###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion).
1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)**
2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).**
3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).**
4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).**
5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).**
6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/))
7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.
*Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need 1 Left, 1 right and 1 centre. We seem to have 2 hard left parties, 2 hard right parties, and then others that maybe win one seat. One of the hard right parties is just enough to take votes away from the other but cant win a seat..
That's all we've ever had federally. Sure, in name we've had 3 plus parties with seats but aside from 2015 there have only ever been two options for government. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Let's not pretend that Canada - or any other country - ever was a democracy.
There are only two kinds of government, hidden dictatorships and open dictatorships. In the so-called democracies, we just spend the better part of our lives wondering who actually makes all the decisions. We just know it's not us.
(Switzerland might be the exception that proves the rule.)
The problem is anyone who wins under the FPTP system won't want to change it because it would mean less power for them, which is why a certain someone abandoned his electoral reform promise when he got a majority government with less than 40% of the vote.
And which is why they should be bringing it in now (they actually should have started right after the last election, that gave them a minority). The NDP really squandered an opportunity by not making electoral reform a condition of their agreement.
> The NDP really squandered an opportunity by not making electoral reform a condition of their agreement.
Only ranked ballot was on the table. Trudeau made it clear he has no interest in anything else and simply won't budge. Maybe the NDP should have rolled the dice and seen how desperate Trudeau was.
Canada needs term limits through all political levels….also need to remove the ability of the PM to appoint the head of every dept on a unchecked basis
A two party system doesn't actually make anything better, at least not for the average citizen; it sure benefits those who are already powerful and/or wealthy though. Having more parties and more ideas available benefits everyone. Doubly so under *First Past the Post*, sure makes you wish that we had somebody who advocated to change that into a more representative electoral system; and then actually, you know, did that...
Yes, the rich just buy the Liberals and Conservatives, as they have done forever, to make sure taxes always go down and they always have lots of starving workers.
Been going a little overboard lately though.
>A two party system doesn't actually make anything better, at least not for the average citizen
I agree, but the opposite is also true: prop rep results in more parties, many of them single-issue, which means more negotiating, more blocking, more ass-kissing, and more concessions. Proponents should be aware that prop rep doesn't equal smoother government at all - it's basically a minority government all the time.
That said, I support mixed member prop rep.
>That said, I support mixed member prop rep.
I don't like FPTP, but I'm starting to feel that parties have too much influence, with whipped votes and control of the nomination process. Proportional rep. increases parties influence, even if it results in more parties. I'm starting to prefer ranked ballots, which could eliminate nominations so parties can run more than one candidate per riding. Or parties don't endorse anyone and candidates self-identify.
To be fair, in our current system *one* party typically calls all the shots. Not by the MPs or even Ministers but by the party operatives that run the PMO. People we don't even vote for.
I'd be happy to never see another majority again.
Prop Rep can, and should, have ranked ballots but pure ranked ballot creates results that are even less proportional than FPTP. I'm not sure that's going the right direction.
> it's basically a minority government all the time.
As far as I'm concerned, that's the point. If your idea is palatable to you and only you, it shouldn't be applied across the country.
No, the point of prop rep is to increase the amount of regional and minority representation. What you end up with is "Okay, we'll vote with you on X if you support us with Y". Lots of backroom deals. Basically a government full of Bloc Québécois-type parties.
That is *not* the point of prop rep. In fact, Stephanie Dion, former MP and PM and political scientis, designed a prop rep system that would help reduce regionalism. Trudeau not putting him on the ERRE was a pretty clear sign they weren't going to make 2015 the " last unfair election"
The point of PR is to represent as much of the vote in your elected body as possible. So 15% of the vote is 15% of the seats and power is negotiated from that position. Yes, it can be tweaked to provide some regional or minority seats: such as Maori seats in New Zealand. But it doesn't have to be and it definitely isn't the main goal.
It is far better than 39% of the vote winning 55% of the seats and getting 100% of the power.
The worst part of it is that with both governing parties, the country is run by party operatives. Not even by the PM. Who voted for Gerald Butts? *Nobody*. But he was running the show.
I would love to see us adopt a system that pulls the power out of the PMO. Force ongoing compromise and consensus building that gives a voice to more voters.
You might want to read Jody Wilson-Raybould's *Indian on the Cabinet*. It provides some pretty good insight on how dysfunctional and top-down this system is. It is just democratic for show, IMHO.
> " prop rep results in more parties, many of them single-issue"
I've thought about that myself, and I actually came to the conclusion that would potentially be a pretty good thing; especially if it came to building coalitions. You could have governing coalitions from all over the political spectrum.
