Your contrast between PR and FPTP regarding extremism misses what's actually happening in both systems.

The AfD example actually demonstrates PR's strengths, not weaknesses. Under PR, Germany has a clear, transparent accounting of extremist support – roughly 23% – and a system that contains this influence proportionately. The remaining 77% can form coalitions that reflect the majority's will while acknowledging the real tensions within society.

Compare this to what FPTP does: it doesn't eliminate extremism – it camouflages it. Look at the UK, where Brexit was pushed through by a Conservative Party captured by its extreme wing, despite most citizens eventually opposing it. Or Canada's own experience with the Reform Party, which didn't disappear but instead took over the Conservative Party from within. This pattern of extremist capture of mainstream parties is FPTP's signature failure.

Your claim that PR coalitions can't create "significant legislation" contradicts international evidence. Nordic countries with PR have implemented groundbreaking climate policies, comprehensive healthcare systems, and robust social programs that FPTP countries struggle to match. These policies endure precisely because they're built on broader consensus rather than imposed by minority governments.

You mention the "super broad coalition" in Germany as a weakness, but this is democracy functioning properly – reflecting the actual distribution of voter preferences rather than artificially manufacturing majorities. When 77% of voters reject a particular ideology, shouldn't governance reflect that reality?

PR doesn't create division – it reveals divisions that already exist and provides democratic mechanisms to address them. FPTP masks these divisions until they erupt in destabilizing ways, as we've seen repeatedly in the UK, US, and increasingly in Canada.

Your analysis of Germany's situation fundamentally misunderstands how electoral systems interact with extremism.

First, your claim that "it is much harder to envision a party like the AfD gaining traction in an FPTP system" ignores the reality we're seeing in FPTP countries. In the US, extremist views didn't disappear - they captured an entire major party from within. The MAGA movement didn't need to form a separate party; it simply took over one of only two viable options. This is precisely why Team Permanent DST's question is so critical.

Your two "styles of issues" with PR reveal deeper misconceptions:

1. You claim PR "makes politics much less likely to produce significant or helpful change." What's the evidence for this? Countries with PR systems like the Nordic nations, New Zealand, and Germany have implemented far more substantial climate legislation, healthcare reforms, and social welfare programs than many FPTP countries. These policies tend to have greater longevity and stability precisely because they're built on broader consensus rather than imposed by minority-supported governments.

2. Your concern about "super broad" coalitions ignores how PR gives voters transparency about where parties actually stand. In Germany, voters can see exactly which parties refuse to work with the AfD and why. Under FPTP, these negotiations happen within parties, behind closed doors, before elections even occur. When extremism captures a mainstream party in FPTP, voters have nowhere else to go.

The key difference is accountability and containment. In Germany, the AfD's ~23% support translates to proportional representation - significant but contained. They remain excluded from governing coalitions because other parties refuse to work with them. By contrast, when extremists capture a major party in FPTP, they can gain control of entire governments with minority support, as we've seen in the US.

What's happening in Germany isn't a failure of PR - it's PR working exactly as designed. The system provides early warning about extremist support and creates transparent mechanisms to contain it, while still ensuring citizens who hold those views have representation proportional to their numbers (no more, no less). Meanwhile, FPTP's tendency to produce false majorities implementing policies opposed by most citizens creates precisely the kind of disenfranchisement that feeds extremism in the first place.

The rise of the AfD reflects genuine social concerns and tensions in Germany that would exist under any electoral system. The difference is that PR makes these tensions visible and addressable, rather than masking them until they capture an entire mainstream party.

That's one perspective but I disagree

Yes, please keep showing how the no-PR camp is out of touch with reality. You're trying to corrupt a democratic tool into your own personal elect your preferred ideology mechanism. In which FPTP does not do particularly well.

Electoral systems and rules exist so that people can elect a government

What good is a government that enacts policies that hurt its people? And no electoral system can filter out ideologies that only you oppose.

The primary goal of a government is the welfare of its people.

I agree, and PR forces government to cater to its citizens. The primary goal of electoral systems is to ensure accurate representation. You're conflating the purpose of government with the purpose of electoral systems. Electoral systems are the democratic mechanism through which citizens select their representatives – they aren't meant to filter out particular ideologies.

If your electoral system consistently produces **bad **outcomes, that's a **bad **thing.

Your definition of "bad outcomes" is entirely subjective and ideological. What you're really saying is "I don't like the representatives some voters choose." This is fundamentally anti-democratic, and anti-Canadian. The purpose of elections isn't to produce governments you personally approve of – it's to accurately represent the will of the people.

