Section 3 – Policy Initiatives & 2025 Deliverables
11. Democratic and Electoral Reform
The Parties will work together to create a special legislative all-party committee to evaluate and recommend policy and legislation measures to be pursued beginning in 2026 to increase democratic engagement & voter participation, address increasing political polarization, and improve the representativeness of government. The committee will review and consider preferred methods of proportional representation as part of its deliberations. The Government will work with the BCGC to establish the detailed terms of reference for this review, which are subject to the approval of both parties. The terms of reference will include the ability to receive expert and public input, provide for completion of the Special Committee’s work in Summer 2025, and public release of the Committee’s report within 45 days of completion. The committee will also review the administration of the 43rd provincial general election, including consideration of the Chief Electoral Officer’s report on the 43rd provincial general election, and make recommendations for future elections.
Sort of? That coalition still comes forward with a set of proposals that they generally have a chance to enact (or, they choose not to and bear the electoral consequences for it.) This is different than going forward with a set of proposals, then in a murky set of compromises behind close doors with multiple parties, some other result happens. How to assign blame or credit?
Come on. I don’t think a serious or well informed adult can honestly look at the PC party and say that it is seriously comparable to the Hard Right like the AfD. While some of those folks are swept up into a faction, their outcomes get moderated by the PC party because of the FPTP incentives to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate.
I mean, you’ve seen this learning happen pretty quickly to the Liberal party. People got fed up about inflation and housing, started abandoning the party. There’s a reason the guy who crushed the Liberal party election was the only one who could credibly say he’d had nothing to do with those bad decisions.
Like, political parties aren’t only informed about public opinion during elections. (Otherwise, their campaign promises and platforms would just be wild guesses.) There’s all sorts of public opinion polling etc. And thanfully, we have a strong system that can address these issues instead of just muddle through with a coalition that’s too broad to actually address those issues.
Look at Germany. Does it seem likely that the coalition government will be able to do anything about the AfD or will they just muddle through while the problems fester and the AfD gets more popular? I’d put heavy money on the latter. Whereas Canada, has already started broad plans to create housing etc (these are the sorts of plans that take a long time to materialize, a sad irony about the upcoming election is that whatever party wins will likely be credited for dealing with housing developments spurred by the current Liberal government.)
I was referring to the federal PC party which no longer exists. First, the right-wing populist Reform Party split from it, then eventually the two merged again to form the current CPC party, with Stephen Harper from Reform becoming the leader and eventually PM of Canada. The PC party was unable to moderate its extreme elements and it ceased to exist.
I beg to differ. Housing was a serious problem when they came to power under Trudeau in 2015. They campaigned on doing something about it. They did nothing significant for 9 years and let the problem get worse and worse to the point where Ontario has 80000 homeless people today.
People only abandoned the LPC when things got so bad they thought the CPC may do something even though they’d be worse in many other respects. Many people don’t even try voting third or fourth party because they have experiences with their votes being lost due to FPTP. Instead they keep voting for the ineffectual party they prefer till some issue gets so bad that it seems the party worse for them might do better on that issue.
What we just witnessed with the replacement of the LPC leader without an election is pretty unprecedented and exceptional. This is not how things typically work. Normally the LPC would have stayed the course, lost the next election, have the CPC for 4-8 years and maybe then have a changed LPC that has learned a lesson and ready to do something about housing. Meanwhile the CPC would have let the problem get even worse as their policies are also ineffectual in that regard.
Finally, I also believe the AfD will grow but I think there’s a chance for De Linke to grow with it and force the next-next government to do something about the issues AfD voters are facing.
Sorry, I’m a little confused then. Because you started with this about the PC:
Which yes, the PC ceased to exist, because FPTP punishes extremism. So, this seems like a pretty good example of FPTP moderating/mitigating some of the consequences of a PR system. (Under which you could easily see a moderate Conservative party continually forming coalitions with the extreme Conservative party, which would allow the moderate Conservatives to vote Conservative while not technically voting for whatever extremism an unmoderated extremist Conservative group would want.) And today’s Conservative party is a much more moderate beast.
I wasn’t sure about this so looked back at some polling from around then as well as the Liberal platform. which is absolutely worth looking at as a time capsule. You’ll note that a lot of it was about social housing and rental housing, as the concern was more about the most vulnerable.
