• AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    in a sense, “implement” democracy

    Yes, implement democracy is correct.

    in a winner-takes-all system, everything you do can easily be undone by those on the other side

    Look into policy lurch. Basically, a party will implement “extreme” policies because they know it will be undone in the next election. And in the case it’s not undone, it could also be problematic (e.g., chronic underfunding of public services).

    or are actually just against a fairer society, in which case we call them out for it after talking to them

    I actually think LPC front-runner, Mark Carney falls into this camp - against a fairer society.

    1. He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quiet nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.
    2. His public persona is that he is intelligent. But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts?

    It’s difficult to nail down slimy people.

    No electoral system can prevent extremists; as long as you’re electing people, you’re bound to have an extremist in the office at some point.

    I would say we already have extremists: those that believe an electoral system that ignores votes is acceptable.

    When speaking about democracy, we should start with the most ideal, then work backwards for trade-offs. A direct democracy is the most ideal. And we move to representative democracy, as it’s more practical. But the trade-off for FPTP - it’s simplicity, which no longer is worth it since we can handle more complex electoral systems. Therefore we know that PR is the solution.

    Otherwise, it’s just a reflection of the voters around us

    At least with PR, we only have ourselves to blame in failure. With winner-take-all, an extreme minority can, and has, taken down the majority.

    It’s funny to me that Trudeau has repeatedly lamented at how our world (arguably the Western world) is more fragmented and polarized while he continues to advocate for a system that squarely encourages that.

    What’s not funny, unfortunately, is how effective the anti-PR crowd is. But we have principles and fairness on our side, and that will never become disliked.

    • Subscript5676@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      Policy lurch is exactly what I’m thinking of. Thank you for bringing that term up.

      My understanding of intelligence is likely different from others; being intelligent doesn’t mean you should be on the good side. Having a healthy foresight and knowing what should work better for more people over the long term are not qualities of intelligence; they are those of wisdom. Being intelligent just means that you know how to consume information and wield knowledge, not necessarily for good or bad. So I don’t doubt that Mark Carney is intelligent, but he certainly hasn’t shown the wisdom that Canada truly needs, only short-term goals. The latter isn’t always bad, but the world lacks wise visionaries, and Canada seems to be in dire needs of one.

      I’ll be honest and say that while there’s a need to fight Trump from down South at the moment, I can’t say Carney has actually demonstrated any traits that makes me trust him. There’s his somewhat question-raising profile about whether he’ll actually be see national problems correctly to be able to do things for ordinary people, or if he’ll just be another corporate-loving minister. He’s tried to use it to distance himself from Trudeau’s government, but that seems unnecessary, especially when there seems to be plenty of ways he could make that distance clear through actually proposing solutions that are clearly different from those of Trudeau’s.

      I would say we already have extremists: those that believe an electoral system that ignores votes is acceptable.

      I don’t disagree with the fact that we should find that sentiment abhorrent, but that’s definitely not a classification that people would think of when we say “extremists”.

      And this might be controversial to say, but there are lots of people who just don’t want to deal with whom they consider as “extremists”, and would rather have structural barriers in place to keep these voices segregated. Anti-PR people is a mix of misinformed people, actual pro-FPTP people, and those who do view it as an effective tool (though a flawed view) at keeping voices they don’t want to hear out. Cutting people may be a viable strategy for small and/or close group settings, but it’s not the way for a democratic society, and that is where I think more messaging needs to be done to make people know and weigh the benefits of a fairer society over short-term, localized social calmness. Just trying to take a hard look at reality and give my 2 cents there.

      At least with PR, we only have ourselves to blame in failure. With winner-take-all, an extreme minority can, and has, taken down the majority.

      Well said.