When we look to peer nations, like our compatriots in the G7 who use PR or all across Europe, you see bad outcomes happening.

This cherry-picking again? For every example you cite, there are PR systems producing excellent outcomes. The Nordic countries consistently rank at the top of nearly every measure of good governance, economic equality, and social welfare – all with PR systems. New Zealand transitioned to MMP and has seen stable, effective governance. You conveniently ignore these examples because they contradict your narrative.

It takes a insane reading of the situation to say a system wherein Kickl is polling about where our Canadian Conservative party polls, is producing good outcomes.

The electoral system didn't create Kickl's support – it merely reveals it. What's "insane" is thinking that hiding extremist views through electoral manipulation is better than confronting them directly. FPTP doesn't eliminate extremism; it masks it until it captures an entire mainstream party – as we've seen with MAGA in the US.

You haven't outlined why the Nordic countries are doing well under PR vs all the counter examples

Actually, I have – multiple times. The difference is in the broader political culture, democratic traditions, and social cohesion. Electoral systems don't create extremism; they reflect the societies they operate in. Your entire argument boils down to "I don't like what some voters choose, so let's use a system that silences them." That's not democracy – it's electoral engineering to produce outcomes you prefer. And this sinister engineering is disenfranchising millions of "groovy kids" - who you supposedly care about.

I stand for the principle that in a democracy, citizens are deserving of and entitled to representation in government. Only proportional representation can consistently deliver this fundamental democratic right. Your position continues to prioritize subjective outcomes over democratic principles, which is precisely why PR advocates will ultimately prevail – because democracy itself is on our side.

Not only do I already do your recommendations (of my own volition), I'm out here campaigning for democracy and Canadians. You just can't say the same.

Variations on "more representation is good!" isn’t a new point, no one is arguing about this.

I'm glad you're being transparent, and just plainly saying how little people, their agency and democracy matters to you. You've become the very extremist that you despise.

I thought you didn't like direct democracy because it wasn't practical.

How is this direct democracy? A direct democracy means this would allow all citizens to vote directly on all legislation. Selective direct democracy wasn't in the scope of discussion for electoral systems. I know you love to distort arguments so it looks like you're countering the point, when it's just intellectually lazy, and anyone reading would know it. Please continue to show how out of touch you are.

Is your position actually you want all peoples voices heard but ONLY filtered through representatives?

My position is that FPTP is undemocratic because it systematically discards millions of perfectly valid votes. Whereas being Canadian means supporting democracy, including a fundamental principle of democracy: proportionate representation.

The Brexit referendum is completely irrelevant to our discussion about electoral systems. It wasn't about how representatives are elected - it was a one-off policy decision put directly to voters. You're conflating completely different democratic mechanisms to avoid addressing the actual failures of FPTP.

You keep avoiding the central issue: In Ontario, the PCs govern with a "majority" despite 57% of voters explicitly rejecting them. How is this legitimate democratic representation? You call FPTP an "elected dictatorship" as if that's a positive feature rather than a profound democratic failure.

Your cherry-picking of European examples continues to miss the point. The purpose of an electoral system isn't to prevent certain ideologies from gaining representation - it's to ensure accurate representation of how citizens actually vote. If you're concerned about extremism, address the cultural and social factors creating it, rather than trying to silence it through electoral manipulation.

As for your claim that I don't care about outcomes - I care deeply about outcomes. That's exactly why I support PR. Countries with PR systems consistently outperform FPTP countries on measures of economic equality, social welfare, environmental protection, and democratic satisfaction. The Nordic countries, Germany, and New Zealand all demonstrate how PR produces stable, effective governance with policies that enjoy genuine majority support.

The mathematical reality remains undeniable: FPTP systematically fails to represent millions of citizens in every election. No amount of handwaving about "efficiency" changes this fundamental democratic deficit. If democracy means anything, it must mean that every citizen's vote contributes meaningfully to representation. Only PR delivers this basic democratic principle. A basic democratic principle that you not only don't understand, but fail to recognize as being fundamentally critical for good outcomes for its citizens.

You dismiss all arguments for "more democracy" because you, and only you, think it's like some nice little perk rather than the entire purpose of elections.

1. Not that it's been demonstrated I've been cherry picking in the first place. Both people doing something wrong doesn't make it ok. Yet another example of lazy intellectual discussion from the FPTP camp.

2. Your shorter responses are telling me that perhaps you don't actually don't "care" enough about the country to defend FPTP. Because you would have full and properly thought out responses to make counter points and defend your position. Readers of this thread will decide, I suppose. I'll be using this as the most extensive example of how out of touch the FPTP camp is.

