1. In 2005, BC held a referendum with 57.69% in favour of a PR electoral system known as Single Transferable Vote (STV). No change whatsoever occurred.
2. For electoral reform, referendums aren’t appropriate anyway.
3. I do think BC can “cry” about the continued harms of FPP. FPP is mathematically inferior to PR, so the problem is multi factored: a) referendums are an inappropriate tool for electoral reform, b) disinformation campaigns and fearmongering have dissuaded citizens.

This wouldn’t be a concern under proportional representation (PR). And let’s get PR without this nonsense of a referendum.

Join the discussion over at !fairvote@lemmy.ca.

This wouldn’t be a concern under proportional representation (PR). Join us over at !fairvote@lemmy.ca.

Somebody needs to just enact PR. I think with the most recent BC election, there’s no reason Greens shouldn’t attempt to force PR. The Greens should be aggressive and use their balance of power, otherwise they might face extinction under Duverger’s law.

I’ve also thought it might be a good idea if parties work together, not to split the vote. So for BC, Greens could get the island (and not run candidates in the mainland), while NDP for mainland (and not run candidates on the Island). They are more alike than they are different.

I like the general strike idea, but it needs to be coordinated. We’ve been too conditioned to accept our broken FPP system.

I’ve also been thinking about PR for civil society for example with the Council of Canadians.

I’d agree with referendums, if they were widely used in other issues. Like, what would the referendum on the Greenbelt look like? What about Ontario Place? What about the sneaking privatization of our public healthcare systems? What about Doug Ford himself?

Referendums for electoral reform are really just a way for the government/establishment to look like they are fulfilling a campaign promise, without actually improving the system. It’s worse than virtue signalling, cause after a (failed) referendum, it harms the PR movement. Even though it can be demonstrated that PR is mathematically superior to FPP…

And also, why do we pay our representatives in the first place? It’s their job to understand the policies and issues such as proportional representation, then act in the best interests of their constituents. Obviously, ensuring every vote counts, and no group holds disproportionate power is something that improves our democratic institutions, and improving democratic institutions benefits constituents.

Anyway, that’s why I keep pushing. PR proponents are holding the torch until that fateful day comes where PR is enacted.

See my comment here.

Join the conversation at !fairvote@lemmy.ca.

The only viable long term solution is proportional representation (PR). Some electoral systems meeting this criteria:

• Mixed-member proportional (MMP)
• Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Canada needs to stop believing that PR requires a referendum. The only people pushing a referendum are those with ulterior motives or are misinformed.

1. There is no constitutional requirement. For example, in 1924 Alberta substantially changed their electoral system, adopting some PR elements.
2. In 2005, BC held a referendum with 57.69% in favour of a PR electoral system known as Single Transferable Vote (STV). No change whatsoever occurred.
3. The electoral system has been modified many times without a referendum. For example, per-vote subsidies were removed by Conservatives in 2011 no less, which sparked the famous prorogation of parliament.
4. Referendums, no matter how clear the question is, aren’t an appropriate tool. Ordinary people just don’t have the time to weigh the pros and cons of various electoral systems. Citizen’s assemblies would be more appropriate, as this would require comprehensive analysis by ordinary citizens.
5. Why would we need a referendum to restore the fundamental rights of voters? The right to vote must necessarily include the right for the vote to have an effect. Literally millions of perfectly valid ballots are simply tossed out every single election. This would be an outrage had we not been conditioned to accept it.

The key to unlocking political parties like these is proportional representation. Some electoral systems meeting this criteria:

• Mixed-member proportional (MMP)
• Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Nobody is disputing that the wealthy consume more than the poor.

We are disputing your claim that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of greenhouse gas emissions. Please provide evidence to substantiate your claims.

Thank you for this point. This is important to highlight in the age of carbon pricing misinformation.

Do you have evidence indicating that corporations and the wealthy do not pay their fair share of the carbon emissions they generate?

I am not denying that the upper class may pay a lesser percentage of their wealth. What I am saying is that even if it is true, this is not relevant to the discussion on carbon pricing because that is not the objective in the first place.

The point of the carbon pricing is to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis.

Wealth redistribution is well deserving of its own discussion. However, on its own wouldn’t be a very effective tool to address the climate crisis as it does not hit the core of the issue, which is greenhouse gas emissions.

Under the current carbon pricing scheme, there is no such thing as purchasing of carbon credits. This might be the case under a cap and trade system, which currently only exist in places like Quebec and California (and formerly Ontario). Additionally, if corporations were exempt, there would be no need to buy carbon credits.

There are special areas such as home heating where there is a temporary hiatus on the carbon pricing.

The carbon tax rebates apply uniformly. But remember that carbon pricing punishes those who heavily rely on carbon based fuels (e.g. people with multiple vehicles, homes, etc).

Carbon pricing is not intended to redistribute wealth. So the point about the upper class paying a lesser percentage of their wealth is not relevant and we also don’t have evidence of this.

Do you have evidence that the carbon pricing scheme as implemented disproportionately affects the middle/lower class? I would legitimately like to know. Keep in mind that while it’s often referred to as the carbon tax, there is also the carbon tax rebate that goes hand in hand with the implementation. The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) did an analysis and found the following:

Relative to disposable income, our estimates of household net carbon costs continue to show a progressive impact that is, larger net costs for higher income households.

As for the wealth of the economists that signed the letter, unless there is evidence of such, please don’t make claims you have not substantiated. I look forward to healthy, civil discussion.