I’d like to see us move to a Scandinavian style of proportional representation. It’s obviously worked well for them as they always rank as the most prosperous, happy, safe and corruption free countries in the world. In Canada it would guarantee that no party receives a majority, forcing everyone to work together. It would also give more voice to smaller national parties such as the NDP & Greens which are both severely underrepresented while taking power away from regional parties such as the Bloc whose sway over our politics is far too disproportional.
For the sake of saving our democracy there is an urgent need for a concerted effort to educate Canadians about how our multi-party parliament works as well as the shortcomings of our archaic FPTP electoral system.
I was watching the results of the April 13 by elections on CBC with the sound turned off when someone else turned on the sound, lol. OVER, and OVER, and OVER the point was hammered home that the Liberals were on the verge of getting a majority government by a very slim margin. OVER and OVER and OVER the point was repeated that IF any MPs chose to vote against the government on any issue then they could be stopped from passing a bill or whatever. NEVER once did the hosts explain that minority governments can function in our system and the different voices at the table during a minority government have brought in legislation (that benefits the wider population) that we cherish. NEVER once did the hosts explain that other parties such as the NDP WILL vote with the government on when certain issues align with their own platform. The fact is that various parties can find common ground. ( Are we getting too used to US-style combative government?) Main stream media and their pundits and biased hosts are complicit in confusing the issue of electoral reform.
I understand that Alaska has this type of voting system. I think that Canada could learn to vote this way too. But not right now. The whole world is so unstable that I don't think it could work without people being fearful of even voting at all.
From my limited research, this appears to be a grass roots pitch by a Fair Vote Canada campaign. Other than its website, I’m unable to see if and when this may come into play. From the Fair Vote Canada website, the talking points show a few provinces seem to be looking at this, but it does not indicate whether this is from an actual provincial poll or one the group generated.
On paper, it doesn’t read bad and the principle seems to make sense, but I’m not sure I agree with the statement that this type of election means a fair representation and less volatility. There’s enough of that already and getting all these various parties to agree on something means nothing will get passed. Arguments will drag on forever and no work will actually get done. Every party has its own agenda it wants to push through.
The site also points out that it works well in some European countries, but it’s ridiculous how much time is spent trying to get a majority to pass any sort of legislation. Reminds me of the old saying, “Herding cats into a bag.” Sorry https://www.elections.ca/home.aspx, but I would vote No on this.
Our electoral system is not stable and it is a threat to democracy because it is being "played". If not for Trump, the CPC, with its ever growing MapleMAGA contingent would have been elected with a majority and handed 100% of the power. At the last moment Canada dodged a bullet. But there are world wide, well funded, international organizations that have been playing the long game and supporting extreme right wing candidates and parties. What they didn't so far accomplish federally, they are attempting provincially.
The reality is that if not for Trump, PP would have been handed a majority. The fact is that Trump frightened many Canadians into paying attention to what the CPC was offering. IF people believe that they want to live in a country with a democratically elected government, then it is time to educate the people about whether their electoral system is stable and democratic. It is not the time for fear of facts. Fact: when a minority of votes hands ANY party 100% of the power it is time to examine the process.
