Proportional Representation

[spooker]

Rigged election. Look at how many seats Atlantic Canada has in proportion to population, 32 seats! That means someone in Atlantic Canada is essentially casting 2.3 votes, and each person in Quebec is casting 1.4 votes! Where did representation by population go? If the conservatives had 34.3% of the popular vote, and 35.8% of seats in 2019, and 34.1% of the popular vote, and 35.8% of seats in 2021; The liberals had 33.1% of the popular vote and 46.4% of seats in 2019, and 31.8% of the popular vote and 46.2% of seats in 2021 - it means the election is rigged, and Justin Trudeau has been the illegitimate prime minister of Canada since 2019, and Canadians should rise up and demand the results of the election be overturned, and Justin Trudeau removed from office! In any other country this would create a constitutional crisis. Time to move to proportional representation.

As long as we have a representational democracy that will be the possible case, proprep would help alleviate that though ... south of us they have the same thing happen, their president in some cases is not a product of the direct popular vote but indirectly through the apportionment of electoral college votes, and you think we have it screwed up?

[GordonH]

Prior to 2015 election JT promised Electoral reform... 6 years later still absolutely no changes.
Don’t hold your breath waiting.

[nucksRnum1]

If this is to be something that is visited - then the opposition parties have to hash things out in good faith. The last time the opposition stymied the process childishly - trying to force the Liberals into squandering their majority mandate.

[GordonH]

If this is to be something that is visited - then the opposition parties have to hash things out in good faith. The last time the opposition stymied the process childishly - trying to force the Liberals into squandering their majority mandate.

What majority mandate.

[nucksRnum1]

I don't understand the question.....2015 was a majority liberal government and mandate. You didn't know that? Maybe that's why conservatives lost yet again. They refuse to learn from the past.

[GordonH]

I don't understand the question.....2015 was a majority liberal government and mandate. You didn't know that? Maybe that's why conservatives lost yet again. They refuse to learn from the past.

Okay, why did your leader bs the voters about Electoral reform.

[Drip_Torch]

I'm warming up to first-past-the-post.

"I like when the system is rigged, as long as I agree with the rigging!"

No, no - it's really not like that at all. I only like the system being rigged when it works out in my favour. I still think first-past-the-post sucks - truth be told, but I can't imagine letting a guy that doesn't know the difference between an electoral system and a ballot system mess with it. So, as long as the lesser of the two big tent evils is sitting in a minority situation, I'm going to call that a win.

[nucksRnum1]

I don't understand the question.....2015 was a majority liberal government and mandate. You didn't know that? Maybe that's why conservatives lost yet again. They refuse to learn from the past.

Okay, why did your leader bs the voters about Electoral reform.

He didn't. The Liberals acted in good faith and appointed a majority of seats around the table to the other parties. In the end, there was no consensus that made the Liberals willing to use their majority for the options tabled over and over. The PM had a hill he was standing on - and he used his authority to veto. If the opposition truly wants to examine the issue - they need to come to the table with the knowledge of the PM's preference. And convince him otherwise. After all - he is the PM. His opinion matters.

[daria]

I don't understand the question.....2015 was a majority liberal government and mandate. You didn't know that? Maybe that's why conservatives lost yet again. They refuse to learn from the past.

Okay, why did your leader bs the voters about Electoral reform.

I will second this question.

[nucksRnum1]

People act like Trudeau was obligated to make a deal with the opposition devil - who was rubbing the liberal nose in -ty options. In the end, he pulled the plug as he had the right to. The opposition on the committee didn't convince our PM that their alternatives were the better option. As Trudeau said - he is open to having a look. The opposition knows Trudeau's preference - and need to convince him why their preference is the better one.

[bob vernon]

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are in favour of proportional representation. Their only way, both of them, to reach a majority government, is to have the current system where you can get a majority of the seats with 40 percent of the votes. Proportional representation would mean coalitions after each election. I know, I know, Steve said that coalitions were evil, but they would be the feature of every House of Commons.

