You are by attacking the source when you have no other alternative for what is in the article

lmao. what ever shall we do if the Ottawa Citizen didn't uniquely create this article? There is no known alternative for this article, so I suppose it's of utmost critical value?

This point is irrelevant, because if I can find an article from a better source, then the point is moot. And besides, you are insinuating that the Ottawa Citizen provides a service that is unique, and cannot be replicated, which is untrue.

Regardless of who owns the thing, it is still headquartered on Canadian soil, employing Canadians, and providing information that “real” Canadian sources aren’t.

1. By going to the site, you are providing it clout that it is undeserving of. And when Canadian media is struggling, that's not a good thing.
2. actually there is a conflict of interest, when the ownership is American. These kinds of media output articles more favourable to their owners, because that is literally their business model.
3. Is it really headquartered on Canadian soil, employing Canadians, and providing real information? I'd rather take my chances with real Canadian owned and operated media.

So give me another source, or shut up about it.

Nah. You shut up about it.

1. They're American owned and infiltrating Canadian culture and politics, that still doesn't mean the information isn't sound.
2. I agreed with attacking the points, not the person. I never even reference the article in this sentence.
3. Sources acceptable for my consumption, again doesn't mean I am insinuating that American owned media doesn't provide sound information.

So, who is saying the information isn't sound?

If the information is sound it doesn’t matter who is saying it

Who is saying the information isn't sound?

Actually in this specific scenario, when we are trying to encourage and grow the buy Canadian movement, and move away from reliance on American, it makes sense.

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.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

Maybe it could mean they don't understand the topic of electoral systems enough to be able to say one way or the other. Which is a totally commendable position, however wilful ignorance is not.

also what AlolanVulpix’ saying +1.

Woot, woot!

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 can have proportional systems using various ballot types (ranked, rated, or simple choice)
• What makes a system proportional is how votes translate to seats, not how preferences are marked

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.

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

The Brantford Expositor is American owned media pretending to be Canadian, infiltrating Canadian culture and politics.