Section 3 – Policy Initiatives & 2025 Deliverables
11. Democratic and Electoral Reform
The Parties will work together to create a special legislative all-party committee to evaluate and recommend policy and legislation measures to be pursued beginning in 2026 to increase democratic engagement & voter participation, address increasing political polarization, and improve the representativeness of government. The committee will review and consider preferred methods of proportional representation as part of its deliberations. The Government will work with the BCGC to establish the detailed terms of reference for this review, which are subject to the approval of both parties. The terms of reference will include the ability to receive expert and public input, provide for completion of the Special Committee’s work in Summer 2025, and public release of the Committee’s report within 45 days of completion. The committee will also review the administration of the 43rd provincial general election, including consideration of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report on the 43rd provincial general election, and make recommendations for future elections.
Great question! In the very short term, sort of. (Though from the start I’d point out that it is much harder to envision a party like the AFD gaining traction in an FPTP system)
PR causes 2 different styles of issues with the AFD. 1) It makes politics much less likely to produce significant or helpful change, so people don’t see meaningful political improvements in their lives and are more likely to turn to extremist parties like the AFD. and 2) Because the AFD has so many seats, the winning coalition has to be super broad, basically the same coalition of the Conservative and Progressives that was seen as ineffectual the last time around. Admittedly, this time they can exclude the Greens. The same reasons the previous government collapsed and led to such a significant rise in support for the AFD are still in effect.
@MyBrainHurts living in the us I guess it feels like fptp is producing government that is every bit as unresponsive to people’s problems. (Really a lot more unresponsive, for the problems important to me, like climate and housing.) And given the choice between a party system where it’s a little hard to build a coalition that lasts more than a couple years, and a two party system with one party actively dismantling democracy; I’d so so happily take the first one.
Yeah, a 2 party system is generally not very ideal. Here in Canada we’re lucky enough to have had multiple parties able to nudge one another into various directions.
I’m not sure how PR would stop those attempts. And if anything, it could make them significantly worse.
It’s more that those coalitions have serious trouble creating significant legislation, which still leads to issues like housing and climate change legislation being very unlikely. Except worse, it’s now very hard to assign blame OR to propose bold reforms. So you just muddle through with things getting worse. There’s a reason so many PR systems have started producing great outcomes for hard right parties. (The sort of anti democratic, racist parties that make the republican party look almost progressive.)
@MyBrainHurts Lol, now you’re making my brain hurt. I’m not sure if you realize how bad things are here. Ah well, we won’t convince each other. But wish you all the best up there.
I strongly recommend reading about modern German politics. Actual AfD manifesto “Islam does not belong to Germany. Its expansion and the ever-increasing number of Muslims in the country are viewed by the AfD as a danger to our state, our society, and our values.” As much as we hate them, imagine the Republicans writing something like that in their manifesto.
Yes, the Republican party is doing terrible things. But none of that would be stopped by a PR system. (Especially when the republicans won more than half the votes…)
Your AfD example actually highlights exactly why PR is superior in handling extremism. Yes, their manifesto contains explicitly bigoted views - but the key difference is transparency and containment. In Germany’s PR system, extremist views are visible, democratically represented according to their actual support (no more, no less), and effectively contained through coalition dynamics.
Compare this to the US under FPTP, where extremism doesn’t disappear - it captures one of only two viable parties from within. The Republican Party’s evolution over the past decade demonstrates how FPTP masks extremism until it completely takes over a major party. Under FPTP, extremist factions can gain disproportionate power by capturing a major party with internal support far below what would be required to gain significant representation in a PR system.
When you say “imagine Republicans writing something like that in their manifesto,” you’re missing that they don’t need to be explicit because FPTP incentivizes hiding extremist views within broad platforms. Meanwhile, their members freely express similar sentiments in speeches, bills, and policy positions without facing electoral consequences because voters have nowhere else to go. The Muslim ban, border policies separating families, and statements from many elected Republicans demonstrate this repeatedly.
The difference is accountability. In Germany, the AfD’s 22.9% support translates to proportional representation - significant but contained. They remain excluded from governing coalitions because other parties refuse to work with them. By contrast, when extremists capture a major party in FPTP, they can gain control of entire governments with minority support, as we’ve seen repeatedly in the US and UK.
