What is This Group is About?
De Quoi Parle ce Groupe?
The unofficial non-partisan Lemmy movement to bring proportional representation to all levels of government in Canada.
🗳️Voters deserve more choice and accountability from all politicians.
Le mouvement non officiel et non partisan de Lemmy visant à introduire la représentation proportionnelle à tous les niveaux de gouvernement au Canada.
🗳️Les électeurs méritent davantage de choix et de responsabilité de la part de tous les politiciens.
Related Communities/Communautés Associées
Resources/Ressources
Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles
We're looking for more moderators, especially those who are of French and indigenous identities.
Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.
Fair Vote Canada 🗳️🍁 on Bluesky
Democracy shouldn't be a guessing game.
Vote for who you believe in—and get the representation you deserve.
Demand proportional representation!
https://www.veritasium.com/videos/2025/1/17/why-democracy-is-mathematically-impossible
The title is clickbaity but the point stands. PR is just a different kind of suboptimal. If you want election reform, please push for something more modern than just another system with inherent problems.
@cdegroot @AlolanVulpix What did you have in mind? I watched the whole video and I didn't see PR mentioned at all. He was pretty down on ranked choice voting as a voting method, but then seemed to say at least it's better than FPTP. He also said most countries in the world use ranked choice voting to elect their leaders, which... is not true. He seemed keen on approval voting, which I've read can also be used with multi-winner proportional systems, though I think that's pretty theoretical. Either way, seems like less suboptimal is always a worthwhile direction to go.
You're exactly right, @cosmo. PR isn't mentioned in the video specifically - it's primarily about voting mechanisms (how voters express preferences) rather than seat allocation methods (how those preferences translate to representation).
The video does contain some inaccuracies. At 1:19, it claims FPTP is used in 44 countries, but fails to mention that most democracies use some form of proportional representation. And it conflates ranked-choice voting with instant-runoff voting, which leads to confusion.
The key insight is that proportionality and ballot type are separate issues:
You're absolutely correct that approval voting (a rated system) can be adapted for proportional representation through systems like Proportional Approval Voting or Satisfaction Approval Voting. Similarly, ranked ballots can be used in proportional systems like Single Transferable Vote (STV).
The fundamental question isn't which ballot type to use, but whether the system ensures that citizens get the representation they voted for. In our current system, roughly half of all valid votes elect nobody at all.
As you say - moving toward less suboptimal is worthwhile! And on that metric, proportional representation clearly outperforms our current system.
That Veritasium video is specifically about Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, which demonstrates that no ranked voting system can satisfy all ideal criteria simultaneously. You're misrepresenting its conclusions if you think it argues against proportional representation.
The video explicitly states at 18:44: "If there are three or more candidates to choose from, there is no ranked-choice method to rationally aggregate voter preferences."
But here's what the video actually concludes at 19:40:
"Arrow's Impossibility Theorem only applies to ordinal voting systems, ones in which the voters rank candidates over others. There is another way: rated voting systems."
The key distinction is that while no system is perfect, some systems are definitely better than others. At 21:11, it specifically notes that "some methods are clearly better at aggregating the people's preferences than others," and at 21:21 states that "the use of first past the post voting feels quite frankly ridiculous to me, given all of its flaws."
Importantly, not all proportional representation systems involve ranking. Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) uses two separate votes rather than having voters rank candidates, so Arrow's theorem doesn't even apply to this form of PR.
Under our current FPTP system, approximately 50% of perfectly valid ballots have zero effect on election outcomes. In the 2022 Ontario election alone, about 2.5 million votes (54% of those cast) elected nobody at all.
Rather than vaguely suggesting "something more modern," what specific system are you proposing that would better ensure citizens get the representation they deserve? Proportional representation isn't perfect, but it solves the fundamental democratic problem that FPTP creates: millions of citizens having no representation aligned with their political values.
The fundamental democratic principle remains simple: in a democracy, citizens are deserving of and entitled to representation in government. Only PR consistently delivers on this principle.
