The seat make up would look more like the left if we had a more fair and accountable proportional representation over the obsolete first past the post.
As much as I hate to pin hopes on a hail mary like that, this is likely the only scenario where we will get voting reform to happen. The party in power has no incentive to change the system that brought them to power in the first place, so we’re basically gambling on an outgoing party using their last days of holding onto power to make it happen.
Just writing this out makes me wonder how we ever got here in the first place. Who thought first-past-the-post was anywhere near a functional system to begin with?
I don’t think the Liberal are willing to sacrifice their entire future as the one of the two alternating parties in order to gain a few more seats.
338 on a federal level projects them for 67 seats and 24% ± 3% on the popular vote. That translates to 85-91 seats which is a decent gain.
However this would mean the Liberal will likely never get anything close to majority again. I would also believe they would slowly dwindle in popularity with a rise of smaller parties. That’s a lot give up for 24 more seats for 4 years.
FPTP was fine when elections were held within a riding, and results were delivered by horseback. You were voting based on a local candidate, not the national party.
Then the railroad, telegraph, telephone, and internet were invented, politics became national, and we’re still using FPTP.
Thanks, that does actually help out of into context and explains how we got here. I think the better question (and the one I should’ve asked) is why are we still using a system that predates the railroad?
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
As much as I hate to pin hopes on a hail mary like that, this is likely the only scenario where we will get voting reform to happen. The party in power has no incentive to change the system that brought them to power in the first place, so we’re basically gambling on an outgoing party using their last days of holding onto power to make it happen. Just writing this out makes me wonder how we ever got here in the first place. Who thought first-past-the-post was anywhere near a functional system to begin with?
I don’t think the Liberal are willing to sacrifice their entire future as the one of the two alternating parties in order to gain a few more seats.
338 on a federal level projects them for 67 seats and 24% ± 3% on the popular vote. That translates to 85-91 seats which is a decent gain.
However this would mean the Liberal will likely never get anything close to majority again. I would also believe they would slowly dwindle in popularity with a rise of smaller parties. That’s a lot give up for 24 more seats for 4 years.
Proportional representation isn’t the only alternative to FPTP.
Something like STV or even just IRV tends to put centrist parties in charge which would likely benefit the liberals.
FPTP was fine when elections were held within a riding, and results were delivered by horseback. You were voting based on a local candidate, not the national party.
Then the railroad, telegraph, telephone, and internet were invented, politics became national, and we’re still using FPTP.
Thanks, that does actually help out of into context and explains how we got here. I think the better question (and the one I should’ve asked) is why are we still using a system that predates the railroad?