The “ineffective coalition” argument is contradicted by international measurements of governance effectiveness. The broad coalitions you criticize actually create policies with greater staying power precisely because they represent genuine majorities rather than plurality-supported minorities. This prevents the costly “policy lurch” we see in FPTP systems where each new government undoes its predecessor’s work.
Regarding Israel - you’re cherry-picking one implementation of PR with a very low threshold (1.5% until recently), deliberately designed to create fragmentation. This is why most PR advocates support systems with reasonable thresholds (typically 4-5%) like Germany, New Zealand and the Nordic countries use. Using Israel as your PR example is like judging all presidential systems based only on Belarus.
The mathematical reality is that FPTP systematically discards millions of votes in every election. In rural ridings like Hastings-Lennox and Addington, over 51% of voters had no representation in the last election. This democratic deficit creates precisely the kind of disenfranchisement that feeds extremism.
What you’re really arguing for is a system that allows minority-supported parties to implement policies the majority opposes, while calling this “efficiency.” But this isn’t efficiency - it’s undemocratic governance that produces unstable policies lacking broad support. PR doesn’t prevent bold action; it ensures bold action has genuine majority support.
Your fears about extremist parties gaining influence in PR systems ignore the far more dangerous reality of extremist factions capturing major parties in FPTP systems. PR provides early warning and containment mechanisms for extremism that FPTP fundamentally lacks. The transparent representation of all viewpoints according to their actual support is not a bug of PR - it’s a feature of proper democratic representation.
To make it very plain.
Yes, more democracy is a bonus. Let’s call that a plus for the PR side. No one is disputing that.
On the downsides are the effect on Canada. I’m a fun uncle for a bunch of my friends’ cool kids and I care about the country they’ll get.
Some countries have done well historically with PR. But, as we enter incredibly turbulent times with almost half a dozen threats ranging from deadly serious to existential on the horizon, the weaknesses of PR are becoming apparent.
Germany is not only struggling with the AfD but despite being in a recession for almost three years been unable to pass significant legislation, in part as a result of the coalitions required to keep out the AfD. PR is not going well there and I do not want that for the aforementioned children.
Israel has been unable to stop a deeply unpopular war in large part because of PR.
Austria is trying to cobble together a government to keep out an extremist party that won the most votes.
Tusk is struggling to undo the damage wreaked by PiS.
The Dutch are bending over backwards to keep Wilders out.
The Brothers of Italy are running the country.
Times are only going to get tougher. For those groovy kids, I want a government that can effect serious and meaningful change, which FPTP makes more likely. Even though my vote is often less effective, that’s a trade-off I’ll take to avoid the catastrophes above.
(You are also misremembering 2015, yes, housing was mentioned but mostly in the context of social housing and renters. As you’ve read through the chat with Avid Amoeba, you’re either ignoring or already forgetting those realities which I’ve already pointed out. Feel free to look at the party platform I already linked.)
Your arguments against PR continue to rest on selective examples, while ignoring the fundamental democratic deficits inherent in FPTP and the significant evidence contradicting your claims about effectiveness.
First, your framing reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what an electoral system should accomplish. You acknowledge that “more democracy is a bonus” for PR, as if democratic representation is merely a nice-to-have feature rather than the core purpose of elections. This mindset exemplifies precisely what’s wrong with FPTP defenders - treating democratic representation as secondary to other considerations.
The turbulent times you mention actually strengthen the case for PR rather than weakening it. When facing multiple existential threats, we need governance systems that incorporate diverse perspectives and build genuine majority consensus around solutions. FPTP’s tendency to produce false majorities implementing policies opposed by most citizens creates precisely the kind of policy instability that undermines effective long-term responses to complex challenges.
Ok, so let’s look at the examples you brought up: Germany: You claim Germany has been “unable to pass significant legislation” due to its coalition government. This ignores their substantial climate legislation (far outpacing Canada’s), comprehensive pandemic response, and extensive Ukraine support package. The “struggling economy” argument is misleading - Germany faces structural challenges related to energy dependency and demographic shifts that would exist under any electoral system. Their PR system has successfully contained the AfD’s influence despite its growing support - exactly as designed.
Israel: Again, Israel uses an extreme form of PR with an exceptionally low threshold (1.5% until recently) specifically designed to create fragmentation. I’ve already addressed this previously.