The wealthy own both the Liberal and the Conservative party and neither will ever bring in proportional representation which would mean that some power would go to the minor parties, like the dirty, rotten NDP who want to actually tax the rich and prevent them from moving their wealth out of Canada to tax havens. The wealthy won't allow it.

[GordonH]

Okay, why did your leader bs the voters about Electoral reform.

He didn't. The Liberals acted in good faith and appointed a majority of seats around the table to the other parties. In the end, there was no consensus that made the Liberals willing to use their majority for the options tabled over and over. The PM had a hill he was standing on - and he used his authority to veto. If the opposition truly wants to examine the issue - they need to come to the table with the knowledge of the PM's preference. And convince him otherwise. After all - he is the PM. His opinion matters.

You are a typical politician and totally avoided my question, maybe you should look up what Electoral reform actually is.

According to the promise JT made during 2015 election was that election was to be the last time “First-past-the-post voting” was going to be used.

[Drip_Torch]

Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are in favour of proportional representation. Their only way, both of them, to reach a majority government, is to have the current system where you can get a majority of the seats with 40 percent of the votes. Proportional representation would mean coalitions after each election. I know, I know, Steve said that coalitions were evil, but they would be the feature of every House of Commons.

The wealthy own both the Liberal and the Conservative party and neither will ever bring in proportional representation which would mean that some power would go to the minor parties, like the dirty, rotten NDP who want to actually tax the rich and prevent them from moving their wealth out of Canada to tax havens. The wealthy won't allow it.

What he said. X2

As Trudeau said - he is open to having a look. The opposition knows Trudeau's preference - and need to convince him why their preference is the better one.

Mr. Trudeau's preference is first-past-the-post with a ranked ballot system. That's not proportional representation at all. Back to my earlier comment - perhaps it really is better that a guy that doesn't know the difference between an electoral system and a ballot system, not mess with either.

Ranked ballot, first-past-the-post would be even worse, read less proportional, than this current system.

[Sparki55]

People act like Trudeau was obligated to make a deal with the opposition devil - who was rubbing the liberal nose in -ty options. In the end, he pulled the plug as he had the right to. The opposition on the committee didn't convince our PM that their alternatives were the better option. As Trudeau said - he is open to having a look. The opposition knows Trudeau's preference - and need to convince him why their preference is the better one.

He campaigned with the promise to change the way Canadians vote. He won. He didn't change the way Canadians vote.

All the words you use don't answer the question lol.

[my5cents]

Prior to 2015 election JT promised Electoral reform... 6 years later still absolutely no changes.
Don’t hold your breath waiting.

It's not a case of JT not getting around to it or dragging his feet. After his party was elected with a majority the Liberals said they would not be entertaining electoral reform.

https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magaz ... al-reform/

Glad you brought it up as it's very frustrating that in two subsequent elections, JT, while promising the moon is never asked "why should anyone vote Liberal based on election promises, you have a track record of REFUSING to complete promises you made during campaigning. But crickets. I don't know why the media is mute on this.

( A bit off topic) My pet peeves are terms that make no sense :

• "Social Distancing" when you want people to keep apart from others that is PHYSICAL DISTANCING
• I know most of you "Could Care Less",,, NO NO NO, "You couldn't care less",,, you care so little you couldn't care less.
• "First Past the Post", used to describe our election system. If we voted first past the post. Whichever politician got the first vote would win. First past the post is what a horse race is. Our system is "Majority Wins". The politician with the most votes wins.

As for promises,,, the Liberals have been promising $10 a day child care for so long, that my wife was hoping it would happen for her children. Her daughter now has children and by the time (if it ever happens) [they say 10 years], it is implemented her children won't need it either.

I envision the Liberal party strategy meetings before an election run. "What promises can we make ?",,, "Well the $10 a day, daycare is always a good one, we can probably use it at least one more time."