That’s the dude that would make me quit voting if I had to pick someone other than the candidate that I researched. I would not vote for this new Con party
I would take control and not vote again I do my research before I vote. The guy that won here is useless. Written with concerns twice now and I get a generic response instead of addressing my concerns. He’s a con
Here's what is too often left out of the conversation: Our archaic FPTP electoral system was invented when MOST people did not get a vote. Those who got to vote were male land owners. Period. MOST democracies have ditched FPTP because the eligible to voter population is now very diverse. (A lot of money and time has been devoted to convincing Canadians that changing electoral systems "too difficult" for Canadians.)Too often with FPTP MOST votes are NOT even cast for the party that is handed 100% of the power. That is NOT democratic. Although Canada's multi-party parliamentary system should be a strength, the 2 largest parties have the clout to virtually make elections into 2-way races. MSM backs them up. Too many voters either don't bother to vote because they don't feel that either party represents them. Also, too often people feel that they need to cast their vote against the party they disagree with most. MEANWHILE, some of the most valued legislation that benefits most Canadians has come about because MINORITY governments were elected. (Universal health care, dental care, anti-scab laws etc.) Countries like Denmark that have proportional representation electoral systems do not always elect majority governments. The candidates who are elected are then required to communicate and negotiate to find enough issues that they can cooperate and compromise on and choose a party to lead. (This is going on now in Denmark. For a fictional example, watch Borgen.) FairVote Canada advocates for a Citizens' Assembly, made up of representatives from across party lines to study and make recommendations to the govt. A new electoral system could be phased in and tweaked and adjusted to make it a truly MADE FOR CANADA system. NO ONE PARTY should get to decide or impose electoral reform. But the 2 main parties sow fear and confusion because they know that some of the time they can be handed 100% of the power which is not democratic. Finally, one objection to a proportional representation electoral system is that "what if" extreme candidates get a seat in government? FACT: Despite petitions, protests and many letters of objection, the CPC parachuted candidates who are known bigots, racists and misogynists into "safe" CPC ridings. They now sit in Parliament and are MapleMAGA to the core.
“They” refers to the mix of advocacy groups, policy voices, and political actors pushing changes to the electoral system... not one single organization.
That’s part of what makes it worth paying attention to.
It's almost always been a part of the NDP platform. So nothing new here. And you'll remember when Justin Trudeau said, over 1000 times, that the election that got him the PM job, would be the last under the First Past The Post(FPTP) system. And then had an electoral Reform committee...until he didn't like the results cause it didn't recommend the voting system that suited the Liberals the best (but which was even less representative of the voting population than FPTP.)
And Fair Vote Canada exists just to give Canadians a better system...and has for many years.
I agree this isn't the best time to make a change but a citizen's advisory group could still be struck to present recommendations for 'that better time'
Although 'the smartest guy in the room' isn't likely to pay much attention to a group of citizens.
Of note is that the system, Alternate Vote that Trudeau had in mind when he promised electoral reform was simply another form of FPTP in which the winner is handed 100% of the power with less than 50% of the vote. AV is considered to favour the party that is perceived to be centrist because it's expected that the party in the middle would be the 2nd choice for those on the eft and right.
I think this type of voting is interesting, but hasn't flown in Vancouver. I think you need a really well informed population and a stable environment to make a new type of voting be worth exploring
I'm amazed at the vociferous rejection of even considering the concept but perhaps I'm naive. Discussions concerning Proportional Representation have been around for a while and have some merit. It was brought up at the recent Liberal Conference in Montreal, for example.
As to why it's being more loudly discussed right now, it could well be in response to people crossing the floor to join another party. Proportional Representation would seemingly prevent this from happening. People would also feel more secure regarding the value of their vote and not feel unrepresented. When people feel their vote is meaningless it's not far to believe that extends to them as well.
Many achievements have been made in Canada with minority governments, including the adoption of the Canadian Flag, CPP and OAS, the Canadian Dental Plan and Universal Health Care. The concept of people getting along well enough to pass meaningful legislation may be belied by observation of Question Period in the house, but there are adults present.
One of the arguments against Proportional Representation is that it will take forever to get things done but we may be surprised how willing people are to listen to other points of view when they are presented rationally and not as a Party Position. It works very well in Denmark, for example. Governing is shared, Ministers come from all parties, the number dependent on the proportion of votes. The head of government still comes from the party with the most votes.
The Liberals under Trudeau the Younger presented the population a questionnaire with a form of Ranked Balloting which was so complex it was difficult to understand and perhaps that was the purpose. Parties used to succeeding aren't prone to changing the system that got them there. I see little merit in that system.
I agree this isn't the time to discuss a change in our voting system. We have more important things on the table right now. However, let's not throw it under the bus. There may be a time for consideration in the future. An emotional response is seldom constructive.