Austria: The recent Austrian election actually demonstrates PR working correctly - the Freedom Party won 28% of the vote and received proportional representation, while the system prevents them from unilaterally implementing policies opposed by the 72% who didn’t vote for them. Under FPTP, that 28% could easily translate to a governing majority with unchecked power.
Poland: Poland’s transition from PiS to Tusk’s coalition government shows PR’s strength, not weakness. After PiS undermined democratic institutions, PR enabled a broad coalition to form and begin restoring them. The coalition reflects the will of the majority of Polish voters - exactly what an electoral system should facilitate.
Netherlands: The Dutch coalition negotiations reflect the genuine divisions within Dutch society. Far from being a failure, this is democracy working as intended - ensuring government reflects the actual distribution of voter preferences rather than artificially manufacturing majorities.
Italy: The Brothers of Italy received 26% of the vote and needed to form a coalition to govern. This ensures they can’t implement policies without broader support, protecting democratic guardrails. Contrast this with the UK, where the Conservatives implemented Brexit with profound national consequences based on a 43.6% vote share.
What you characterize as “effectiveness” is actually undemocratic governance that produces unstable policies lacking broad support. True effectiveness comes from policies with genuine democratic legitimacy and staying power. The most pressing challenges we face - climate change, economic inequality, democratic backsliding - require sustained, long-term policy approaches that survive beyond electoral cycles. PR systems produce exactly this kind of stability through consensus-building.
Your concern for future generations is admirable, but consider what system those “groovy kids” would actually prefer: one where every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, or one where millions of votes are systematically discarded? One where parties must build genuine consensus for policies, or one where minority-supported parties can implement whatever they want? One with transparent representation of all viewpoints according to their actual support, or one that masks extremism until it captures a major party? The polls show 76% of Canadians support electoral reform, 62% of Ontarians support proportional representation in government.
The mathematical reality remains: PR produces governments that more accurately reflect how people actually vote. This isn’t a minor technical detail - it’s the fundamental purpose of representative democracy. A system that routinely discards over half the votes in many districts betrays the very concept of democracy itself.
What we actually need is a system where:
PR delivers this democratic accountability that FPTP fundamentally cannot. The turbulent times ahead require more democracy, not less - more voices at the table, more genuine consensus, and governance that truly represents the will of the people. That’s what PR offers, and what those “groovy kids” you care about deserve.
Claiming that choosing large swathes of Europe is my cherry picking is pretty silly.
And you are misunderstanding the point of those examples. It is not just dangerous how close some of these hard right groups are to power, the fact these groups are so popular is in itself worrying.
It is not a sign of a healthy democracy when people are so angry and desperate they give Kickl 29% of the vote. It is a deeply worrying sign when some 20% of Germans are voting for dog whistle neo Nazi party (Alice fur Deutschland is about as blatant as it gets, there’s not a German who doesn’t know the Nazi slogan was Alles fur Deutschland.
Yes, those democracies are struggling through and bending into contortions to keep functional, non extremist governments working. But this is a sign of Democratic strength in the same sense that coughing up blood is a sign your body is keeping the blood out of your lungs, it’s true but it is also a sign that something is seriously wrong.
A system can be great in theory or in different circumstances. But the reality of the moment and the real world evidence suggests we are very lucky to have avoided PR and would do well to continue to do so. We don’t have a Wilders, Weidel or Kickl for a reason.
You blithely assume that more voices at the table or more better representation etc leads to better outcomes but what’s the proof? You even mentiom Brexit but either don’t know or comveniently forget that it was passed with a majority support in a referendum. For crazy but very representative outcomes, look South to California which loves ballot referendums, which are as pure a democratic option as possible. If you’ve read about the LA fires, you already know that insurance companies have been unable to accurately price the risk of fores because of a referendum preventing insurance companies from raising rates, popular but insane policy.
FPTP and our elected dictatorship creates a balance between the ability of government to pass significant legislation while also being accountable to voters. The real world examples of PR are horrific. It’s really not that complicated.
What you’re seeing as a broad ineffective coalition happens in Canada within the parties themselves, prior to the election. They’re preconfigured to be broad and ineffective. The end result of ineffective governance is the same.