3. Reiterating a number of points, your concern about far-right parties in Europe fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of electoral systems. These systems don't create extremism - they reveal it. Under PR, we see exactly how much support extremist views actually have. Under FPTP, that extremism still exists but remains hidden until it captures an entire mainstream party, as we've seen repeatedly in the US with MAGA and even in Canada with elements of the CPC's current direction.

4. You've completely ignored my point about how FPTP produces governments that implement policies opposed by the majority of citizens. In Ontario, the PCs hold a "majority" with just 43% of the vote. How can you justify a system where 57% of voters explicitly rejected the governing party? That creates precisely the kind of democratic deficit that feeds extremism.

5. Your Brexit example actually undermines your argument. The referendum was a direct democracy mechanism that bypassed representative systems entirely. It has nothing to do with PR versus FPTP. And California's referendum system is similarly irrelevant to our discussion about representative democracy structures.

6. You claim FPTP creates accountability, but our experience demonstrates the opposite. The Liberals campaigned on housing affordability in 2015 and failed to make meaningful progress for nine years while the crisis exploded. Yet they remained in power because FPTP distorts voter preferences. That's not accountability - it's systematic failure.

7. Most telling is how you describe FPTP as an "elected dictatorship" as if that's a positive feature! That perfectly captures what's wrong with your perspective. Democracy isn't supposed to be a temporary dictatorship - it's supposed to be representative governance where every citizen's voice matters in proportion to its numbers.

8. The countries you cite as PR failures are functioning democracies where extremist parties gain representation proportional to their actual support, while being effectively contained through coalition dynamics. Compare this to the US where extremism now controls an entire major party with unchecked power when they win.

Democracy matters. Representation matters. Every vote should count.

I find it nonsensical how you keep cherrypicking examples while completely missing the point of what an electoral system is supposed to do.

You're saying "more democracy is a bonus" like it's some nice little perk rather than the entire purpose of elections! This perfectly illustrates our fundamental disagreement. I believe democracy exists to represent people's views. You seem to think it's primarily about producing governments you personally consider "effective" - even if they ignore what most citizens actually want.

I'm not blind to the challenges in Europe. But you're deliberately ignoring how PR is working exactly as designed in these cases. Take Germany - yes, the AfD has support, and that's disturbing. But PR ensures they get seats proportional to their actual support while preventing them from gaining disproportionate power. Unlike FPTP systems where extremists capture entire parties from within (hello, MAGA movement!).

And honestly, I find it pretty ironic that you're so worried about extremism when our FPTP system regularly produces governments opposed by the majority of citizens. The Ontario PCs are implementing policies that 57% of voters rejected! That's a minority strangling the majority - exactly the kind of governance that breeds extremism and discontent.

You mention those "groovy kids" you care about. Have you actually asked what they want? Polls consistently show younger generations overwhelmingly support electoral reform. They want a system where their votes matter, where every voice counts.

You know what doesn't serve future generations? A system that's completely failed to address climate change, housing affordability, and economic inequality - the exact issues they care most about. Nine years of Liberal promises on housing with minimal action until the crisis became catastrophic isn't "effectiveness" - it's failure.

And let's talk about rural Ontario. In Hastings-Lennox and Addington, over 51% of voters had NO representation whatsoever. Their votes literally counted for nothing. I've shared this statistic before but you keep ignoring it. How can you justify a system that systematically discards millions of votes in every election?

You know what's actually not healthy for a democracy? When people feel their votes don't matter. When they see governments implementing policies most citizens reject. When they watch the same neglected problems fester for decades because the system incentivizes short-term thinking and polarization over consensus-building.

I care deeply about this country too, and that's exactly why I'm fighting for a system where every vote counts. Where parties have to build genuine consensus instead of appealing to narrow slices of swing ridings. Where we can finally tackle the long-term challenges we face instead of lurching from one crisis to the next.

These "turbulent times" demand more democracy, not less. More voices at the table. More genuine consensus. That's what PR delivers, and what we all deserve.

Your arguments against PR continue to rest on selective examples, while ignoring the fundamental democratic deficits inherent in FPTP and the significant evidence contradicting your claims about effectiveness.

First, your framing reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what an electoral system should accomplish. You acknowledge that "more democracy is a bonus" for PR, as if democratic representation is merely a nice-to-have feature rather than the core purpose of elections. This mindset exemplifies precisely what's wrong with FPTP defenders - treating democratic representation as secondary to other considerations.