Well said! However, before it's too late to mount a genuine effort to inform and educate Canadians about our electoral system and how it compares to other options. Also, not enough Canadians understand how our multi party parliamentary system of government works, including the strengths of minority governments. Democracies around the world are being targeted and our archaic FPTP electoral system makes it vulnerable. There is no better time than the present. Finally, much of our mainstream media is owned by right wing organizations and it is all but impossible to have a fair discussion about electoral reform. (There is an excellent political drama series on Netflix that takes place in Denmark called Borgen.)
My major concern with proportional representation (PR) is the question of who decides where a potential MP appears on any given Party's list. The closer to the top you are, the more certain you are to get the job. Established /more senior people will tend to win over those who may have the energy and flexibility to do the job, and who could better represent the current generation. If we were to have an elected Senate, I would suggest that PR would be better suited there than in the House, for exactly those reasons.
Back to the proposal from FairVote.ca for a Citizens' Assembly to study various options and make recommendations to the government for a Made-for Canada electoral system. A Citizens' Assembly in Canada is composed of randomly selected citizens, similar to a jury, ensuring that participants reflect the diversity of Canadian society in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, and region. This assembly is designed to be non-partisan and independent, allowing citizens to engage in informed deliberation on important policy issues. The archaic FPTP electoral system that is used in Canada to elect our government was designed for different times, instituted in the UK when voting was restricted to a minority of self interested male land owners. In 2026, that system is no longer truly democratic because too often MOST votes don't count. A HUGE weakness of FPTP is that parties with the most money have unfair advantage. FPTP is weakening our multi-party system. FPTP is changing our multi party system into a US-style 2 party horse race in which money talks. Special interest groups can own and control media. (And now provincially right wing governments are asking to be able to have a say in the appointment of judges!!!) Of note is that when he was first elected, PM Carney said that in general he likes Citizens' Assemblies. When questioned he was NOT suggesting that it is time for electoral reform. BUT, the smartest guy in the room knows about, understands and likes the process of a Citizens' Assembly. It's WAY past time that the rest of us, including main stream media become more informed about our electoral system how our parliament functions, the strengths and weaknesses of various electoral systems and about Citizens' Assemblies. It is crucial. We need to be proactive and have ongoing conversations. Knowledge is strength. When we hear PP whining about floor crossing (he is on record as having voted against stopping it), when we heard the convoy crowd demanding their "5th amendment rights", when we hear MSM dismiss minority governments as an election loss while ignoring the many valuable pieces of legislation that were cooperatively brought in BECAUSE of a minority government, then we KNOW that lack of knowledge is weakening our democracy.
Non merci! No thanks! Lo siento pero no!
Claire, fair enough...
and honestly, that reaction right there is exactly why this conversation matters.
When people instinctively say “no,” it usually means they don’t trust what they’re hearing…
or don’t feel like they’re being told the full story.
I trust what you say but I disagree with this as I would quit voting if this came into play. I vote for a candidate not for several.
I’d like to see us move to a Scandinavian style of proportional representation. It’s obviously worked well for them as they always rank as the most prosperous, happy, safe and corruption free countries in the world. In Canada it would guarantee that no party receives a majority, forcing everyone to work together. It would also give more voice to smaller national parties such as the NDP & Greens which are both severely underrepresented while taking power away from regional parties such as the Bloc whose sway over our politics is far too disproportional.
For the sake of saving our democracy there is an urgent need for a concerted effort to educate Canadians about how our multi-party parliament works as well as the shortcomings of our archaic FPTP electoral system.
Lorna, I get the urgency... and it’s a conversation worth having.
But this thread isn’t about fixing the electoral system… it’s about how people get pulled into thinking patterns without realizing it.
If anything, that’s the foundation piece.
Because no matter what system you plug in…
if people aren’t thinking clearly, it won’t fix what’s underneath.
Different topic… same root issue.
Denmark is in the midst of negotiating which party leads government. Have you seen the Danish political drama series Borgen?