An AfD in Canada takes root not as a separate party but as a faction of one of the large parties. They grow internally and either split or take over that party. Has happened to our PC party which got split in two, then reunited again under the extreme part’s leadership.
The significant difference between that and PR which produces the AfD is that the dissenting voices are hidden and suppressed for much longer under our system. Either by their own parties, or by gaining no seats under a third party. Both of those don’t eliminate the problems that make people vote this way. They just delay the knowledge of those problems and therefore any serious solution. With PR the AfD shows up on the radar as soon as 5% of the people have a problem which makes them vote this way. The incumbent parties have an incentive to fix those problems much earlier. Sure they can do nothing and be ineffective but they could also decide to do something. Or there could emerge another party that rises up to address what they wouldn’t. In our system that’s basically impossible. Meanwhile in Germany, De Linke got 9%.
Sort of? That coalition still comes forward with a set of proposals that they generally have a chance to enact (or, they choose not to and bear the electoral consequences for it.) This is different than going forward with a set of proposals, then in a murky set of compromises behind close doors with multiple parties, some other result happens. How to assign blame or credit?
Come on. I don’t think a serious or well informed adult can honestly look at the PC party and say that it is seriously comparable to the Hard Right like the AfD. While some of those folks are swept up into a faction, their outcomes get moderated by the PC party because of the FPTP incentives to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate.
I mean, you’ve seen this learning happen pretty quickly to the Liberal party. People got fed up about inflation and housing, started abandoning the party. There’s a reason the guy who crushed the Liberal party election was the only one who could credibly say he’d had nothing to do with those bad decisions.
Like, political parties aren’t only informed about public opinion during elections. (Otherwise, their campaign promises and platforms would just be wild guesses.) There’s all sorts of public opinion polling etc. And thanfully, we have a strong system that can address these issues instead of just muddle through with a coalition that’s too broad to actually address those issues.
Look at Germany. Does it seem likely that the coalition government will be able to do anything about the AfD or will they just muddle through while the problems fester and the AfD gets more popular? I’d put heavy money on the latter. Whereas Canada, has already started broad plans to create housing etc (these are the sorts of plans that take a long time to materialize, a sad irony about the upcoming election is that whatever party wins will likely be credited for dealing with housing developments spurred by the current Liberal government.)
I was referring to the federal PC party which no longer exists. First, the right-wing populist Reform Party split from it, then eventually the two merged again to form the current CPC party, with Stephen Harper from Reform becoming the leader and eventually PM of Canada. The PC party was unable to moderate its extreme elements and it ceased to exist.
I beg to differ. Housing was a serious problem when they came to power under Trudeau in 2015. They campaigned on doing something about it. They did nothing significant for 9 years and let the problem get worse and worse to the point where Ontario has 80000 homeless people today.
People only abandoned the LPC when things got so bad they thought the CPC may do something even though they’d be worse in many other respects. Many people don’t even try voting third or fourth party because they have experiences with their votes being lost due to FPTP. Instead they keep voting for the ineffectual party they prefer till some issue gets so bad that it seems the party worse for them might do better on that issue.
What we just witnessed with the replacement of the LPC leader without an election is pretty unprecedented and exceptional. This is not how things typically work. Normally the LPC would have stayed the course, lost the next election, have the CPC for 4-8 years and maybe then have a changed LPC that has learned a lesson and ready to do something about housing. Meanwhile the CPC would have let the problem get even worse as their policies are also ineffectual in that regard.
Finally, I also believe the AfD will grow but I think there’s a chance for De Linke to grow with it and force the next-next government to do something about the issues AfD voters are facing.
Sorry, I’m a little confused then. Because you started with this about the PC:
Which yes, the PC ceased to exist, because FPTP punishes extremism. So, this seems like a pretty good example of FPTP moderating/mitigating some of the consequences of a PR system. (Under which you could easily see a moderate Conservative party continually forming coalitions with the extreme Conservative party, which would allow the moderate Conservatives to vote Conservative while not technically voting for whatever extremism an unmoderated extremist Conservative group would want.) And today’s Conservative party is a much more moderate beast.
I wasn’t sure about this so looked back at some polling from around then as well as the Liberal platform. which is absolutely worth looking at as a time capsule. You’ll note that a lot of it was about social housing and rental housing, as the concern was more about the most vulnerable.
