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.
Politiques de modération de contenu
Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.
view the rest of the comments
I appreciate the point about the math in Smith's specific case - you're absolutely right that FPTP happened to work against her in 2023. That 1,380 vote margin is quite thin compared to what would be needed under PR.
But the issue with FPTP isn't just about which specific politicians win or lose - it's about systemic democratic legitimacy. Even when FPTP occasionally works against politicians we might consider extreme, it still creates a fundamentally unstable system where millions of valid votes are discarded and representation is distorted.
Under PR, extremist views don't disappear, but they get precisely the representation they've earned - no more, no less. The larger benefit is that when voters are dissatisfied with any politician's conduct (like soliciting foreign interference), they can be more effectively removed without strategic voting distortions.
What's particularly troubling about our current system is how it creates perverse incentives that lead politicians to court narrow bases rather than broad consensus. PR would require building actual majorities through coalition and compromise, rather than exploiting FPTP's mathematical quirks.
The principle remains: in a democracy, citizens deserve representation that accurately reflects their votes - regardless of which politicians might benefit in any specific election.
A point I don't often see you make is that FPTP is actually a voter suppression mechanic.
You live in a riding with 65% support for Candidate A, but you support candidate B? When it's all-or-nothing with a foregone conclusion why bother? But this skews the result: you didn't bother to vote, so it gives the illusion Candidate A had higher support than they actually do. Maybe the 65% support wasn't even accurate to begin with.
Maybe a better system gets 200,000 more voters into the booth, rather than praying that the winds of FPTP are in your favour.
I haven't thought of it as voter suppression...
But it makes sense, however the connection isn't strong. It's hard enough as is to convince people millions of perfectly valid ballots are just discarded every single election.
I'll keep it at the back of my mind.