Lorna, I’ve heard of Borgen... solid show from what I’m told.
But I’m not really trying to turn this into a political systems thread.
This post is about how people get pulled by group thinking... and how hard it is to even notice it happening.
If anything, the fact that we keep drifting back into the same lane kind of proves the point.
Richard, I get the appeal... those systems can work well.
But it’s not just the voting model… it’s the political culture behind it.
You can import the system, not the mindset.
More representation sounds great...
but it also means more negotiation and slower decisions.
So yeah… worth discussing,
just not something you flip on overnight.
I was watching the results of the April 13 by elections on CBC with the sound turned off when someone else turned on the sound, lol. OVER, and OVER, and OVER the point was hammered home that the Liberals were on the verge of getting a majority government by a very slim margin. OVER and OVER and OVER the point was repeated that IF any MPs chose to vote against the government on any issue then they could be stopped from passing a bill or whatever. NEVER once did the hosts explain that minority governments can function in our system and the different voices at the table during a minority government have brought in legislation (that benefits the wider population) that we cherish. NEVER once did the hosts explain that other parties such as the NDP WILL vote with the government on when certain issues align with their own platform. The fact is that various parties can find common ground. ( Are we getting too used to US-style combative government?) Main stream media and their pundits and biased hosts are complicit in confusing the issue of electoral reform.
I understand that Alaska has this type of voting system. I think that Canada could learn to vote this way too. But not right now. The whole world is so unstable that I don't think it could work without people being fearful of even voting at all.
From my limited research, this appears to be a grass roots pitch by a Fair Vote Canada campaign. Other than its website, I’m unable to see if and when this may come into play. From the Fair Vote Canada website, the talking points show a few provinces seem to be looking at this, but it does not indicate whether this is from an actual provincial poll or one the group generated.
On paper, it doesn’t read bad and the principle seems to make sense, but I’m not sure I agree with the statement that this type of election means a fair representation and less volatility. There’s enough of that already and getting all these various parties to agree on something means nothing will get passed. Arguments will drag on forever and no work will actually get done. Every party has its own agenda it wants to push through.
The site also points out that it works well in some European countries, but it’s ridiculous how much time is spent trying to get a majority to pass any sort of legislation. Reminds me of the old saying, “Herding cats into a bag.” Sorry https://www.elections.ca/home.aspx, but I would vote No on this.
Barb, that’s a thoughtful breakdown.
On paper, a lot of these systems sound fair...
but the real test is how they function day-to-day.
If decision-making slows to a crawl, that creates a different kind of problem.
It’s one of those trade-offs that looks simple…
until you try to run a country with it.
Someone wants to break our democracy, real bad. Maybe not perfect, but stable. That’s the ballgame.
Our electoral system is not stable and it is a threat to democracy because it is being "played". If not for Trump, the CPC, with its ever growing MapleMAGA contingent would have been elected with a majority and handed 100% of the power. At the last moment Canada dodged a bullet. But there are world wide, well funded, international organizations that have been playing the long game and supporting extreme right wing candidates and parties. What they didn't so far accomplish federally, they are attempting provincially.
Lorna, I hear the concern...
and you’re not wrong that there are bigger forces at play globally.
That’s just reality now.
But this is where we’ve got to be careful not to swing too far the other way.
If we start framing outcomes as “we only avoided disaster because of X,”
we risk undermining confidence in the very system we’re trying to protect.
Canada’s system isn’t perfect... no system is...
but it has held up through a lot of pressure.
And that matters.
Where I think the real focus should be is this...
transparency
informed voters
and keeping the conversation grounded in facts, not fear
Because the second people feel like everything is being “played”…
trust starts to erode from all sides.
And once that goes, it’s a tough thing to rebuild.
The reality is that if not for Trump, PP would have been handed a majority. The fact is that Trump frightened many Canadians into paying attention to what the CPC was offering. IF people believe that they want to live in a country with a democratically elected government, then it is time to educate the people about whether their electoral system is stable and democratic. It is not the time for fear of facts. Fact: when a minority of votes hands ANY party 100% of the power it is time to examine the process.