The turbulent times you mention actually strengthen the case for PR rather than weakening it. When facing multiple existential threats, we need governance systems that incorporate diverse perspectives and build genuine majority consensus around solutions. FPTP's tendency to produce false majorities implementing policies opposed by most citizens creates precisely the kind of policy instability that undermines effective long-term responses to complex challenges.

Ok, so let's look at the examples you brought up: Germany: You claim Germany has been "unable to pass significant legislation" due to its coalition government. This ignores their substantial climate legislation (far outpacing Canada's), comprehensive pandemic response, and extensive Ukraine support package. The "struggling economy" argument is misleading - Germany faces structural challenges related to energy dependency and demographic shifts that would exist under any electoral system. Their PR system has successfully contained the AfD's influence despite its growing support - exactly as designed.

Israel: Again, Israel uses an extreme form of PR with an exceptionally low threshold (1.5% until recently) specifically designed to create fragmentation. I've already addressed this previously.

Austria: The recent Austrian election actually demonstrates PR working correctly - the Freedom Party won 28% of the vote and received proportional representation, while the system prevents them from unilaterally implementing policies opposed by the 72% who didn't vote for them. Under FPTP, that 28% could easily translate to a governing majority with unchecked power.

Poland: Poland's transition from PiS to Tusk's coalition government shows PR's strength, not weakness. After PiS undermined democratic institutions, PR enabled a broad coalition to form and begin restoring them. The coalition reflects the will of the majority of Polish voters - exactly what an electoral system should facilitate.

Netherlands: The Dutch coalition negotiations reflect the genuine divisions within Dutch society. Far from being a failure, this is democracy working as intended - ensuring government reflects the actual distribution of voter preferences rather than artificially manufacturing majorities.

Italy: The Brothers of Italy received 26% of the vote and needed to form a coalition to govern. This ensures they can't implement policies without broader support, protecting democratic guardrails. Contrast this with the UK, where the Conservatives implemented Brexit with profound national consequences based on a 43.6% vote share.

What you characterize as "effectiveness" is actually undemocratic governance that produces unstable policies lacking broad support. True effectiveness comes from policies with genuine democratic legitimacy and staying power. The most pressing challenges we face - climate change, economic inequality, democratic backsliding - require sustained, long-term policy approaches that survive beyond electoral cycles. PR systems produce exactly this kind of stability through consensus-building.

Your concern for future generations is admirable, but consider what system those "groovy kids" would actually prefer: one where every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, or one where millions of votes are systematically discarded? One where parties must build genuine consensus for policies, or one where minority-supported parties can implement whatever they want? One with transparent representation of all viewpoints according to their actual support, or one that masks extremism until it captures a major party? The polls show 76% of Canadians support electoral reform, 62% of Ontarians support proportional representation in government.

The mathematical reality remains: PR produces governments that more accurately reflect how people actually vote. This isn't a minor technical detail - it's the fundamental purpose of representative democracy. A system that routinely discards over half the votes in many districts betrays the very concept of democracy itself.

What we actually need is a system where:

1. Every vote contributes meaningfully to representation
2. Parties must build genuine majority consensus for policies
3. Voters can hold specific ideological positions accountable
4. Representatives from across the political spectrum can work together on long-term solutions

PR delivers this democratic accountability that FPTP fundamentally cannot. The turbulent times ahead require more democracy, not less - more voices at the table, more genuine consensus, and governance that truly represents the will of the people. That's what PR offers, and what those "groovy kids" you care about deserve.

Your AfD example actually highlights exactly why PR is superior in handling extremism. Yes, their manifesto contains explicitly bigoted views - but the key difference is transparency and containment. In Germany's PR system, extremist views are visible, democratically represented according to their actual support (no more, no less), and effectively contained through coalition dynamics.

Compare this to the US under FPTP, where extremism doesn't disappear - it captures one of only two viable parties from within. The Republican Party's evolution over the past decade demonstrates how FPTP masks extremism until it completely takes over a major party. Under FPTP, extremist factions can gain disproportionate power by capturing a major party with internal support far below what would be required to gain significant representation in a PR system.

When you say "imagine Republicans writing something like that in their manifesto," you're missing that they don't need to be explicit because FPTP incentivizes hiding extremist views within broad platforms. Meanwhile, their members freely express similar sentiments in speeches, bills, and policy positions without facing electoral consequences because voters have nowhere else to go. The Muslim ban, border policies separating families, and statements from many elected Republicans demonstrate this repeatedly.

The difference is accountability. In Germany, the AfD's 22.9% support translates to proportional representation - significant but contained. They remain excluded from governing coalitions because other parties refuse to work with them. By contrast, when extremists capture a major party in FPTP, they can gain control of entire governments with minority support, as we've seen repeatedly in the US and UK.

