"If they told people we were Egyptians talking in Canada, yeah, the company would not get this success," a former social media manager for the company concedes
The YouTube channel Street Politics Canada is, by its own description, an “independent news organization that aims to cover unfiltered news.”
“Unlike other news organizations,” it writes, “we are clear and upfront about our biases.”
Since April 2022, it has published approximately 600 YouTube videos catering to an audience of Canadian conservatives, nearly all of which take aim at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. These typically consist of news clips, still photos, and basic motion graphics, accompanied by a voiceover relaying arguments and information gleaned from an assortment of Canadian sources. Titles include “Worst Prime Minister In History Gets Booed By Canadians” and “WATCH!! Trudeau Gives UNHINGED SPEECH After Protestors HECKLE him AGAIN!!” Thumbnail images often compare the prime minister to Hitler.
You forgot to mention the part where the Liberals insisted on the option where they would become the default party in power just from being the second choice of the other two parties voters (with bloc voters spreading all over).
STV/Ranked choice voting gave no guarantee that the LPC would be permanently entrenched in power. We alter our voting habits based on the system, and parties change positions to adapt to the electrical system in place.
What it would have done is allowed us to keep our traditional riding system, with one MP elected per riding who was directly responsible to the constituency rather than other systems where we might lose that.
Besides STV/ranked voting was official Liberal party policy, rank and file members supported it at policy plenary. The LPC shouldn’t have been expected to ignore that fact
Pretending it didn’t on a technical level is disingenuous, they’re the default second choice of the majority of people who don’t vote for them.
Funny you say the party trying to improve democracy for everyone needed to listen to its own members only. “The voice of the majority needs to be heard! What? The majority doesn’t want our solution? Forget it then!”
There are many options that lets us keep the current district system, I’m partial to an improved German system, same map, two votes, one for a local candidate and one for a general party, whoever wins locally gets their seat, more seats are added to bring the chamber to as proportional a representation as possible based on the second vote. An unlected leader gets the first seat for their party then the others seats are filled in order of the districts in which the party’s candidates had the highest % of votes without winning. That means districts in which the race came very close would end up with two (or possibly more) candidates representing them.
I also always find it funny when the “candidate responsible to the constituency” argument gets brought up as if people didn’t vote for a party and party lines didn’t cancel all good intentions. How many conservatives who supported Charest and openly criticized PP left when PP became leader? One.
The CPC and NDP listened to their members, pushing referendums and proportional systems. Why should the LPC have been the only party in the house expected to ignore their own members and their own party policy?
Unfortunately, no specific proportional system was reccomended in committee so none was brought to the house to vote on. You know of a system you would like, that’s great, but you liking a system is a long way from the real political work required to get a free caucus vote to accept it, against party policy, and then a hostile Conservative Senate to do the same (they whip Senate votes and rember it’s 2016 when this happens).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
You forgot to mention the part where the Liberals insisted on the option where they would become the default party in power just from being the second choice of the other two parties voters (with bloc voters spreading all over).
STV/Ranked choice voting gave no guarantee that the LPC would be permanently entrenched in power. We alter our voting habits based on the system, and parties change positions to adapt to the electrical system in place. What it would have done is allowed us to keep our traditional riding system, with one MP elected per riding who was directly responsible to the constituency rather than other systems where we might lose that. Besides STV/ranked voting was official Liberal party policy, rank and file members supported it at policy plenary. The LPC shouldn’t have been expected to ignore that fact
Pretending it didn’t on a technical level is disingenuous, they’re the default second choice of the majority of people who don’t vote for them.
Funny you say the party trying to improve democracy for everyone needed to listen to its own members only. “The voice of the majority needs to be heard! What? The majority doesn’t want our solution? Forget it then!”
There are many options that lets us keep the current district system, I’m partial to an improved German system, same map, two votes, one for a local candidate and one for a general party, whoever wins locally gets their seat, more seats are added to bring the chamber to as proportional a representation as possible based on the second vote. An unlected leader gets the first seat for their party then the others seats are filled in order of the districts in which the party’s candidates had the highest % of votes without winning. That means districts in which the race came very close would end up with two (or possibly more) candidates representing them.
I also always find it funny when the “candidate responsible to the constituency” argument gets brought up as if people didn’t vote for a party and party lines didn’t cancel all good intentions. How many conservatives who supported Charest and openly criticized PP left when PP became leader? One.
The CPC and NDP listened to their members, pushing referendums and proportional systems. Why should the LPC have been the only party in the house expected to ignore their own members and their own party policy?
Unfortunately, no specific proportional system was reccomended in committee so none was brought to the house to vote on. You know of a system you would like, that’s great, but you liking a system is a long way from the real political work required to get a free caucus vote to accept it, against party policy, and then a hostile Conservative Senate to do the same (they whip Senate votes and rember it’s 2016 when this happens).