Meanwhile, a look at CBC’s polling at the time doesn’t even list housing as an issue (presumably lumped together with the economy?) but consider how unthinkable having a poll without housing as a distinct issue would be nowadays. (It’s also an interesting reminder that for their ills, the Liberals really did try to address those top concerns by growing the economy despite Covid and trying (and getting murdered on) a Carbon Tax, which is generally acknowledged as the best and most serious approach to tackling climate change.
Yup. Sorry though, I don’t think I’m getting the connection between this and PR vs FPTP?
Maybe. But I think right now, parties that “are fighting for a change of course in politics that will open the way for a fundamental transformation of society that will overcome capitalism.” face an uphill battle. I genuinely wonder if the SPD and CDU were left to choose between the AFD and Linke, which they would go to. Do Die Linke have policies that are compatible with mainstream politics? Regardless, I don’t think lurching from being held hostage to one extreme group to another is really conducive to good or effective government.
Which, I think is why I like FPTP, governments (usually) get the ability to enact significant legislation (we can actually blame the Liberals for failing to act on housing as opposed to “well, it was those rat bastards in the other parties that wouldn’t compromise… etc”) but those parties need to appeal to a large swathe of voters in order to actually form government. (And of course, watching PR governments struggle to create significant change in the last couple of decades doesn’t really raise their appeal. )
I don’t understand your understanding of the history of the PC and CPC parties. As far as I understand the opposite occurred. The moderate party was the PC party. It ceased to exist and the leadership of the extreme party Stephen Harper of Reform became the leadership of the new CPC party. The CPC party is a more extreme right wing party than the PC party. And if you’ve followed their policy stances over the years, they’ve been getting more extreme, every time they failed to win as moderates. Pierre has much more extreme positions on the economy and climate than Harper, or Andrew Scheer had. Trudeau introduced the carbon tax scheme, originally proposed by Harper, which Andrew Scheer rejected as some radical, industry killing policy. And today they have no policy on it at all other than “no carbon tax and no cap-and-trade systems.” So I don’t see moderation, I see the opposite.
BTW, I’m not down voting you.
Honestly, I’d assumed that from the quality of your comments. But thank you.
To PC vs CPC fun, I could absolutely be wrong but my memory is that the Reform party were staunchly opposed to gay rights (did check, Preston once declared “homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society.”) , wanted to remove Indigenous affairs and was basically “fuck Quebec, we’ll figure it out without 'em.”
So, I dunno, I think the two having to merge to become a viable party is a good thing. There are zero parties in Canada that I think would hurt my gay friends as much as the Reform party wanted to. But, in a PR system where the Reform party still existed, I could see a coalition of “Fuck Trudeau” getting moderate conservatives, assholes rocking Reform and then… Ugh.
But, I could absolutely be getting caught up in culture war shit, maybe there were some radical economic proposals I don’t remember or somesuch?
I think what you’re saying now is what I am saying regarding the history. Maybe I misunderstood previously. My understanding as well is that Reform was the extreme party, PC was the moderate party. Reform came out of the extreme elements within the PC party. Then Reform and PC merged into the CPC but critically the leadership of the CPC came from Reform. So as a result the CPC was a more extreme party than their ancestor - the PC party.
Yes under PR we’d have some form of Reform today lurking around. Currently those assholes are within the CPC and one of the main ones is their leader. :D There’s a good chance that if Pierre loses the next election, a more extreme leader would take his place. I think Leslyn Lewis was tied for a second place during the last leadership election. She’s pro-life, isn’t too keen on gay marriage, and doesn’t consider climate change a big deal.
Gotchya, sorry I think I misunderstood which party we were talking about moderating itself! But yeah, I basically agree with this summation of events. But to me the win is that there is no party as extreme as Reform was. In PR, I could see Reform influencing policy in backroom negotiations, whereas under FPTP, those negotiations happen in the open and the people are able to judge pre-election whether it is too extreme or not.
While elections aren’t always won or lost on policy (this one is shaping up to be a referendum on “who can deal with trump”) I generally think extreme Conservative positions aren’t particularly popular in Canada (even Harper had to straight up say the debate on abortion was settled) and the Conservatives will either have to moderate or wait for a perfect storm (as almost happened, the same anti incumbent wave that’s swept the world would’ve helped them out had it not been for trump) if they want power.