And next she's heading to Florida to keynote at PragerU with Ben Shapiro; she's the biggest piece of shit in Canada right now.
this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2025
46 points (100.0% liked)
Fairvote Canada
571 readers
285 users here now
What is This Group is About?
De Quoi Parle ce Groupe?
The unofficial non-partisan Lemmy movement to bring proportional representation to all levels of government in Canada.
🗳️Voters deserve more choice and accountability from all politicians.
Le mouvement non officiel et non partisan de Lemmy visant à introduire la représentation proportionnelle à tous les niveaux de gouvernement au Canada.
🗳️Les électeurs méritent davantage de choix et de responsabilité de la part de tous les politiciens.
- A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems
- What is First-Past-The-Post (FPTP)?
- What is Proportional Representation (PR)?
- What is a Citizens’ Assembly?
- Why referendums Aren't Necessary
- The 219 Corrupt MPs Who Voted Against Advancing Electoral Reform
Related Communities/Communautés Associées
Resources/Ressources
Official Organizations/Organisations Officielles
- List of Canadian friends of Democracy Bluesky
- Fair Vote Canada: Bluesky
- Fair Voting BC: Bluesky
- Charter Challenge for Fair Voting: Bluesky
- Electoral Renewal Canada: Bluesky
- Vote16: Bluesky
- Longest Ballot Committee: Bluesky
- ~~Make Votes Equal / Make Seats Match Votes~~
- Ranked Ballot Initiative of Toronto (IRV for municipal elections)
We're looking for more moderators, especially those who are of French and indigenous identities.
Nous recherchons davantage de modérateurs, notamment ceux qui sont d'identité française et autochtone.
founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
Makes me think of treason.
All the more reason for proportional representation! So we can fire these extremists from office!
I agree with proportional representation, I think it's imperative.
But, to be fair, with FPTP 1380 flipped votes would have kept her from power in the 2023 provincial election.
With straight PR it'd be like 100,000.
So, again, PR is critical for the overall health of a democracy. Especially in AB it would probably result in much greater turnout.
But, strictly speaking, FPTP is actually a thorn for this specific extremist.
I appreciate the point about the math in Smith's specific case - you're absolutely right that FPTP happened to work against her in 2023. That 1,380 vote margin is quite thin compared to what would be needed under PR.
But the issue with FPTP isn't just about which specific politicians win or lose - it's about systemic democratic legitimacy. Even when FPTP occasionally works against politicians we might consider extreme, it still creates a fundamentally unstable system where millions of valid votes are discarded and representation is distorted.
Under PR, extremist views don't disappear, but they get precisely the representation they've earned - no more, no less. The larger benefit is that when voters are dissatisfied with any politician's conduct (like soliciting foreign interference), they can be more effectively removed without strategic voting distortions.
What's particularly troubling about our current system is how it creates perverse incentives that lead politicians to court narrow bases rather than broad consensus. PR would require building actual majorities through coalition and compromise, rather than exploiting FPTP's mathematical quirks.
The principle remains: in a democracy, citizens deserve representation that accurately reflects their votes - regardless of which politicians might benefit in any specific election.
A point I don't often see you make is that FPTP is actually a voter suppression mechanic.
You live in a riding with 65% support for Candidate A, but you support candidate B? When it's all-or-nothing with a foregone conclusion why bother? But this skews the result: you didn't bother to vote, so it gives the illusion Candidate A had higher support than they actually do. Maybe the 65% support wasn't even accurate to begin with.
Maybe a better system gets 200,000 more voters into the booth, rather than praying that the winds of FPTP are in your favour.
I haven't thought of it as voter suppression...
But it makes sense, however the connection isn't strong. It's hard enough as is to convince people millions of perfectly valid ballots are just discarded every single election.
I'll keep it at the back of my mind.
Imagine pivoting from accusations of behind-closed-doors corruption investigation by the RCMP with respect to AHS contracts... To full-on election interference in broad fucking daylight for anyone who can (checks notes) listen to a podcast to hear for themselves.
8D chess?
This is beyond absurd. Actively soliciting foreign interference in our election while being recorded for a podcast isn't just political malpractice – it's a fundamental attack on Canadian sovereignty.
The fact that Smith openly admitted asking Trump officials to time political decisions to influence our electoral outcome is staggering. Not subtle backroom deals, not plausible deniability – she straight-up broadcasted it to anyone with a podcast app. That's not 8-dimensional chess, that's knocking over the board and declaring yourself the winner.
What's most concerning isn't just the brazen nature, but how it reveals a willingness to sacrifice democratic legitimacy for partisan gain. Whether you support Liberals, Conservatives, or anyone else, the principle that Canadians alone should determine our elections without foreign manipulation is fundamental to our democratic system.
When politicians openly court foreign intervention rather than winning through better policies or honest debate, they undermine the very foundation of our democracy. Smith's comments show exactly what happens when winning power trumps respecting democratic principles – you end up accidentally admitting to election interference on a podcast.
This isn't a left/right issue. It's a democratic sovereignty issue that should concern everyone regardless of political leaning.
Our government is hunting and deporting brown US citizens. It’s not good.