Also see: List of Canadian Alternatives to American owned media pretending to be Canadian, infiltrating Canadian culture and politics.

Just a Canadian concerned about democracy!

Here are some more links: Simple things you can do to grow the proportional representation movement.

I understand the commendable instinct to give another chance, but this isn't about a one-time broken promise - it's about a century-long pattern. Liberals have promised proportional representation since 1919, starting with Mackenzie King.

The 2015 promise wasn't just casually broken - Trudeau literally admitted last year that Liberals were "deliberately vague" to appeal to electoral reform advocates while never intending to implement proportional representation.

Just last year, 107 Liberal MPs (68.6% of their caucus) voted against even creating a Citizens' Assembly to study electoral reform, despite 76% of Canadians supporting it.

This isn't about partisan politics - it's about our declining democracy. Canada's effective number of parties is down to 2.76, showing we're sliding toward an American-style two-party system under Duverger's Law.

In a democracy, citizens deserve representation. Every election under FPTP means millions of perfectly valid votes are discarded. How many more decades should we wait?

I appreciate your perspective, but there are several points worth clarifying.

First, the Liberals did have specific plans for electoral reform. The entire Electoral Reform Committee process produced clear recommendations for proportional representation after extensive consultation. The problem wasn't a lack of plan—it was that the plan (proportional representation) didn't align with Trudeau's preference for Alternative Vote, a system that would have benefited the Liberal Party.

Regarding Carney's accountability: while he wasn't personally involved, he's now leading a party with an established pattern of promising electoral reform without delivering. Since Mackenzie King in 1919, Liberals have campaigned on PR during multiple elections. Carney has been notably vague when asked about his position, despite being an economist who should understand the mathematics of fair representation. When an intelligent person is "uncertain" about ensuring every vote counts, it suggests political calculation rather than genuine indecision.

As for the NDP's provincial record, this "whataboutism" doesn't address the fundamental issue: our electoral system systematically discards millions of valid votes. At the federal level, 87% of NDP, Green, and Bloc MPs supported a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in 2024, while 68.6% of Liberal MPs opposed it. Actions speak louder than words.

The housing policy comparison misses the point. Electoral reform isn't just another policy—it's the foundation that determines how all other policies are made. The mathematical reality remains: in our democracy, citizens are deserving of and entitled to representation in government, and only proportional representation can dependably deliver that.

Democracy requires that every vote counts and affects outcomes. This isn't a partisan position—it's a democratic principle.

Remember when the Liberals also unveiled their plan to make the 2015 election be the last under FPTP?

collapsed inline media

Your continued cherry-picking of specific countries while ignoring the fundamental issue of democratic representation is telling.

First, electoral reform isn't just "my" pressing issue - 76% of Canadians support electoral reform. This overwhelming support exists because millions of citizens recognize their votes are systematically discarded under our current system.

As for Germany and Italy, you're mischaracterizing how PR functions in these countries. In Germany, the AfD has representation proportional to their actual support, while coalition dynamics have successfully kept them from power. Their support would exist under any electoral system - PR simply makes it visible rather than hidden within a mainstream party.

Meanwhile, PR countries like New Zealand, the Nordic nations, and many others consistently outperform FPTP countries on measures of economic equality, social welfare, and policy stability. Your selective examples ignore this broader evidence.

The core issue remains: in Ontario's last election, the PCs formed a "majority" government with just 43% of the vote. Under FPTP, 57% of voters who explicitly rejected them have no meaningful representation. How is this democratic?

What you call "dodging a bullet" is actually dodging democracy itself. A system where every vote contributes meaningfully to representation isn't a radical idea - it's a fundamental democratic principle. When you oppose this principle, what you're really saying is that some citizens deserve representation while others don't, based solely on where they live or who they support.

The mathematical reality is undeniable: PR produces governments that more accurately reflect how people actually vote. This isn't a minor technical detail - it's the entire purpose of representative democracy.

I have to disagree with a few points here.

First, it's not accurate that "Liberals said they'd change it. That's more than any of the other parties have said they'd do." The Green Party, NDP, and Bloc Québécois consistently support proportional representation. In fact, in 2024, all the Bloc, Greens, NDP, and Independent MPs, 3 Conservatives and 39 Liberal Party MPs voted for a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform - but 107 Liberal MPs (68.6%) voted against it.

Second, Justin Trudeau admitted in 2024 that Liberals were "deliberately vague" about electoral reform to appeal to Fair Vote Canada advocates, while privately preferring a non-proportional system that would have benefited their party. This suggests their promises weren't made in good faith.

On housing specifically - yes, it's important that parties address the crisis. But under our current electoral system, we're vulnerable to what experts call policy lurch, where each new government wastes billions undoing the previous government's work. Even a promising housing program can be cancelled after the next election, with all investments wasted.

This is why electoral reform is fundamental rather than just another policy promise. Proportional representation creates the conditions for stable long-term policies on housing, climate change, and other complex issues that require planning beyond a single electoral cycle.

I'm not saying we should ignore housing - it's critically important. But fixing our democratic foundation would help ensure housing policies (and all others) better reflect what Canadians actually vote for and are more resistant to politically-motivated cancellation.

You make fair points about housing and cannabis legalization. The Liberals do occasionally follow through on promises, especially when they align with both political opportunity and public pressure.

However, electoral reform is more fundamental than any single policy area. When Liberals promised that 2015 would be "the last election under first-past-the-post", they weren't just offering another policy - they were promising to fix the democratic foundation upon which all other policies rest. According to the opposition, Trudeau repeated this commitment to "make every vote count" more than 1,800 times, clearly understanding how much it resonated with voters.

The Electoral Reform Committee recommended proportional representation after extensive consultation, but Trudeau abandoned it when he couldn't get his preferred system. More recently, 68.6% of Liberal MPs voted against even creating a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

This matters because in a proper democracy, citizens are entitled to meaningful representation. A housing program (however needed) can be implemented and cancelled with each election cycle under our current system - what experts call policy lurch. But proportional representation would fundamentally reshape how all policies are developed, ensuring they better reflect what Canadians actually vote for.

I'm not saying we should dismiss other policies - housing is critically important. But it's worth noting that the same party repeatedly promising electoral reform for over a century (since Mackenzie King in 1919) while never delivering it suggests a deeply entrenched pattern that voters should question.

Remember when the Liberals also promised the 2015 election would also be the last under FPTP?

collapsed inline media

Remember when the Liberals also promised the 2015 election would also be the last under FPTP?

collapsed inline media

It's still better to vote for parties that promise proportional representation (Greens🟢/NDP🟧/Bloc⚜️) than none at all (LPC/CPC).

Also see: Simple things you can do right now, to grow the proportional representation movement—so we never have to vote for the lesser of the evils, have a two party system, "split the vote", or strategic vote.