The "ineffective coalition" argument is contradicted by international measurements of governance effectiveness. The broad coalitions you criticize actually create policies with greater staying power precisely because they represent genuine majorities rather than plurality-supported minorities. This prevents the costly "policy lurch" we see in FPTP systems where each new government undoes its predecessor's work.

Regarding Israel - you're cherry-picking one implementation of PR with a very low threshold (1.5% until recently), deliberately designed to create fragmentation. This is why most PR advocates support systems with reasonable thresholds (typically 4-5%) like Germany, New Zealand and the Nordic countries use. Using Israel as your PR example is like judging all presidential systems based only on Belarus.

The mathematical reality is that FPTP systematically discards millions of votes in every election. In rural ridings like Hastings-Lennox and Addington, over 51% of voters had no representation in the last election. This democratic deficit creates precisely the kind of disenfranchisement that feeds extremism.

What you're really arguing for is a system that allows minority-supported parties to implement policies the majority opposes, while calling this "efficiency." But this isn't efficiency - it's undemocratic governance that produces unstable policies lacking broad support. PR doesn't prevent bold action; it ensures bold action has genuine majority support.

Your fears about extremist parties gaining influence in PR systems ignore the far more dangerous reality of extremist factions capturing major parties in FPTP systems. PR provides early warning and containment mechanisms for extremism that FPTP fundamentally lacks. The transparent representation of all viewpoints according to their actual support is not a bug of PR - it's a feature of proper democratic representation.

I'm not about to have a full discussion about PR causing success or not. I'm sure there are already articles written on it.

However, if we live in a democracy, we are deserving of and entitled to representation in government, and only proportional representation can get us there. A democracy necessarily requires everyone having a seat at the table, and in a representative democracy, vote percentage must equal seat percentage.

Seems rude to come in and argue the merits of PR in a community devoted to it, apologies, I’m happy to let it be.

I mean, we live in a democratic society, so free speech is encouraged.

Edit: also if there were a hypothetical system superior to proportional representation, I'd be in favour of it after rigorous consideration. I'm not bound to any particular electoral system.

If you read about what’s happening in those countries, you’ll realize it’s not about the culture, it’s that PR incentivizes really bad outcomes. Take Germany for example. Just like here, a small minority of people would vote for really hateful parties that are toxic and should be avoided

How is that a "bad outcome" when it's literally what people voted for. Electoral systems are not supposed to decide the ideological makeup of government.

It's not PR you are against, you are against a characteristic inherent of democracy itself.

has made the other parties form really broad and thus ineffective coalitions, which are unable to push forward significant legislation

Is this worse than the big tent parties we have now, that members can't vote or think independent of their party leaders?

an absolute pure democracy where every bill, item etc was voted on by everyone. That would certainly be the ultimate in democracy, but it would be a terrible way to run a country and likely lead to some insane policy choices

What does this have anything to do with our conversation? We aren't discussing representative democracy versus direct democracy. We are discussing proportional representation vs non-proportional representation.

My entire point is that PR, while really groovy on paper, tends to produce really bad outcomes and thus sacrifices a lot of the efficiency of government (and of voting frankly) for some (arguably temporary) democratic gain

1. Tends to produce bad outcomes how exactly? You would need to describe an outcome that you would not see under any democracy.
2. Sacrifices the efficiency of government how? And is "efficiency" more important than policy that the majority actually agree on?
3. Your argument against PR is that voting is "inefficient", therefore we should allow non-proportional governments?
4. How is it "temporary" democratic gain, when there are more mathematical criteria satisfied under PR systems for producing democratic systems?

Anything less than full PR is less than an ideal representative democracy.

Besides, electoral systems are not supposed to determine the ideological makeup of government. The responsibility of the electoral system is to ensure effective representation in government, that's it.

If you don't like the ideological makeup of those countries you mentioned, blame the culture, not the electoral system.

There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago

Yeah, back when democracy didn't exist, humanity lived in misery compared to today's living standards.

We can do better than our less intelligent ancestors can’t we? Especially when we all agree generally that the systems we have aren’t working.

Yeah, the better system is called proportional representation.

political parties from the system wholly impractical

Believe it or not, there is no part of our FPTP electoral system entrenches that political parties in the first place. I know you might not like it, but it's factually the truth. They organically come about because people, it's the most efficient way to organize.

otherwise do not waste further time responding with wikipedia links you clearly do not understand.

You are a very angry person, lol. But regardless, Duverger's law is the reason we have a "two party" system.