this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
14 points (93.8% liked)

Fairvote Canada

471 readers
186 users here now

Matrix Chat


What is This Group is About?

De Quoi Parle ce Groupe?


The unofficial non-partisan Lemmy movement to bring proportional representation to all levels of government in Canada.

🗳️Voters deserve more choice and accountability from all politicians.


Le mouvement non officiel et non partisan de Lemmy visant à introduire la représentation proportionnelle à tous les niveaux de gouvernement au Canada.

🗳️Les électeurs méritent davantage de choix et de responsabilité de la part de tous les politiciens.




Related Communities/Communautés Associées

Resources/Ressources

Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles



We're looking for more moderators, especially those who are of French and indigenous identities.


Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.


founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

I am going to preface this by saying that this was shared with me by a friend and I am still trying to get my head wrapped around it. I am not an expert or even well read on the subject but do believe that the voting systems in Canada need to change. I post in the interest of building the discussion in this community.

I like single transferrable vote (STV), but it’s unlikely to catch on because it needs number crunching in the backend to apportion the excess votes to (hopefully) improve proportionality. I can see it being accused of corruption by the fact and critical-thinking challenged demographic.

Baden-Württemberg solves that by saying that every riding has two members, one who wins the popular vote, and one who is selected from the runners-up in a manner that best enhances proportionality, but still focuses on the high vote earners.

Mixed member proportional representation (MMR) is too easily gamed by parties to embed unelectable party hacks/loyalists (as experienced in NZ).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Subscript5676@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To the “brainwashing our kids” crowd, my stance is that the kids can decide for themselves if it’s brainwashing, as long as we aren’t actually doing that, and is instead simply equipping them with the ability to think on their own. So I’m not bothered by them, and I think we should make that narrative clear enough, with experts in and out of power to have their say, and the rest can complain all they want. I do understand that that doesn’t always work well in our political climate; just look at the carbon tax, but if we hold ourselves back just because some crowd might fight back, and essentially do nothing, based on the trajectory where things are going, I fear that we’re only sleepwalking ourselves into ruin. This applies to adopting PR as well.

In other words, I’d rather we say that we’ve tried to do things that we have good reasons to believe are good and may actually steer us in the right direction, than go for something that might please more people but is no different from our current trajectory.

[–] StoneyPicton@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Don't forget, to many children a property. The purpose of procreation is to ensure that your own stupid, narrow sighted, ill-informed views propagate across centuries. Brutal isn't it. I understand that doing something is better than nothing but at the same time you have to allow that the illusion of progress is perhaps more dangerous. It's a conundrum that I fear will be our demise. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this but I'm too stuck in my malaise to be convinced that anyone can see the forest in the trees. Cheers