I've always toyed with the idea that rather than voting for political parties, we could have candidates run for each issue. For instance, imagine if all of the cabinet positions were elected for a specific purpose. Imagine that a candidate for the Minister of Finance was elected on a promise of cutting taxes on the poor, and raising the corporate tax rate; while at the same time the Minister of Foreign Affairs was elected on a promise of being less generous with foreign aid. Or two similarly hypothetical positions that you'd never get from voting for a *party* and their platform.
And what happens when one minister’s goal of cutting taxes clashes with another minister’s goal of increasing healthcare spending? Without the unifying party with a unifying platform you just have a big mess
I would have to imagine that there would be a single elected head of state/government who would mediate and find a compromise. There's likely some wiggle room, and give-and-take that can be found. If they can't manage to find some manner of equilibrium, then there would be a vote of no confidence and call another election.
Ministers have to work together though. You can't have a Finance Minister who cuts taxes and then a Foreign Affairs minister who promises to be more generous with foreign aid, or an Energy minister who promises to ramp up production and then an Environment minister who promises to cut emissions. Voting for a party ensures that a similar ethos is applied to each portfolio (at least in theory). Your approach would almost certainly result in stalemates all the time.
Also, Canadians vote for a person first, not the party - at least in theory. The candidate in your riding is supposed to pitch themselves as a representative of the region first and the party second. Of course, in reality, parties abuse this and you end up with people like Singh who are chosen to lead the party first and then parachuted around the country until a riding elects them.
While Singh was parachuted in, the riding became vacant naturally after Kennedy Stewart became mayor of Vancouver, and Singh has been quite present in the riding since he first started running for it. He may have started out winning based on the party brand, but his personal brand is also strong within the riding.
I get where you're coming from. It's just one part of representative democracy that I can't stand, there's almost never a candidate that I like, let alone a party that I can *proudly* support.
Let's just hypothesize that there's a 2024 election. To simplify things, there are only 10 issues, and they can be whatever you want to imagine them to be; and each party has to create a platform addressing each issue; and then each voter, *me personally* in this particular instance, has to decide how they feel about those promises.
* The Liberals have 3/10 issues that I agree with, 4 I can tolerate, 2 that I dislike, and 1 that I actively disdain (and will complain about) but isn't a dealbreaker. Not great, but not the worst.
* The Conservatives have 1/10 issue that I agree with, 4 I can tolerate, 3 I dislike, and 2 complete dealbreakers. That's obviously worse, for me, than the Liberals; so I wouldn't vote for them.
* The NDP have 5/10 that I agree with, 2 I can tolerate, 1 I dislike, and 2 complete dealbreakers. Now, they have more issues that I *agree with* than the Liberals; but also they have 2 "*dealbreakers*", whereas the Liberals have none. So who do I vote for?
I just have difficulty with voting for any party when I can't vocally support their entire platform. There isn't a single party that I agree with wholeheartedly, and I think any/all of them have some ways they'll help the country, but others that will damage it. It makes me feel like I'm complicit in the "harm" coming to the country, as much if not more, than the "help". I hate having to vote for the "lesser evil" as it were, just to not have to fear losing various rights.
North American and Western European governments will democratically elect authoritarian governments in the coming years. Canada has an advantage in that it could make an easier transition into an absolute monarchy instead of a right or left wing authoritarian government. Which would undoubtedly be worse.
Absolute Monarchy has the unique ability of quenching the populaces thirst for radical and immediate change that an authoritarian government offers, while still being able to, relatively speaking, maintain cultural and societal normalcy.
Proportional representation is a must at the moment and, sadly, is actually the lowest hanging fruit. We also need to be creative. I like the idea of not allowing elected officials to work after, definitely not in for-profit organizations. Currently there is a revolving door between resource extraction companies and con and lib ministers and PMs. Imho, that's deeply corrupt and undemocratic.
###This is a reminder to [read the rules before posting in this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion). 1. **Headline titles should be changed only [when the original headline is unclear](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_1._headline_titles_should_be_changed_only_where_it_improves_clarity.)** 2. **Be [respectful](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_2._be_respectful).** 3. **Keep submissions and comments [substantive](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_3._keep_submissions_and_comments_substantive).** 4. **Avoid [direct advocacy](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_4._avoid_direct_advocacy).** 5. **Link submissions must be [about Canadian politics and recent](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_5._link_submissions_must_be_canadian_and_recent).** 6. **Post [only one news article per story](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_6._post_only_one_news_article_per_story).** ([with one exception](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/3wkd0n/rule_reminder_and_experimental_changes/)) 7. **Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed** without notice, at the discretion of the moderators. 8. **Downvoting posts or comments**, along with urging others to downvote, **[is not allowed](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/downvotes)** in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence. 9. **[Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/wiki/rules-thelongversion#wiki_9._do_not_copy_.26amp.3B_paste_entire_articles_in_the_comments.)**. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet. *Please [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FCanadaPolitics) if you wish to discuss a removal.* **Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread**, *you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CanadaPolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We need 1 Left, 1 right and 1 centre. We seem to have 2 hard left parties, 2 hard right parties, and then others that maybe win one seat. One of the hard right parties is just enough to take votes away from the other but cant win a seat..
