http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-electoral-reform-mandate-1.3961736

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-abandons-pledge-to-change-voting-system-before-2019-election/article33855925/

My Prime Minister lied by promising us democracy reform but decided not to instead. Most Canadians want reform!

Edited 2/1/2017 23:18:43

Here come the nazi's "MUH DEMOCRACY"

Remind him that it's the current year.

Edited 2/1/2017 23:51:11

MUH DEMOCRACY!

Could you explain? I think im a dumbass. I read both links twice but dont understand. What are they trying to do? What reform? How does their elections currently work and how do they want it to work?

Edited 2/2/2017 01:31:08

We have a first past the post system that seemingly benefits the conservative party more, but that's debatable. I'm pretty sure it's the same voting style as the USA. You cast a ballot for one person, and the person with the most votes wins, even if the majority didn't vote for them. This stops people from voting 3rd party and makes them vote not for the candidate they want, but the candidate they don't want. Like how some people voted Trump only to avoid Hillary and vice versa. This allows politicians to be elected with small minorities, and I hear that kind of thing is really bad in the UK.

People like myself want a referendum to change this to one of the different possibilities. For example, hierarchal voting, where people rate the different options best to worst. Some just want proportional voting so that if a party gets 31% of the vote, they get 31% representatives in the house of commons.

If there were protests and I had my own car, I'd totally go.

Edited 2/2/2017 02:29:39

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/news-video/video-explained-canadas-voting-system-and-how-changing-it-would-affect-this-election/article26760521/

nice easy simple video that explains

thank you. the original post links didnt really explain too well.

wow Canada could be the first functional democracy in human history!

>democracy
>functional

topkek stay cucked kike

Politicians are always lyin'.
Who knows what a business man would do in that situation?

edit: double post

Edited 2/2/2017 04:33:59

Hey Buffalo,

I grew up in Alberta and I have kept an eye on this issue.

I think the claim that Trudeau lied is overstating the case. One might say that he was disingenuous in his original proposal to change the electoral system, but I don't think he deliberately tried to mislead the public.

From what I have read, and observed, and heard from my friends and acquaintances in Western Canada, Trudeau and the Liberals made a good faith effort to change the electoral system. The Liberals convened a committee on electoral reform and got input from all parties, as well as the public. Even here living in Texas I was aware of this committee, and I got feedback through the media, and through friends, on its progress.

The committee has concluded that no consensus can be found on an alternate electoral system to replace the first past the post system presently in place. If consensus can not be found, what is the point of pushing a new system forward?

The problem here is that there are vested interests not wanting to change the system. The Conservative party is dead set against reform because the Conservatives will lose seats in any new set-up acceptable to the Liberals and NDP. The Conservatives have been barking to cancel the reform, or to hold a referendum before any system has even been proposed. Why? Because they want to stop the reform.

Why will the Conservatives lose seats? Well, electoral reform is a zero-sum game, that is to say if the new electoral system leads to one party gaining seats, then another party has to lose seats. Any reform acceptable to the NDP (and pretty well any reform period), will lead to more seats won by the NDP (and the Green party). So who loses the seats won by the NDP? Well, the only way the Liberals will accept the new system is if the Conservatives lose at least some of the seats gained by the NDP. First past the post may not necessarily benefit the Conservatives the most, but they definitely have the most to lose by reform.

I've mentioned a couple of times about the feedback I've been getting from friends. Many of the people in Alberta are dead-set against reform. The electoral reform is viewed as a partisan ploy by the Liberals to entrench their power by much of Alberta (and Western Canada). Much of this opposition is orchestrated by the Conservative party, but the resentment is real. There would be vocal opposition to any proposed changes.

The only way to overcome this opposition would be for broad based support and consensus for a new electoral system by most Canadians. And what the committee found is that there wasn't consensus for a new electoral system amongst the electorate. Which leaves the Liberals at an impasse.

Without consensus for a new electoral system, what are the Liberals supposed to do? Are they supposed to pick their preferred system? Perhaps if they could ram it through, it might benefit them, but the ploy would be very cynical (as it would entrench their power). It also probably would fail.

Should they pick a system which they deem to be most fair to all parties, and then spend political capital promoting it, and having a referendum, knowing that most Canadians are indifferent to change? Knowing that while spending their political capital, they will be alienating Western Canada, for a likely lost cause? In my lifetime I have seen 4 referenda in Canada -- all have seen a No vote (most referenda see no votes, people are inherently conservative and vote no, in my opinion). It does not make sense for the Liberals to push for change that most of Canada does not believe in.

