The post title is: "Time to double down on the metric system".

At the same time, I also think it's a good idea to:

double down on getting information only from Canadian Owned and Operated media

Now is the time to be getting information from Canadian Owned and Operated media.

There will be disinformation campaigns unlike any other election.

The effective number of parties in Canada is currently 2.76 and declining - a trend that threatens democratic diversity. Unless we implement proportional representation, we're likely heading toward a two-party system that will further constrain political discourse and representation.

Only Green🟢/NDP🟧 consistently support proportional representation.

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

Can we also double down on getting information only from Canadian Owned and Operated media?

Those uncomfortable conversations are essential, and I appreciate that you're putting in the work. It's not about "deprogramming" so much as encouraging critical evaluation of news sources.

Media literacy is becoming increasingly vital as we approach the election. The challenge is that many people don't realize how their media consumption shapes their political views—they just see it as "the news."

What's worked for me is asking questions rather than making statements. "Where did you hear that?" followed by "Have you verified that information with a Canadian source?" opens the door without creating immediate defensiveness.

Your dad's willingness to engage with alternative sources shows he values truth over tribal politics, even if reluctantly. That's actually quite rare these days and worth appreciating.

The "betraying the community" feeling is something I've noticed with older conservatives too. There's this sense that changing one's mind is somehow disloyal, when really it's just part of being an informed citizen. Democracy depends on people who can evolve their thinking based on new information.

Repeating this statement:

Now is the time to be getting information from Canadian Owned and Operated media.

There will be disinformation campaigns unlike any other election.

Now is the time to be getting information from Canadian Owned and Operated media.

There will be disinformation campaigns unlike any other election.

What is your actual goal? Electoral reform or making line go up?

Proportional representation, but doing things outside of the community is out of scope of the question. You also don't know what I do or don't do outside of this community.

Edit: it's like me asking you, "do you like chocolate or vanilla", then you come back with, "I want an ice cream parlour". That wasn't even in the question…

Because if you ask me it should be getting people ready to volunteer in battleground ridings so that when people are done, if they won they can use their new relationships to push to prioritize ER.

Ok, I'll take this into consideration.

2 of an MPs constituents asking for something is FAAAAAR different from “2 people on my campain team had this as their #1 priority”

I agree!

I'm not claiming the current CPC is equivalent to the AfD or Brothers of Italy in their policy positions. That mischaracterizes my argument. What I've been pointing out is the mechanism by which extremism manifests differently under different electoral systems.

In PR systems, extremist viewpoints form their own distinct parties with representation proportional to their actual support. In FPTP systems, extremist movements are incentivized to work within mainstream parties, gradually influencing their direction from within rather than forming separate parties that would split the vote.

The Reform Party example illustrates this pattern - not because the CPC today equals the AfD, but because it demonstrates how FPTP doesn't eliminate ideological factions; it simply forces them to operate within big-tent parties where their influence can grow less visibly. The Reform Party recognized this reality and eventually merged with the PCs rather than remaining a separate entity.

This pattern repeats across FPTP systems globally. In the UK, Brexit was championed by what was once a fringe position within the Conservative Party before capturing the party's direction. In the US, the transformation of the Republican Party over the past decade shows how rapidly a mainstream party can shift when captured by a movement from within.

What PR provides is transparency and proportionality. When the AfD gets 23% in Germany, they receive exactly that proportion of seats - no more, no less. Meanwhile, the remaining 77% can form coalitions that reflect the majority will. This creates both visibility about extremist support and a containment mechanism that prevents disproportionate influence.

The mathematical reality remains that PR ensures every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, while FPTP systematically discards millions of votes. This democratic deficit is what should truly concern us - a system where majority viewpoints can be ignored while minority-supported governments implement policies opposed by most citizens.

The fundamental question isn't about comparing specific parties across countries, but about which system better serves democratic principles by accurately representing citizens' actual voting preferences.

This accusation that I don't care about vulnerable populations is both unfounded and ironic, given that FPTP systems systematically disenfranchise millions of voters – including many from vulnerable communities.

Let's be clear about what truly puts vulnerable people at risk: electoral systems that allow minority-supported governments to implement policies opposed by the majority. Under Ontario's FPTP system, the PCs govern with just 43% support while implementing policies opposed by 57% of voters. How does allowing a minority to govern on behalf of the majority protect vulnerable Ontarians?