Meanwhile, a look at CBC’s polling at the time doesn’t even list housing as an issue (presumably lumped together with the economy?) but consider how unthinkable having a poll without housing as a distinct issue would be nowadays. (It’s also an interesting reminder that for their ills, the Liberals really did try to address those top concerns by growing the economy despite Covid and trying (and getting murdered on) a Carbon Tax, which is generally acknowledged as the best and most serious approach to tackling climate change.
Yup. Sorry though, I don’t think I’m getting the connection between this and PR vs FPTP?
Maybe. But I think right now, parties that “are fighting for a change of course in politics that will open the way for a fundamental transformation of society that will overcome capitalism.” face an uphill battle. I genuinely wonder if the SPD and CDU were left to choose between the AFD and Linke, which they would go to. Do Die Linke have policies that are compatible with mainstream politics? Regardless, I don’t think lurching from being held hostage to one extreme group to another is really conducive to good or effective government.
Which, I think is why I like FPTP, governments (usually) get the ability to enact significant legislation (we can actually blame the Liberals for failing to act on housing as opposed to “well, it was those rat bastards in the other parties that wouldn’t compromise… etc”) but those parties need to appeal to a large swathe of voters in order to actually form government. (And of course, watching PR governments struggle to create significant change in the last couple of decades doesn’t really raise their appeal. )
I don’t understand your understanding of the history of the PC and CPC parties. As far as I understand the opposite occurred. The moderate party was the PC party. It ceased to exist and the leadership of the extreme party Stephen Harper of Reform became the leadership of the new CPC party. The CPC party is a more extreme right wing party than the PC party. And if you’ve followed their policy stances over the years, they’ve been getting more extreme, every time they failed to win as moderates. Pierre has much more extreme positions on the economy and climate than Harper, or Andrew Scheer had. Trudeau introduced the carbon tax scheme, originally proposed by Harper, which Andrew Scheer rejected as some radical, industry killing policy. And today they have no policy on it at all other than “no carbon tax and no cap-and-trade systems.” So I don’t see moderation, I see the opposite.
BTW, I’m not down voting you.
Honestly, I’d assumed that from the quality of your comments. But thank you.
To PC vs CPC fun, I could absolutely be wrong but my memory is that the Reform party were staunchly opposed to gay rights (did check, Preston once declared “homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society.”) , wanted to remove Indigenous affairs and was basically “fuck Quebec, we’ll figure it out without 'em.”
So, I dunno, I think the two having to merge to become a viable party is a good thing. There are zero parties in Canada that I think would hurt my gay friends as much as the Reform party wanted to. But, in a PR system where the Reform party still existed, I could see a coalition of “Fuck Trudeau” getting moderate conservatives, assholes rocking Reform and then… Ugh.
But, I could absolutely be getting caught up in culture war shit, maybe there were some radical economic proposals I don’t remember or somesuch?
I think what you’re saying now is what I am saying regarding the history. Maybe I misunderstood previously. My understanding as well is that Reform was the extreme party, PC was the moderate party. Reform came out of the extreme elements within the PC party. Then Reform and PC merged into the CPC but critically the leadership of the CPC came from Reform. So as a result the CPC was a more extreme party than their ancestor - the PC party.
Yes under PR we’d have some form of Reform today lurking around. Currently those assholes are within the CPC and one of the main ones is their leader. :D There’s a good chance that if Pierre loses the next election, a more extreme leader would take his place. I think Leslyn Lewis was tied for a second place during the last leadership election. She’s pro-life, isn’t too keen on gay marriage, and doesn’t consider climate change a big deal.
Gotchya, sorry I think I misunderstood which party we were talking about moderating itself! But yeah, I basically agree with this summation of events. But to me the win is that there is no party as extreme as Reform was. In PR, I could see Reform influencing policy in backroom negotiations, whereas under FPTP, those negotiations happen in the open and the people are able to judge pre-election whether it is too extreme or not.
While elections aren’t always won or lost on policy (this one is shaping up to be a referendum on “who can deal with trump”) I generally think extreme Conservative positions aren’t particularly popular in Canada (even Harper had to straight up say the debate on abortion was settled) and the Conservatives will either have to moderate or wait for a perfect storm (as almost happened, the same anti incumbent wave that’s swept the world would’ve helped them out had it not been for trump) if they want power.
