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.
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.
What good is a government that enacts policies that hurt its people? And no electoral system can filter out ideologies that only you oppose.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you literally stop reading after the first sentence?
Here we differ. I will loudly declare that I believe racist, hateful or Nazi adjacent parties are Bad things. I did not think that was a contentious point, but here we are.
What’s the proof? Do you really believe some 30% of Canadians would vote for similar groups and we’re just masking that now? Or just huge percentages of Italians, Austrians, Germans, Dutch, Polish etc are fairly hateful? Rather than say, things have gotten really bad and people are looking for extreme measures?
Maybe this is it. To me, 50/50 is a pretty fucking terrible offer here. Like, hey, we can make your vote marginally better but there’s a 50/50 chance Canada gets a bunch of extreme right politics to deal with going forward.
I think that offer makes Canada a much worse place for many vulnerable people.
Edit: formattings and the grammars
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:
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.
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.
How you want electoral systems to interact.
So you’re now cherrypicking a 2 party system as the equivalent of ours? Do you really not understand the structural differences of the American system and ours? For actual comparisons, you could look at the UK where Reform is their Far Right equivalent but is significantly more moderate than its PR peers and enjoys lower support. You might also note that there are no analogs in Canada.
Most, if not all, of the changes you describe were set in motion a long time ago. In recent years, maybe it’s the rise of polarization, maybe it’s just the fade of the boom time of the 90s, but modern PR countries have struggled in the last decade+.
To be clear, the country rocking your utopian electoral system is going through such bad turmoil that 1/5 of its citizens are turning to a dog whistling neo nazi party, and this is a good thing in your books and has nothing to do with the struggles of Germany to pass significant legislation since Merkel? (I mean, you cited Ukraine, Covid and the climate a few replies ago, missing that 2/3 of those were pretty basic that most of Europe figured out and the other is based EU mandates and on legislation passed years and years ago.)
Basically, if you understand that:
and these issues keep popping up over and over in PR countries, probably time to reconsider the merits of that system.
There are two answers to the rise of extremist parties in PR countries:
Again, I take the rise of these parties in Canada as an unacceptable risk to the vulnerable AND that these reflect growing dissatisfaction within the countries you wish for us to emulate.
You and I personally are unlikely to be seriously affected by those awful outcomes but I care about those who will be affected. Maybe that’s the difference.
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.
You keep blithely asserting that PR is dealing with extremism well. We disagree on this. You haven’t said anything new. 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.
That’s a wildly incorrect misremembering of history, the majority of Britons explicitly voted for Brexit in a referendum about it. I know that despite demanding more representation you hate the results of people being asked things directly, but it’s pretty hard to argue that Brexit was against their will.
Honestly, just read to the end of the paragraph where I made this point. I’m not in the habit of repeating myself.
This is a nonsense reading. You compare a country with a fundamentally different set up, one where the extreme party is fairly moderate by the PR standards AND enjoys less support than extreme parties in PR countries and then our Conservative party, which is nowhere near as extreme as the extremist parties sprouting like mushrooms in PR systems. To put these examples in the same basket as the PR extremism is childishly ignorant and demonstrates you either have no clue about the subject matter or that you are willing to ignore reality to make a point poorly. I’m not sure which is worse.
Like I said, I take the rise of these parties in Canada as an unacceptable risk to the vulnerable AND that these reflect growing dissatisfaction within the countries you wish for us to emulate.
You may not care about the vulnerable, I do.
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 compelling to justify FPTP over PR.
I don’t think systematically disenfranchising millions of citizens is good governance nor a healthy democracy.
More correctly, I dislike when disinformation campaigns are brought upon the public. Similar to the PR disinformation campaigns.
You’re not in the habit of making compelling arguments
I can’t believe you said this. An electoral system does nothing to magically change the ideology of a political party.
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.
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.
Hmm, under FPTP this is happening? What happened to all the good extremism limiting you were talking about?
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.
I don’t know what else to tell you.
If you recommended a bar that had better drinks but every second night, 20% of the bar were alt right extremists, we’d think you had poor taste. The fact you want a similar government here, ain’t great look.
You can pretend that the groups you dislike under FPTP are similar to the extremist groups under PR but that’s absolute nonsense.
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.