It’s amazing to me how people attribute democracy to an electoral system.

Proportional Representation

Representation by Population (FPTP)

Ranked Ballots.

What are the differences? https://twitter.com/copymiller/status/1305473005053792256

Before looking at the differences, how about we examine the rationale used to make demands for change to the electoral system.

What is the main reason people want to change the way we vote in Canada?

It is often claimed every vote would matter.

So does that mean every vote doesn’t matter now with Rep by Pop? No. Every Canadian who votes has their vote tallied. Every ballot is counted.

So why are so many saying their vote doesn’t count? Because their candidate doesn’t win.

So winning means your vote counts & losing means it doesn’t?

That’s not how voting works or any competition for that matter.

Take for example a group of friends choosing where to eat dinner. (I know ~ COVID ~ it’s just an analogy)

Say 5 friends want to go out for dinner. Three choices are put forward. Any choice that receives 3 votes would be the winner. It does not mean the other 2 voters didn’t count, it means they are a minority in the group. They voted, the vote was counted, but they didn’t win.

Maybe someone didn’t feel like eating the type of food, or someone had an allergy that would have been hard to accommodate. Doesn’t matter. The fact is all votes counted in determining the outcome.

That’s known as majority rule. Whomever the majority of voters chooses, wins.

The problems start when you get larger and larger groups making a vote. Say, 500 people are voting on dinner. A variety of outcomes could emerge. But every vote counts. The voters choice is still registered. There is just more opportunity for a plural majority vs true majority.

Fewer than 250 votes would be a plural majority. But a clear preference is still obvious and determined.

It could be 230, 30 and 240 who vote for a particular choice. It’s fewer than half, but a clear majority is determined.

The 260/500 who did not vote for the plural majority are unhappy. They feel their vote didn’t count. But it did. They just didn’t win the plural majority. This creates conflict. Some are so unhappy, they try to change the other’s vote.

What a wise winner of the vote would do is accommodate those who voted differently. Say like, the next dinner is a choice between the two options that didn’t win this vote.

But politics and voting in elections is far more serious than determining people’s food preferences.

It determines peoples lives. Policies from various parties can help or hurt life circumstances.

Ranked ballots provide voters to choose a second option. If your candidate can’t win, who else would you choose?

This is a false choice, resulting in the centrist candidate.

That’s how O’Toole won the CPC leadership election. He was the “centrist” candidate.

Basically there are three choices on the ballot. Right, centre and left. Both left & right choose the centre as their second option because it’s the closest alternative to their true choice.

Ranked ballots favour centrism. As a centrist, I see this option as inherently unfair.

Proportional representation avoids making a real decision. Say our group of 500 friends has a small number of vegans & carnivores. Their palates are so disparate, they would never agree where to eat. Putting them constantly in opposition to one another and creating conflict.

Proportional representation gives power to these smaller sub groups to determine the outcome. Say vegans want a vegan option. They can manipulate centrists into choosing a vegan restaurant by offering their votes, but only for a vegan choice. Completely ignoring carnivores.

Proportional representation gives extra influence to smaller subgroups & favours them to hold the balance of power. So the choices for all reflect a much smaller sub group’s preference rather than a plural majority. It also ignores what other sub groups want.

In order to move everything forward the plural majority must shift their priorities to favour one of the special interest groups.

This gives special interest groups more power & reduces the numbers of people who actually support the choice. Everyone is hungry, so just go along.

There are clearly winners and losers in a PR electoral system. Some special interests of the population are blocked from ever having influence. Carnivores will not change their food choice. So they go home hungry. This creates even more conflict and accusations of injustice.

Same thing happens if vegans are left out. It creates conflict, it does not increase cooperation. Coercion is not cooperation, it’s a form of force. Unless the plural majority sides with one or the other special interest groups, everyone goes hungry.

This option is inherently unfair as well. It really does create losers and voters whose decisions can be instructed. That creates resentment and animus.

In a democracy, that’s not a desired or fair option to obstruct special interests.

Rep by pop presents an alternative. While it may not deliver a clear majority, it does provide for a plural majority.

If that plural majority only chooses options that serves their voters, the special interest groups will be upset and create animus.

But if a plural majority does accommodate special interests then everybody gets fed & we all live peacefully. The plural majority offers choices that accommodate both ends of the political spectrum. The choices include vegan and carnivore selections, but also omnivore choices.

That’s the only way to keep the majority happy and move forward. By facilitating cooperation and compromise of special interest groups and making accommodations for diverse needs and wants.

That’s rep by pop.

Centrism is democracy. It’s the ability to be flexible and adjust to changing needs and wants of the whole population. Canada had a 3 party system that worked (NDP, LPC & PC).

That system became strained & unworkable when other options were introduced. Bloc and GPC, & now PCP.

The solution is not electoral reform. It’s the reduction of choices, not the proliferation of choices, which facilitates cooperation and compromise and thus, democracy.

Because if there were only 2 choices, there would be less conflict and more cooperation.

Too much choice is paralyzing. Especially when those choices are very similar.

Ultimately, there are only three choices in Canadian politics: far right, left of centre or further left. All other choices are merely iterations of one of those three options.

Even NDP is a more specialized interest option representing centre left. CCF, originating in Alberta, started as Prairie Farmer’s advocating for reduced corruption when selling their product and a few Progressive Liberals joined their ranks.

Labour was the special interest the CCF accommodated to gain more appeal amongst the working class. It wasn’t until NDP was formed that labour took over from Progressive Liberals and very Progressive Conservative farmers who wanted a fair price and a political voice.

Many believe it was always socialists. No. It was prairie farmers who were fed up with status quo and created a third option. That third option has kept issues that affect the masses of working class and middle class Canadians front and centre. But they’ve lost their way.

They do not advocate for policy as the further left option. Now they want to eradicate the centre left and take over.

Granted, there have been issues with Liberal leaders leaning right over the centre line. But that isn’t our current situation.

The special interests represented by NDP are now limited to the working poor. Not the working class. An engineered minority government has boosted their influence and power in policy.

But a reminder... Canada isn’t just the working poor.

While the working poor’s issues have been long ignored, they are not the only special interest group in Canada that has been under attack. An it is not egalitarian time only focus on that special interest group’s needs.

Attempting to change the electoral system so it benefits one special interest group is not democracy. Regardless of the rhetoric coming from the NDP.

GPC are a more militant environmental special interest of NDP, with a few Conservative policies thrown in for good measure.

Basically we have three groups vying for centre left votes. 2 special interest groups with a narrower focus of policy options and the centre left.

We do not need electoral reform, we need party reform. We need to stop dividing into more and more choices.

Who needs all these choices when the variations between their policies are barely discernible. And most of their platforms are bitch sessions about the plural majority not making special accommodations special enough.

We need engaged citizens. We need to discuss and examine options. We do. Not need electoral reform.

We do not need to lock Canada into perpetual conflict. That’s how revolts and insurrections start. By ignoring sectors of the population. Which is what NDP and GPC propose.

Democracy means you don’t get everything you want, but you get the opportunity to influence to get some of what you want.

And if your party’s candidate doesn’t win, it doesn’t mean your vote doesn’t count, it means your narrative doesn’t appeal to the majority of voters.

Expanding your policies to include a wider swath of the population would help with your public appeal.

Quit trying to destroy the democracy we have that’s hanging by a thread because opposition parties want their special interest groups needs met immediately.

Learn how to influence, persuade and compromise. You won’t get everything you want, no one does in a democracy. But you do have the power to influence the outcome of policies using rep by pop. Your rep, even if you didn’t vote for them, is responsible to represent your interests.

Especially if you are a member of a special interest group.