Mark Carney’s position on electoral reform: “open”. However…
He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quiet nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.
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?
Only the Greens/NDP consistently support proportional representation.
Oh, Terry will be super happy when PR gives him the chance to give a couple of seats to Bernier, giving him a much bigger platform to share his opinions!
In the conversation between you and me, where we already agree (mostly) on electoral reform, the stakes aren’t high.
But otherwise, yes, the stakes are high.
I apologize if my discussions on proportional representation are annoying, that’s not the intention. You can choose to ignore me or even block me if you feel inclined.
Anytime literally anything happens, they’re there to spin it to a PR pitch.
Like, I don’t disagree that it’s critical. I want it. FPTP is idiotic.
But the relentless single-mindedness is to the point where I don’t even need to check the username anymore. The fediverse is a small enough space that one person (or small group sharing an account?) can really saturate a channel.
I suppose, but it certainly draws attention to the movement. And on occasion discussion does come about, in which case that is the opportunity to convince people.
And in the past 2 weeks the !fairvote@lemmy.ca has grown by 60%, so clearly something I’m doing is working.
Reminder of the Liberal’s record on proportional representation: “Liberals never wanted to “make every vote count.”… Electoral reform has become a bonbon offered at election. As far back as 1919, Liberals have campaigned on the promise of proportional representation”
Mark Carney’s position on electoral reform: “open”. However…
Only the Greens/NDP consistently support proportional representation.
Because it’s an absolute waste of political capital to make happen if there isn’t a strong movement fighting for it.
Even if there is no intention to improve our democracy, it’s a really low bar to just agree that every vote should count…
I agree, but I’m not the one you need to convince, it’s Terry on Facebook who spends 2 hours a day complaining about bike lanes and vegans.
Oh, Terry will be super happy when PR gives him the chance to give a couple of seats to Bernier, giving him a much bigger platform to share his opinions!
It’s okay, we’re just having a conversation. Stakes aren’t high.
If the stakes arent high then for the love of God stop posting about electoral reform so often.
In the conversation between you and me, where we already agree (mostly) on electoral reform, the stakes aren’t high.
But otherwise, yes, the stakes are high.
I apologize if my discussions on proportional representation are annoying, that’s not the intention. You can choose to ignore me or even block me if you feel inclined.
You’ve posted that same comment 5 times in the past few hours, that’s not how you convince people.
Anytime literally anything happens, they’re there to spin it to a PR pitch.
Like, I don’t disagree that it’s critical. I want it. FPTP is idiotic.
But the relentless single-mindedness is to the point where I don’t even need to check the username anymore. The fediverse is a small enough space that one person (or small group sharing an account?) can really saturate a channel.
I suppose, but it certainly draws attention to the movement. And on occasion discussion does come about, in which case that is the opportunity to convince people.
And in the past 2 weeks the !fairvote@lemmy.ca has grown by 60%, so clearly something I’m doing is working.