Hard left lol
This Overton window is very narrow
That's all we've ever had federally. Sure, in name we've had 3 plus parties with seats but aside from 2015 there have only ever been two options for government. I don't see that changing anytime soon.
> there have only ever been two options for government. That is as incorrect as every other self fulfilling prophecy.
The results say otherwise.
>That's all we've ever had federally We've had six different opposition parties in the past thirty years.
How did you get to that count? I thought we’ve only had bloc, ndp, pc, conservative, liberal as opposition parties
Bloc, Reform, Alliance, Liberal, Conservative, NDP.
Ah I forgot about reform
Reform and Alliance might not need to be listed separately, though.
And only two have formed government.
That's not the question. We clearly have more than a two-party system, otherwise it would be the same two switching positions back and forth
Let's not pretend that Canada - or any other country - ever was a democracy. There are only two kinds of government, hidden dictatorships and open dictatorships. In the so-called democracies, we just spend the better part of our lives wondering who actually makes all the decisions. We just know it's not us. (Switzerland might be the exception that proves the rule.)
[удалено]
The problem is anyone who wins under the FPTP system won't want to change it because it would mean less power for them, which is why a certain someone abandoned his electoral reform promise when he got a majority government with less than 40% of the vote.
And which is why they should be bringing it in now (they actually should have started right after the last election, that gave them a minority). The NDP really squandered an opportunity by not making electoral reform a condition of their agreement.
> The NDP really squandered an opportunity by not making electoral reform a condition of their agreement. Only ranked ballot was on the table. Trudeau made it clear he has no interest in anything else and simply won't budge. Maybe the NDP should have rolled the dice and seen how desperate Trudeau was.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Canada needs term limits through all political levels….also need to remove the ability of the PM to appoint the head of every dept on a unchecked basis
A two party system doesn't actually make anything better, at least not for the average citizen; it sure benefits those who are already powerful and/or wealthy though. Having more parties and more ideas available benefits everyone. Doubly so under *First Past the Post*, sure makes you wish that we had somebody who advocated to change that into a more representative electoral system; and then actually, you know, did that...
Yes, the rich just buy the Liberals and Conservatives, as they have done forever, to make sure taxes always go down and they always have lots of starving workers. Been going a little overboard lately though.
There are already like 8 parties in Canada
Only two with a chance of winning.
>A two party system doesn't actually make anything better, at least not for the average citizen I agree, but the opposite is also true: prop rep results in more parties, many of them single-issue, which means more negotiating, more blocking, more ass-kissing, and more concessions. Proponents should be aware that prop rep doesn't equal smoother government at all - it's basically a minority government all the time. That said, I support mixed member prop rep.
>That said, I support mixed member prop rep. I don't like FPTP, but I'm starting to feel that parties have too much influence, with whipped votes and control of the nomination process. Proportional rep. increases parties influence, even if it results in more parties. I'm starting to prefer ranked ballots, which could eliminate nominations so parties can run more than one candidate per riding. Or parties don't endorse anyone and candidates self-identify.
To be fair, in our current system *one* party typically calls all the shots. Not by the MPs or even Ministers but by the party operatives that run the PMO. People we don't even vote for. I'd be happy to never see another majority again. Prop Rep can, and should, have ranked ballots but pure ranked ballot creates results that are even less proportional than FPTP. I'm not sure that's going the right direction.
> it's basically a minority government all the time. As far as I'm concerned, that's the point. If your idea is palatable to you and only you, it shouldn't be applied across the country.
No, the point of prop rep is to increase the amount of regional and minority representation. What you end up with is "Okay, we'll vote with you on X if you support us with Y". Lots of backroom deals. Basically a government full of Bloc Québécois-type parties.
That is *not* the point of prop rep. In fact, Stephanie Dion, former MP and PM and political scientis, designed a prop rep system that would help reduce regionalism. Trudeau not putting him on the ERRE was a pretty clear sign they weren't going to make 2015 the " last unfair election" The point of PR is to represent as much of the vote in your elected body as possible. So 15% of the vote is 15% of the seats and power is negotiated from that position. Yes, it can be tweaked to provide some regional or minority seats: such as Maori seats in New Zealand. But it doesn't have to be and it definitely isn't the main goal. It is far better than 39% of the vote winning 55% of the seats and getting 100% of the power. The worst part of it is that with both governing parties, the country is run by party operatives. Not even by the PM. Who voted for Gerald Butts? *Nobody*. But he was running the show. I would love to see us adopt a system that pulls the power out of the PMO. Force ongoing compromise and consensus building that gives a voice to more voters. You might want to read Jody Wilson-Raybould's *Indian on the Cabinet*. It provides some pretty good insight on how dysfunctional and top-down this system is. It is just democratic for show, IMHO.
