Isn't that like all of them?
Thanks for your feedback. I actually agree and updated the infographic to better improve the distinction between the two groups.
If you have further feedback on the content, please add it to this post.
I just drafted up this infographic, because I thought the other one was missing other important media outlets.
I genuinely believe growing the movement for proportional representation is a critical - perhaps even more important than buying Canadian.
I apologize if it's annoying, but you can also block me if you don't like my content.
And since I did create the content for this post (and I am donating it into the world under CC-BY-NC-SA), shouldn't I be able to promote my other interests?
If you want to support me in my other ventures, I'm also trying to grow the !fairvote@lemmy.ca community.
- 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?
- I am in support of proportional representation, which can occur independent of political party, similar to FPTP.
- 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).
- 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.
- Yes, we have a two party system because of plurality voting, which is described by Duverger's law. Elimination of political parties ... is impractical.
- 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?
Unfortunately, I don't have that level of control to be able to set what you'd be able to see on a particular day.
Sure, that's a fair point, but also it's what the community sidebar was made for.