Do you disagree with the articles points? Is there any misleading or false information in the article?

I hear you. Attack the points, not the person. In general, agreed.

Do you have an alternative source reporting on this that is acceptable to you for consumption?

Not on this particular topic, but I also haven't looked. See American owned media pretending to be Canadian, infiltrating Canadian culture and politics.

The Financial Post is American owned media pretending to be Canadian, infiltrating Canadian culture and politics.

Link to watch The 2025 Juno Awards on CBC Gem. Starts at 2025-03-30T19:50:00-04:00 (7:50pm EDT).

Also see: List of Canadian Owned and Operated Media.

It's not about being a "gotcha" - it's about demonstrating a pathway to better democratic representation.

You're right that EU membership would only require PR for European Parliament representatives initially. However, this would create several significant opportunities:

1. Practical demonstration: Canadians would experience firsthand how an electoral system that ensures every vote counts actually works, rather than just hearing theoretical arguments.

2. Institutional precedent: Once PR is successfully implemented for one electoral body, the argument that it's "too complex" or "un-Canadian" becomes much harder to maintain.

3. Democratic legitimacy gap: Having representatives to the EU Parliament elected through PR while our own MPs are chosen through FPTP would create an obvious legitimacy contrast that would be difficult to justify.

The Liberal leadership vote using preferential voting actually supports this point. Internal party processes already recognize the limitations of FPTP - they just don't extend those same democratic principles to the general electorate. In fact, all parties, even the Conservatives, use superior electoral systems to FPTP.

The reality is that 76% of Canadians support electoral reform according to recent polling, but our major parties benefit from maintaining a system that systematically discards votes. Exposure to functioning PR would make the democratic deficit in our current system increasingly apparent.

I suppose Ontario has given our approval to him, one way or another.

How? The majority of ballots cast, voted for another party.

Also see: Canadian owned and operated media

And as a long term goal, let's get proportional representation: !fairvote@lemmy.ca. We are trying to restore control of government back to the people!

With PR, Bernier would have had a seat, so would the conservative party in Quebec

You mean democracy would be working how it should be? That people are entitled and deserving to representation in government?

The only reason they don’t have seats is because of FPTP.

You need to establish what unique characteristic of FPTP excludes the candidates you don't like. There are plenty of "extreme" candidates that have seats that FPTP allowed in. I can think of at least 1 current representative that would vote to reverse marriage equality.

Look at Germany, the fascists now have a pretty big presence at 152 seats out of 630 and the Conservatives could just add well have made an alliance with them if they felt like it.

The task of the electoral system is not to make political decisions, but to ensure effective and proportionate representation. The legislature is the appropriate domain to handle those whose ideology you disagree with.

You've been mislead to believe that FPTP "limits" extremism, yet the most extreme, anti-democratic ideology is already omnipresent: that us citizens are not entitled nor deserving of having every vote count to the outcome of an election. Why hasn't FPTP excluded this extreme ideology?

I can certainly see proportional representation being more resistant [to authoritarian takeover?]. Certainly more than FPTP.

A country that is governed by its people, and truly so with proportional representation, is the strongest force there can be against an authoritarian takeover. It provides true and uncompromising democratic legitimacy to the government -- as a healthy democracy demands.

In 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada said:

A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity.

Reference Question: Secession of Quebec [from Canada].

However I’ve grown up in a country with PR that’s pretty well captured by the owner class.

Hmm, I'd be interested to hear which country! However, I'm not going to give you a fairytale and tell you that proportional representation will solve all our problems -- it won't. But to have every vote count is a real good start.

Perhaps Canada is unique in that in spite of having a non-PR electoral system, we still defy expectations.

Surprised by the outcome? Our current FPTP electoral system distorts the results. The majority of voters wanted a party other than the PCs.

In the long run, the only viable solution is proportional representation: !fairvote@lemmy.ca

In the long run, the only viable solution is proportional representation: !fairvote@lemmy.ca

That's not an argument against proportional representation, it's an argument against the party in power.