Lorna, I hear your point...
and I agree on one thing... people paying closer attention to how the system works is a good thing.
Where I stay careful is tying outcomes too tightly to one factor.
Elections are rarely that simple.
And yes... when a party can win full power without a majority of votes, it raises fair questions.
But that’s exactly why this needs to be handled with clarity, not urgency.
Educate people, absolutely.
Just make sure it’s done in a way that builds understanding… not deepens division.
That’s the dude that would make me quit voting if I had to pick someone other than the candidate that I researched. I would not vote for this new Con party
Claire, I hear you.
At the end of the day, people want to feel confident in the candidate they choose...
anything that takes that sense of control away is going to be a tough sell.
I would take control and not vote again I do my research before I vote. The guy that won here is useless. Written with concerns twice now and I get a generic response instead of addressing my concerns. He’s a con
Here's what is too often left out of the conversation: Our archaic FPTP electoral system was invented when MOST people did not get a vote. Those who got to vote were male land owners. Period. MOST democracies have ditched FPTP because the eligible to voter population is now very diverse. (A lot of money and time has been devoted to convincing Canadians that changing electoral systems "too difficult" for Canadians.)Too often with FPTP MOST votes are NOT even cast for the party that is handed 100% of the power. That is NOT democratic. Although Canada's multi-party parliamentary system should be a strength, the 2 largest parties have the clout to virtually make elections into 2-way races. MSM backs them up. Too many voters either don't bother to vote because they don't feel that either party represents them. Also, too often people feel that they need to cast their vote against the party they disagree with most. MEANWHILE, some of the most valued legislation that benefits most Canadians has come about because MINORITY governments were elected. (Universal health care, dental care, anti-scab laws etc.) Countries like Denmark that have proportional representation electoral systems do not always elect majority governments. The candidates who are elected are then required to communicate and negotiate to find enough issues that they can cooperate and compromise on and choose a party to lead. (This is going on now in Denmark. For a fictional example, watch Borgen.) FairVote Canada advocates for a Citizens' Assembly, made up of representatives from across party lines to study and make recommendations to the govt. A new electoral system could be phased in and tweaked and adjusted to make it a truly MADE FOR CANADA system. NO ONE PARTY should get to decide or impose electoral reform. But the 2 main parties sow fear and confusion because they know that some of the time they can be handed 100% of the power which is not democratic. Finally, one objection to a proportional representation electoral system is that "what if" extreme candidates get a seat in government? FACT: Despite petitions, protests and many letters of objection, the CPC parachuted candidates who are known bigots, racists and misogynists into "safe" CPC ridings. They now sit in Parliament and are MapleMAGA to the core.
Lorna, you’ve laid out the case for reform clearly...
especially around representation and minority governments.
Those are real strengths in our system.
Where I stay cautious is this...
Every system has trade-offs… and the risk isn’t just the model, it’s how people trust it.
If change feels rushed or politically driven, people push back... hard.
So I’m with you on one key point...
this has to be transparent, measured, and not controlled by any one party.
Because once trust goes… the system doesn’t matter as much as we think it does.
Sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me.
Betsy-Ann, I get why it sounds that way...
a lot of this does get presented in a confusing way.
That’s exactly the problem…
when something affects how we vote, it shouldn’t feel like hogwash...
it should be clear enough for anyone to understand.
Who is "They" in "They're calling it Electoral Reform?
Ian, fair question.
“They” refers to the mix of advocacy groups, policy voices, and political actors pushing changes to the electoral system... not one single organization.
That’s part of what makes it worth paying attention to.
It's almost always been a part of the NDP platform. So nothing new here. And you'll remember when Justin Trudeau said, over 1000 times, that the election that got him the PM job, would be the last under the First Past The Post(FPTP) system. And then had an electoral Reform committee...until he didn't like the results cause it didn't recommend the voting system that suited the Liberals the best (but which was even less representative of the voting population than FPTP.)