Or should Trudeau push ahead and pick a system at random, have a referendum on it, but not promote it. Let the NDP champion it, and let the NDP take the heat when it fails. Wouldn't that be a waste of taxpayer's dollars to run the referendum?

Truth be told, none of this is a surprise. Most Canadians are indifferent to changes in the electoral system -- only NDP and Green party supporters are aware of the issue, and even all of them are aware of the benefits of electoral reform. Unless there is a much broader consensus amongst Canadians for electoral reform, it is not going to happen.

So back to Justin Trudeau, and whether he lied. To me it seems that he made a good faith effort to reform the system. However, from the outset he must have known that electoral reform was unlikely to happen -- that is to say that it would be night impossible to change the system without alienating large portions of the country. But he made the promise anyways, knowing that it probably wasn't going to happen. Is that lying? I don't think so. Is it disingenuous? Most definitely.

^^ What Gus said. It was more or less what I was going to say.

What mostly seemed to bring electoral reform to the forefront of the last election campaign was the inability of first the liberals, then the NDP to beat the conservatives and that 'progressive' voters rather then consolidate around one party to oppose the conservatives kept splitting their votes among 3+ parties. So people began to complain that system was rigged, didn't represent the will of the people.

But then a Liberal majority was elected and now what? Were progressive voters angry that a progressive party won a majority? Not really. Sure, they would be happy about electoral reform but any fire that was there before, was gone. The reason for change was removed. And now no one can agree on anything for electoral reform. It died through apathy from people that formerly only gave it a cursory nod when it suited their political interests. Conservatives don't care for change since they will have a hard time winning government until any change. I haven't heard a single thing about people I know talking about the reform discussion going on because it turns out no one cares anymore.

And we are stuck with the same system because people play politics with electoral reform to the benefit of no one.

Edited 2/2/2017 06:19:47

what if we have a referendum to decide if people want reform or maintain/ if reform wins, then we have a second referendum to decide how to reform specifically? i dunno if thats a stupid idea or not

DEMOCRACY is just a tool to control people and misguide them into thinking they are free. Human Rights? Don't make me laugh, there is not a single state which respects the Human ''Rights''. Who gave you the rights? The state? If so then the state can take it away just as easily and it does not matter how hard and loud you cry ''MUH RIGHTS''.

Buffalo,

About your suggestion on having a referendum on whether to have a referendum, in principle, it's not a bad idea. In practice, it does not work. Referenda, in general, are not very effective in setting policy. Referenda require the public being engaged and knowledgeable about the topic, so that they can make an informed decision. That is hard to do.

Having repeated referenda is a recipe for disaster. Without public engagement, participation rate will plummet, and the referenda will become hostage to groups which participate most. We already see this in our general elections. Look at the recent U.S. presidential election. It wasn't won because more people supported Donald, it was won because Donald was able to motivate his supporters to get out and vote (or get out and vote against Hillary). If there are repeated referenda, the process will be become hostage to the same ends -- that is, the referendum will be won by the side which engages the public the best.

I'm not sure that's how we want to run the country, although I suppose one could argue we should be a Direct Democracy.

So what do you suggest? No reform and let the system continue to fester and misrepresent us? or do we let the politicians decide for us?

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?dir=turn&document=index&lang=e&section=ele

Click this, scroll down and you'll see 60%+ of people vote in elections, which may seem low, but is still a majority of voter-eligible people. I personally rather go with the will of the majority of the Canadian people than corrupt politicians who seemingly prefer a broken system.

there is not a single state which respects the Human ''Rights''. Who gave you the rights? The state? If so then the state can take it away just as easily and it does not matter how hard and loud you cry ''MUH RIGHTS''.

Leibstandarte (Vengeance) is an anarchist confirmed.

Buffalo,

I'm not sure that I agree with your "fester" statement, I don't think the Canadian electoral system is broken by any means. It certainly could be improved, in theory, but as I outlined above, any significant reform would have to overcome substantial vested interests which would prefer the status quo.

Think back to the Charlottetown and Meech Lake Accords. Both of those proposals had substantial electoral reform (primarily the Senate). The Meech Lake Accord died because of a failure for the principals to agree, and then the compromise Charlottetown Accord got thrashed in a referendum.

It is really hard to see how the Canadian electoral system can be reformed at this point. The system is a zero-sum game, so any changes would lead to some party losing seats in future elections. It is really hard to imagine a situation where reform can be put into place under these conditions.

Personally I think the only realistic way forward (and it is not very realistic) is if the NDP and Conservative parties band together and force reform on the Liberals.