I mostly linked thr video because it is such a nice quick overview for lay people like me :)
To me, "PR" connects to systems like used in the Netherlands (my second nationality) and Belgium. Both countries are effectively ungovernable because too much time is spent on forming coalitions, turning the country into a bureaucracy. People still dont feel represented because most parties tend to concentrate candidates from the cities where there is (and always will be) more political activity. Germany (I lived there for a while) has MMP of course but that had resulted in an enormous amounts of seats and, IIRC, very high barriers of entry to smaller parties. And, given the rise of AfD, not really instrumental it seems in letting people feel they have a say.
I'm not a fan of our current system either but strangely enough I feel more represented by an MP or MPP I can walk up to and discuss things with and who knows my area's issues because they are "my neighbor" even though i did not vote for them then in .NL where parliamentarians representing "my" vote... Well, they were far away abstract things :)
I worked with CIVS in many settings and that seems to work well enough in practice even though it is a ranked system, but vote counting... Tough when it requires higher maths (I worked at polling stations in the past and highly value being observed when counting paper ballots).
Anyway, I'm not sure what system exactly the ads (I see them as such) are arguing for so I guess I interpret them - as I think many are likely to do - in my own context and then I am, well, the grass isn't that green at the other side either.
(And to me, unscientifically, in the countries where I lived or worked, subjective fairness of the respective systems seemed often to be more influenced by the actual democratic roots of a country then the particular voting mechanisms in use. I guess that schools play the most important role in any electoral system).
Looking more at your site it is still quite abstract what is wanted. "Not what we have now" is just a starting point, but I see lists of alternatives, not a concrete proposal? Leaves things open for interpretation including potential misinterpretation where I'm like "oh please no not more like .NL" ;) (which I don't consider a proper democracy to begin with, too many appointed posts and no constitutional court).
Bit of a ramble, I know, this is hard on a phone.
Thanks for the bit-by-bit on the veritasium vid, I'll rewatch it later with your notes in hand.
I appreciate your engagement on this topic, and I understand your concerns based on your experiences abroad. Let me address your points and clarify what PR advocates are actually proposing for Canada.
First, let's distinguish between different PR systems. What works in the Netherlands (list PR) isn't what's being proposed for Canada. The main PR options suitable for our context are:
Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) - You maintain your local MP exactly as you have now, plus regional MPs to ensure overall proportionality. Regarding "enormous amounts of seats" - this is largely subjective, and MMP can be implemented without increasing the total number of seats at all. The legislature size is a design choice, not an inherent requirement.
Single Transferable Vote (STV) - Multi-member districts where you rank candidates by preference. Ireland has used this successfully since 1922.
Regarding your specific concerns:
On "ungovernability": Research shows PR countries actually have more stable policy direction, not less. What looks like "instability" to outside observers is actually democratic negotiation. Policy lurch costs far more - when each new FPTP government undoes the previous government's work.
On constitutional courts: While important for legal oversight, a constitutional court isn't universally considered a requirement for "proper democracy." Many well-functioning democracies have different systems of judicial review. The core of democracy is citizens having meaningful representation - which is precisely what PR aims to strengthen.
On local representation: Your experience of feeling represented by an MP you "can walk up to" is actually quite rare. For the majority of Canadians whose preferred candidate loses in their riding, they have no representative who shares their political values. Under FPTP, roughly half of all voters cast ballots that elect nobody at all - they have zero representation aligned with their views.
On subjective fairness: While cultural and historical factors certainly influence democratic experiences, we don't need to rely on subjective impressions. We have objective mathematical criteria for evaluating electoral systems: proportionality indices, wasted vote percentages, and voter satisfaction metrics all demonstrate that PR systems outperform FPTP in translating votes to seats fairly.
The fundamental democratic principle remains: in a democracy, citizens deserve representation aligned with their values. When 50% of votes have zero effect on election outcomes, as happens under FPTP, we have a serious democratic deficit.
Fair Vote Canada advocates primarily for MMP or STV - both proven systems that would work well within our Westminster parliamentary tradition while ensuring every vote counts.