And Fair Vote Canada exists just to give Canadians a better system...and has for many years.
I agree this isn't the best time to make a change but a citizen's advisory group could still be struck to present recommendations for 'that better time'
Although 'the smartest guy in the room' isn't likely to pay much attention to a group of citizens.
Ian, you’re right on the history...
this isn’t new, and Trudeau definitely set expectations he didn’t follow through on.
That’s part of why people are skeptical now.
Once trust gets dented on something like electoral reform, it doesn’t reset easily.
And you’re also right about groups like Fair Vote Canada... they’ve been pushing this conversation for years, not just reacting to current events.
Where I think your comment lands strongest is on the idea of a citizen advisory group.
That’s probably the right kind of approach...
slower
more transparent
less politically driven (at least in theory)
Let people actually understand the trade-offs before anything gets near a ballot.
Because this isn’t just a policy tweak… it’s the rulebook.
And if people feel like the rulebook is being rewritten without them...
or worse, for advantage...
they stop trusting the game entirely.
So yeah… maybe not the time to change it,
but not the worst time to start explaining it properly either.
Of note is that the system, Alternate Vote that Trudeau had in mind when he promised electoral reform was simply another form of FPTP in which the winner is handed 100% of the power with less than 50% of the vote. AV is considered to favour the party that is perceived to be centrist because it's expected that the party in the middle would be the 2nd choice for those on the eft and right.
Lorna, you’re right about how Alternate Vote (ranked ballots) can play out in practice.
Even though it looks different from First Past the Post, it can still produce a single winner in each riding...
and yes, that often ends up favouring a more centrist party because of second-choice votes.
So the concern isn’t off base.
But this is where it gets tricky…
Every system solves one problem and creates another...
FPTP → simple, but not always representative
Ranked ballots → broader support, but can skew outcomes
Proportional systems → more representative, but less decisive
There’s no “perfect” system sitting on the shelf.
Which is why this conversation matters...
not just what changes, but making sure people actually understand the trade-offs before anything gets pushed forward.
Because once people feel like a system benefits one party over another…
that’s when trust starts slipping again.
I think this type of voting is interesting, but hasn't flown in Vancouver. I think you need a really well informed population and a stable environment to make a new type of voting be worth exploring
Audrey, that’s a fair take.
Any change like that only works if people understand it and trust the process...
otherwise it creates more confusion than clarity.
Timing and stability matter more than the system itself.
The Conmagative Freedom Convoy Party of Canada. Led by PeeWee funded by Cheeto
Scott, I get the frustration.
There’s a lot of noise and strong opinions right now...
but the more we can keep the focus on issues and direction, the more useful these conversations become.
I'm amazed at the vociferous rejection of even considering the concept but perhaps I'm naive. Discussions concerning Proportional Representation have been around for a while and have some merit. It was brought up at the recent Liberal Conference in Montreal, for example.
As to why it's being more loudly discussed right now, it could well be in response to people crossing the floor to join another party. Proportional Representation would seemingly prevent this from happening. People would also feel more secure regarding the value of their vote and not feel unrepresented. When people feel their vote is meaningless it's not far to believe that extends to them as well.
Many achievements have been made in Canada with minority governments, including the adoption of the Canadian Flag, CPP and OAS, the Canadian Dental Plan and Universal Health Care. The concept of people getting along well enough to pass meaningful legislation may be belied by observation of Question Period in the house, but there are adults present.
One of the arguments against Proportional Representation is that it will take forever to get things done but we may be surprised how willing people are to listen to other points of view when they are presented rationally and not as a Party Position. It works very well in Denmark, for example. Governing is shared, Ministers come from all parties, the number dependent on the proportion of votes. The head of government still comes from the party with the most votes.
The Liberals under Trudeau the Younger presented the population a questionnaire with a form of Ranked Balloting which was so complex it was difficult to understand and perhaps that was the purpose. Parties used to succeeding aren't prone to changing the system that got them there. I see little merit in that system.
