1. Yeah, that’s why your point about “There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago” doesn’t make any sense. Shall we return to the dark ages?
2. I am in support of proportional representation, which can occur independent of political party, similar to FPTP.
3. Ok, so you haven’t addressed my point about political parties existing independent of FPTP. Also, I never even brought up tribalism once, that was the other commenter (nor am I even in favour of it).
4. Yes, democracy only functions when everyone has a say in governance, as proportional representation guarantees. It is the best system of governance, and to say otherwise is shows how nonsensical your thinking is.
5. Yes, we have a two party system because of plurality voting, which is described by Duverger’s law. Elimination of political parties … is impractical.
6. Clearly, you are taking my responses personally. Good luck living life feeling constantly like you are the victim and holier than thou.

In the conversation between you and me, where we already agree (mostly) on electoral reform, the stakes aren’t high.

But otherwise, yes, the stakes are high.

I apologize if my discussions on proportional representation are annoying, that’s not the intention. You can choose to ignore me or even block me if you feel inclined.

There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago

Yeah, back when democracy didn’t exist, humanity lived in misery compared to today’s living standards.

We can do better than our less intelligent ancestors can’t we? Especially when we all agree generally that the systems we have aren’t working.

Yeah, the better system is called proportional representation.

political parties from the system wholly impractical

Believe it or not, there is no part of our FPTP electoral system entrenches that political parties in the first place. I know you might not like it, but it’s factually the truth. They organically come about because people, it’s the most efficient way to organize.

otherwise do not waste further time responding with wikipedia links you clearly do not understand.

You are a very angry person, lol. But regardless, Duverger’s law is the reason we have a “two party” system.

There isn’t a modern democracy in the world that doesn’t have political parties. And for good reason, it’s wholly impractical. Even single party states such as China have political parties…

The reason we have two major parties is described in Duverger’s law. You don’t have to think I’m right or wrong, because this is just the reality.

But proportional representation does not require political parties to be a part of the electoral system.

See single transferable vote (STV): A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems. It’s still a work in progress, but lays out a good framework for discussing electoral systems.

Can you explain more? What voting scheme did you have in mind?

1. How is it a spin, when the results of the electoral system literally affect every facet of our lives?
2. Perhaps the messaging isn’t aimed towards individuals like yourself.
3. If you’re really bothered, the block function is available.

I suppose, but it certainly draws attention to the movement. And on occasion discussion does come about, in which case that is the opportunity to convince people.

And in the past 2 weeks the !fairvote@lemmy.ca has grown by 60%, so clearly something I’m doing is working.

And for letting us down on proportional representation: !fairvote@lemmy.ca

Given the Liberal’s failings on proportional representation, I tend to think it’s the latter: he doesn’t want to take a position

It’s okay, we’re just having a conversation. Stakes aren’t high.

But with proportional representation, you’d be able to vote in a government that is able to address your priorities effectively…

In a democracy, the ultimate power should be vested in its citizens. I’m not making it a big issue, it is inherently a big issue.

Even if there is no intention to improve our democracy, it’s a really low bar to just agree that every vote should count…

You’re bang on! Instead of playing both sides, how about we just play the side of democracy: !fairvote@lemmy.ca

Reminder of the Liberal’s record on proportional representation: “Liberals never wanted to “make every vote count.”… Electoral reform has become a bonbon offered at election. As far back as 1919, Liberals have campaigned on the promise of proportional representation”

We need to stop seeing PR as anything except citizen’s having the most to gain under PR.

!fairvote@lemmy.ca

See: A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems. It’s still a work in progress, but lays out a good framework for discussing electoral systems.

Reminder of the Liberal’s record on proportional representation: “Liberals never wanted to “make every vote count.”… Electoral reform has become a bonbon offered at election. As far back as 1919, Liberals have campaigned on the promise of proportional representation”

Mark Carney’s position on electoral reform: “open”. However…

1. He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quite nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.
2. His public persona is that he is intelligent. But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts?

Reminder of the Liberal’s record on proportional representation: “Liberals never wanted to “make every vote count.”… Electoral reform has become a bonbon offered at election. As far back as 1919, Liberals have campaigned on the promise of proportional representation”

Mark Carney’s position on electoral reform: “open”. However…

1. He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quite nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.
2. His public persona is that he is intelligent. But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts.

Reminder of the Liberal’s record on proportional representation: “Liberals never wanted to “make every vote count.”… Electoral reform has become a bonbon offered at election. As far back as 1919, Liberals have campaigned on the promise of proportional representation”

Mark Carney’s position on electoral reform: “open”. However…

1. He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quiet nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.
2. His public persona is that he is intelligent. But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts?

Only the Greens/NDP consistently support proportional representation.