changes, and in the next election the other party just needs a swing of 5% to take back the government with a massive majority and they spend their time undoing what the previous government worked to complete. This disease is what the United States is facing and why our government has become dysfunctional mainly because the Republicans & Democrats only care about winning elections rather than cooperating with each other to achieve policies that benefit all of society. If we had proportional representation than it will lead to coalition governments in which the major parties & smaller parties will be forced to work together in order to get their policies implemented, and it will be far harder to undo legislation of the previous government.
This guy actually thinks more parties in parliamentary system is a good idea....here is I brilliant idea have term limits for the PM like the US president no more than 2 terms,then leadership change by primarying new parties leadership candidates instead of the parties delegates selecting their choice .
The Canadian system is actually more responsive. We can change the PM anytime we want to.
South America & Africa has proportional representation and it's a mess
South America and Africa are not countries. Different countries have different systems.
Norway has proportional representation and they are ranked high of being a truly democratic nation. As a an American that has lived with first past the post voting, it is an utter mess in my country because the 2 major parties have no interests in cooperating with each other; since they are more concern in winning elections rather than the producing policies that can make our country a better place. Proportional Representation will lead to true majority governments because it will make the legislature truly beholden to the people. Since they have to get 50% of the votes to get a majority of seats to actually govern alone. But this rarely happens because voters are provided with more choices on Election Day which ultimately result in a government that is made up by more than one party. PR strengthens the ideal of majority rule because it is coalitions of smaller parties that team up with the big parties to get the votes they need to earn their mandate to govern.