Your fear of extremism in PR systems ignores a fundamental reality: extremism doesn't disappear under FPTP – it's just hidden until it captures a mainstream party from within. This "stealth extremism" is actually more dangerous because it lacks transparency and accountability. Look at how the Reform Party didn't vanish – it simply took over the Conservative Party, with Stephen Harper (from Reform) becoming PM. This pattern repeats in FPTP systems globally.

The mathematical reality remains that PR ensures every vote contributes meaningfully to representation. This is particularly important for vulnerable populations whose voices are systematically ignored under FPTP. When Indigenous communities, racial minorities, people with disabilities, or LGBTQ+ Canadians vote for representatives who understand their unique challenges, those votes shouldn't be discarded simply because they don't form pluralities in artificial geographic boundaries.

PR systems create democratic legitimacy by requiring genuine majority consensus for policies. This directly benefits vulnerable populations by preventing the policy lurch we see under FPTP, where successive minority-supported governments implement contradictory approaches. Social services, healthcare, disability supports, and anti-discrimination protections need consistent, stable policy frameworks – not the constant upheaval FPTP produces.

The "dissatisfaction" you reference in PR countries is not caused by their electoral systems but by broader economic, social, and geopolitical challenges that all democracies face today. The key difference is that PR systems create transparent mechanisms to address these tensions through democratic processes, rather than suppressing them until they erupt in more destructive ways.

Your concern for vulnerable populations would be better served by supporting a system where their votes actually count, where their representatives have meaningful seats at the table, and where policies require genuine majority support rather than being imposed by minority-elected governments.

I care deeply about creating a Canada where everyone's voice matters – especially those who have been historically marginalized. That's precisely why I support proportional representation.

asserting that PR is dealing with extremism well. We disagree on this.

I mean, you can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change reality. It's like a person who doesn't exercise, think's exercising is bad for them.

You haven't said anything new

You haven't said anything compelling to justify FPTP over PR.

I don't think forcing a bunch of other parties to try to work around excluding almost a quarter of the seats is particularly good politics.

I don't think systematically disenfranchising millions of citizens is good governance nor a healthy democracy.

I know that despite demanding more representation you hate the results of people being asked things directly

More correctly, I dislike when disinformation campaigns are brought upon the public. Similar to the PR disinformation campaigns.

I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

You're not in the habit of making compelling arguments

the extreme party is fairly moderate by the PR standards

I can't believe you said this. An electoral system does nothing to magically change the ideology of a political party.

which is nowhere near as extreme as the extremist parties sprouting like mushrooms in PR systems

And also, you only say this because in your twisted mind, you think the mere existence of the extremist parties in PR, means they have full control. Where the truth is that PR just reflects the ideological makeup of society, just as an electoral system is supposed to do.

I'm not sure which is worse.

What's worse is your denial of reality, how warmly you embrace authoritarianism "elected dictatorship", and how reckless you are in your cherry-picking rhetoric.

the rise of these parties in Canada as an unacceptable risk to the vulnerable

Hmm, under FPTP this is happening? What happened to all the good extremism limiting you were talking about?

You may not care about the vulnerable, I do.

You care about them so much, you're willing to disenfranchise millions of them. Because you think you know better than them, clearly you think so highly of yourself, don't you?

You need to take a step back and consider what electoral systems actually do versus what we want them to do.

I've said this before: You keep claiming PR isn't dealing with extremism well, pointing to the AfD's ~23% representation in Germany. But this is precisely how democratic representation should work - their support is visible, transparent, and contained exactly in proportion to their actual numbers. Meanwhile, the remaining 77% can form coalitions that reflect the broader public will.

I've also said this before too: What FPTP does isn't eliminate extremism - it masks it. When extremist views capture a major party from within (as we've seen with the Reform Party's takeover of the Conservative Party in Canada), their influence can actually exceed what they would have under PR. The difference is accountability and transparency.

Your Brexit example actually highlights FPTP's weaknesses. The referendum was sold to the public based on promises that quickly unravelled after the vote. The government implementing it had only 43.6% support - meaning most Britons didn't vote for the specific Brexit implementation they received. In PR systems, parties must build genuine consensus on major policies, preventing such dramatic policy lurches.

I've said this before yet you love ignoring inconvenient truths: PR doesn't create division - it reveals divisions that already exist. FPTP masks these tensions until they erupt in destabilizing ways. The evidence from countries using PR demonstrates that governments reflecting genuine majority consensus produce more stable, effective policies over time precisely because they have broader democratic legitimacy.

I care deeply about vulnerable populations, too. That's exactly why I believe every citizen deserves equal representation in their democracy - which would actually force the government to consider all when enacting policy.