Fairvote Canada
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.
- A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems
- What is First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)?
- What is Proportional Representation (PR)?
- What is a Citizens’ Assembly?
- Why referendums Aren't Necessary
- The 219 Corrupt MPs Who Voted Against Advancing Electoral Reform
Related Communities/Communautés Associées
Resources/Ressources
Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles
- List of Canadian friends of Democracy Bluesky
- Fair Vote Canada: Bluesky
- Fair Voting BC: Bluesky
- Charter Challenge for Fair Voting: Bluesky
- Electoral Renewal Canada: Bluesky
- Vote16: Bluesky
- Longest Ballot Committee: Bluesky
- ~~Make Votes Equal / Make Seats Match Votes~~
- Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto (IRV for municipal elections)
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.
view the rest of the comments
Security clearance is required. We can still allow politicians to put their names on the ballot even if they fail security clearance, but they need to go through it because I, as a voter, want to know who has the "kompromat" for any particular politicians, whose pockets are the politicians are holing up in.
I've changed my position, in response to thinking about this topic more.
I agree that security clearances can play an important role in our electoral system, but must be carefully designed. If we're going to implement a system where failing a clearance disqualifies candidates, then several critical safeguards must be in place.
The clearance process must be:
Democracy requires that citizens have meaningful choices, but also that our electoral system is protected from malign interference. Just as we have residency requirements and other basic qualifications for office, security clearances could be viewed as another reasonable qualification in our modern context where foreign interference is a real threat.
The key distinction is between arbitrary disqualification (which undermines democracy) and reasonable, transparent standards that protect democratic integrity. If security clearances meet these strict criteria, they could legitimately serve as a qualification for office.
This position doesn't contradict support for proportional representation - in fact, they're complementary. PR ensures citizens' votes translate fairly into representation, while security clearances help ensure those representatives aren't compromised by foreign interests.
I think this is well thought and I agree with "This position doesn’t contradict support for proportional representation - in fact, they’re complementary. PR ensures citizens’ votes translate fairly into representation, while security clearances help ensure those representatives aren’t compromised by foreign interests."
I agree that security clearances and proportional representation address different but complementary aspects of democratic integrity.
What makes these complementary is that both strengthen democratic legitimacy in different ways: PR ensures fair translation of votes to seats, while security clearances maintain the integrity of those representatives once elected.
In today's complex geopolitical environment, we need both representative fairness and institutional safeguards to create a resilient democracy that truly represents citizens while remaining protected from external manipulation.