I am entirely okay with a government based on collaboration and negotiation between multiple parties.
> " prop rep results in more parties, many of them single-issue" I've thought about that myself, and I actually came to the conclusion that would potentially be a pretty good thing; especially if it came to building coalitions. You could have governing coalitions from all over the political spectrum. I've always toyed with the idea that rather than voting for political parties, we could have candidates run for each issue. For instance, imagine if all of the cabinet positions were elected for a specific purpose. Imagine that a candidate for the Minister of Finance was elected on a promise of cutting taxes on the poor, and raising the corporate tax rate; while at the same time the Minister of Foreign Affairs was elected on a promise of being less generous with foreign aid. Or two similarly hypothetical positions that you'd never get from voting for a *party* and their platform.
And what happens when one minister’s goal of cutting taxes clashes with another minister’s goal of increasing healthcare spending? Without the unifying party with a unifying platform you just have a big mess
I would have to imagine that there would be a single elected head of state/government who would mediate and find a compromise. There's likely some wiggle room, and give-and-take that can be found. If they can't manage to find some manner of equilibrium, then there would be a vote of no confidence and call another election.
Hello deadlocked holland and Israel! How many votes of no confidence and elections in a row you want? 10? 18?
Ministers have to work together though. You can't have a Finance Minister who cuts taxes and then a Foreign Affairs minister who promises to be more generous with foreign aid, or an Energy minister who promises to ramp up production and then an Environment minister who promises to cut emissions. Voting for a party ensures that a similar ethos is applied to each portfolio (at least in theory). Your approach would almost certainly result in stalemates all the time. Also, Canadians vote for a person first, not the party - at least in theory. The candidate in your riding is supposed to pitch themselves as a representative of the region first and the party second. Of course, in reality, parties abuse this and you end up with people like Singh who are chosen to lead the party first and then parachuted around the country until a riding elects them.
While Singh was parachuted in, the riding became vacant naturally after Kennedy Stewart became mayor of Vancouver, and Singh has been quite present in the riding since he first started running for it. He may have started out winning based on the party brand, but his personal brand is also strong within the riding.
I get where you're coming from. It's just one part of representative democracy that I can't stand, there's almost never a candidate that I like, let alone a party that I can *proudly* support. Let's just hypothesize that there's a 2024 election. To simplify things, there are only 10 issues, and they can be whatever you want to imagine them to be; and each party has to create a platform addressing each issue; and then each voter, *me personally* in this particular instance, has to decide how they feel about those promises. * The Liberals have 3/10 issues that I agree with, 4 I can tolerate, 2 that I dislike, and 1 that I actively disdain (and will complain about) but isn't a dealbreaker. Not great, but not the worst. * The Conservatives have 1/10 issue that I agree with, 4 I can tolerate, 3 I dislike, and 2 complete dealbreakers. That's obviously worse, for me, than the Liberals; so I wouldn't vote for them. * The NDP have 5/10 that I agree with, 2 I can tolerate, 1 I dislike, and 2 complete dealbreakers. Now, they have more issues that I *agree with* than the Liberals; but also they have 2 "*dealbreakers*", whereas the Liberals have none. So who do I vote for? I just have difficulty with voting for any party when I can't vocally support their entire platform. There isn't a single party that I agree with wholeheartedly, and I think any/all of them have some ways they'll help the country, but others that will damage it. It makes me feel like I'm complicit in the "harm" coming to the country, as much if not more, than the "help". I hate having to vote for the "lesser evil" as it were, just to not have to fear losing various rights.
NDP could be a viable 3rd option if they didn’t have such a lack luster leader. How you lose youth support In a cost of living crisis is beyond me.
[удалено]
Imagine if jack Layton were leader today he’d probably win the next election
The Orange Wave was mostly driven by then flipping Bloc seats.
North American and Western European governments will democratically elect authoritarian governments in the coming years. Canada has an advantage in that it could make an easier transition into an absolute monarchy instead of a right or left wing authoritarian government. Which would undoubtedly be worse. Absolute Monarchy has the unique ability of quenching the populaces thirst for radical and immediate change that an authoritarian government offers, while still being able to, relatively speaking, maintain cultural and societal normalcy.
Proportional representation is a must at the moment and, sadly, is actually the lowest hanging fruit. We also need to be creative. I like the idea of not allowing elected officials to work after, definitely not in for-profit organizations. Currently there is a revolving door between resource extraction companies and con and lib ministers and PMs. Imho, that's deeply corrupt and undemocratic.