Your conversation with Avid Amoeba illustrates exactly what I’ve been pointing out all along - FPTP doesn’t prevent extremism, it simply masks it and funnels it into mainstream parties where it operates with less transparency and accountability.
Let’s examine the Reform/PC history you both discussed. Under FPTP, the Reform Party didn’t disappear because “extremism was punished” - rather, the system forced a merger where the more extreme Reform faction ultimately took control of the resulting Conservative Party of Canada. Stephen Harper, coming from Reform, became the party leader and eventually Prime Minister. This demonstrates how FPTP doesn’t eliminate extremist elements - it forces them into big-tent parties where they can gradually take control from within, hidden from direct electoral accountability.
You frame this merger as evidence of “moderation,” but the reality is quite different. The CPC under Harper implemented policies that were closer to Reform’s platform than the old PC party’s moderate conservatism. And now we see Pierre Poilievre, continuing this rightward shift with increasingly populist rhetoric. This isn’t moderation - it’s the Reform wing fully consuming what was once the PC party.
What you’re missing is that under PR, voters can distinguish between moderate conservatives and more extreme ones by supporting different parties. This creates transparency about where public support actually lies. When extremist elements are forced into mainstream parties under FPTP, voters lose this clarity and ability to hold specific factions accountable.
Your argument about “backroom negotiations” in PR systems versus “open” negotiations in FPTP misunderstands how both systems work. In PR systems, coalition negotiations happen after elections with clear mandates from voters. In FPTP, the negotiations happen within parties, behind closed doors, before voters ever get a say. Internal party battles between moderates and extremists occur without public oversight, and voters are then presented with a pre-packaged compromise they must either accept entirely or reject entirely.
On policy effectiveness, your housing example proves my point rather than yours. Under our FPTP system, the Liberals campaigned on housing affordability in 2015 but failed to make meaningful progress for nine years. Despite this complete policy failure on a critical issue, they remained in power. Only when the crisis reached catastrophic levels with 80,000 homeless in Ontario alone did we see any real pressure for change - and even then, it took an extraordinary leadership change rather than electoral accountability.
In a PR system, parties that fail to deliver on core promises face immediate electoral consequences because voters can shift to similar alternatives without “wasting” their votes. This creates stronger incentives for policy implementation and accountability. The Nordic countries, Germany, and New Zealand all demonstrate how PR systems can produce stable, effective policy over time precisely because they must maintain broader consensus.
Your claim that coalition governments can’t enact significant legislation contradicts international evidence. Look at New Zealand’s significant climate legislation, Germany’s energy transition policies, or the Nordic welfare systems - all implemented and maintained under PR systems. These policies tend to have greater longevity precisely because they’re built on broader consensus rather than narrow partisan interests.
The AfD example in Germany actually demonstrates PR working correctly. The system allows their support to be visible (rather than hidden within a mainstream party), while coalition dynamics have successfully kept them from power. Meanwhile, their presence forces mainstream parties to address the underlying concerns driving their support. In FPTP systems, these concerns often fester unaddressed until they capture a major party from within - exactly what we’ve seen with the CPC’s evolution.
Your argument that “Canada has already started broad plans to create housing” after nine years of inaction hardly supports FPTP’s effectiveness. If anything, it shows how our system allows problems to become crises before action is taken, because parties can ignore issues until they become existential threats to their electoral chances.
You’re mistakenly equating your preference for majority governments with effective governance. However, international comparisons consistently show that countries with PR systems outperform FPTP countries on numerous economic and social metrics. The idea that majority governments formed with minority support are more “effective” falls apart when you look at policy outcomes rather than legislative speed.
What we actually need is a system where every vote contributes meaningfully to representation, where parties must build genuine majority consensus for policies, and where voters can hold specific ideological positions accountable. PR delivers this democratic accountability that FPTP fundamentally cannot.
The fundamental question remains: Why should a party with 35-40% support be able to implement policies opposed by the majority of citizens? How is that democratic? And how can you justify millions of votes being systematically discarded in every election? These democratic deficits can’t be handwaved away with hypothetical concerns about governance that aren’t supported by international evidence.
A truly democratic system ensures that citizens are represented in proportion to how they vote. Anything less undermines the very foundation of representative democracy. We deserve a system where every vote counts, not one where millions of Canadians are effectively silenced in every election.