I agree this isn't the time to discuss a change in our voting system. We have more important things on the table right now. However, let's not throw it under the bus. There may be a time for consideration in the future. An emotional response is seldom constructive.
Jim, this is a solid take... and I agree with more of it than I don’t.
You’re right…
proportional representation isn’t some fringe idea.
It’s been around a long time, and there are real arguments in its favour... especially around people feeling their vote actually counts.
And you nailed something most people miss...
when people feel their vote doesn’t matter, it doesn’t take much for that feeling to spill over into “I don’t matter either.”
That’s dangerous territory.
Where I think we’re aligned is on timing.
This kind of change needs...
clarity
patience
and a public that isn’t already on edge
Right now, we’ve got none of those in abundance.
So yeah… not something to throw under the bus...
but definitely not something to rush while the room’s already noisy.
That’s how good ideas get misunderstood… or worse, mistrusted.
Well said! However, before it's too late to mount a genuine effort to inform and educate Canadians about our electoral system and how it compares to other options. Also, not enough Canadians understand how our multi party parliamentary system of government works, including the strengths of minority governments. Democracies around the world are being targeted and our archaic FPTP electoral system makes it vulnerable. There is no better time than the present. Finally, much of our mainstream media is owned by right wing organizations and it is all but impossible to have a fair discussion about electoral reform. (There is an excellent political drama series on Netflix that takes place in Denmark called Borgen.)
Lorna, I hear what you’re saying... and there’s definitely a bigger conversation there.
This post was more about how people form beliefs and get pulled by group thinking, not a deep dive into electoral systems.
That said… you’re proving part of the point.
Once something matters to us, we naturally try to steer every conversation toward it.
Nothing wrong with caring... just interesting to watch it happen in real time.
I've watched both years of Borgen, and I agree they are truly excellent!
My major concern with proportional representation (PR) is the question of who decides where a potential MP appears on any given Party's list. The closer to the top you are, the more certain you are to get the job. Established /more senior people will tend to win over those who may have the energy and flexibility to do the job, and who could better represent the current generation. If we were to have an elected Senate, I would suggest that PR would be better suited there than in the House, for exactly those reasons.
Back to the proposal from FairVote.ca for a Citizens' Assembly to study various options and make recommendations to the government for a Made-for Canada electoral system. A Citizens' Assembly in Canada is composed of randomly selected citizens, similar to a jury, ensuring that participants reflect the diversity of Canadian society in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, and region. This assembly is designed to be non-partisan and independent, allowing citizens to engage in informed deliberation on important policy issues. The archaic FPTP electoral system that is used in Canada to elect our government was designed for different times, instituted in the UK when voting was restricted to a minority of self interested male land owners. In 2026, that system is no longer truly democratic because too often MOST votes don't count. A HUGE weakness of FPTP is that parties with the most money have unfair advantage. FPTP is weakening our multi-party system. FPTP is changing our multi party system into a US-style 2 party horse race in which money talks. Special interest groups can own and control media. (And now provincially right wing governments are asking to be able to have a say in the appointment of judges!!!) Of note is that when he was first elected, PM Carney said that in general he likes Citizens' Assemblies. When questioned he was NOT suggesting that it is time for electoral reform. BUT, the smartest guy in the room knows about, understands and likes the process of a Citizens' Assembly. It's WAY past time that the rest of us, including main stream media become more informed about our electoral system how our parliament functions, the strengths and weaknesses of various electoral systems and about Citizens' Assemblies. It is crucial. We need to be proactive and have ongoing conversations. Knowledge is strength. When we hear PP whining about floor crossing (he is on record as having voted against stopping it), when we heard the convoy crowd demanding their "5th amendment rights", when we hear MSM dismiss minority governments as an election loss while ignoring the many valuable pieces of legislation that were cooperatively brought in BECAUSE of a minority government, then we KNOW that lack of knowledge is weakening our democracy.
My favorite part: honest trade offs need to be discussed. This builds trust. A sales pitch does not.