If other parties want to cater to the fair vote movement, how about they come up with more palatable policies to us, rather than have everyone race to the bottom?
This isn’t well thought out. Look at what’s happened in the US as a result of this non-practical approach.
Got any better ideas? The theory of change is a hotly discussed topic in this movement.
If I believe that a candidate is anti democratic impeding democracy (e.g liberal/conservative), then I vote for them to avoid “splitting the vote”, then I just voted for an someone who impedes democracy.
And yes, I do see those that don’t support proportional representation as anti democratic impeding democracy.
The frame of reference is that supporters of proportional representation are splitting the vote, when it should be seen as everyone else being anti democratic.
Speaking from the US so my context may be different, but:
One of the things that bugs me is people don’t seem to want to do anything except in the days leading up to the election. Then they want to vote for some moonshot candidate.
To me the strategy should be a lot of hard work throughout the year, and then harm reduction as needed (eg: vote against trump). The hard work may be phone calls, canvassing, protesting, coalition building, I don’t know.
When people do nothing political except vote for a fringe party, it seems ineffective. Maybe even counter productive.
I mean, I’m lazy and being strangled by capitalism too, so I kind of get it.
When people do nothing political except vote for a fringe party
Again, voting for a “fringe” party that might advance proportional representation, is always better than any party that won’t advance proportional representation.
Besides, Canada is not like the US. We do elect Green and NDP candidates, and they’ve formed government on occasion (e.g., the BC government as of now). It’s hard to say they are fringe, when it’s just not the reality.
And even if these are “fringe” parties, it’s not a “fringe” idea to ensure that every vote counts, as it would under proportional representation.
That’s incorrect if the party you voted for has no chance of actually bringing about proportional representation, and you end up with a party wildly opposite to your ideals in office.
It’s a very entitled viewpoint; thinking “They need to please me” rather than “what’s realistically best for everyone overall?”.
A better idea may be to keep the leftmost VIABLE party in office and work with those representatives from the bottom up to implement incremental change.
Parties who don’t manage to get in office can make no change at all.
It’s a very entitled viewpoint; thinking “They need to please me”
Yeah, that’s how representative democracy is supposed to work. Candidates are supposed to cater to their constituent’s needs. You have it the other way around.
It’s wildly entitled to think that a candidate, who hasn’t done any work to earn my vote, should earn my vote. That’s extremely delusional thinking.
what’s realistically best for everyone overall
What’s best for everyone overall is a strong democracy. I’m not going to vote for a candidate that won’t advance that priority, and neither should anybody else.
Parties who don’t manage to get in office can make no change at all.
And parties that don’t promise any meaningful change also don’t make any change at all.
I’ve been down this conversation before. I refuse to vote for a party that doesn’t advance proportional representation. That’s entirely in my right to do so. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to believe that it is me the problem who is preventing the advancement of proportional representation and democracy.
What happened to just providing feedback to the infographic? Not that I’m against other topics of discussion, but seems a bit like an ambush.
Why haven’t you responded to any of my points other than saying: that’s how Trump wins, or that’s how you split the vote? I’m seriously entertaining the points you’ve brought up, but you’ve barely even acknowledged any of mine. How is that a productive discussion? Ever heard the phrase: talking at someone rather than to someone?
I’d be happy to support candidates provided they have good policies. You are trying to pressure the wrong kind of person, when you should be applying pressure to our political parties, and other voters (e.g., anti-proportional representation). In applying pressure to a PR-supporting voter, to vote non-PR, it’s not a surprise when that trends towards non-PR policies.
We actually do have a viable PR-supporting alternative: the NDP. They’ve formed government on several occasions, so this is not really comparable to the US.
This isn’t well thought out. Look at what’s happened in the US as a result of this non-practical approach.
Got any better ideas? The theory of change is a hotly discussed topic in this movement.
If I believe that a candidate is
anti democraticimpeding democracy (e.g liberal/conservative), then I vote for them to avoid “splitting the vote”, then I just voted for an someone who impedes democracy.And yes, I do see those that don’t support proportional representation as
anti democraticimpeding democracy.The frame of reference is that supporters of proportional representation are splitting the vote, when it should be seen as everyone else being anti democratic.
That’s just my opinion.
Speaking from the US so my context may be different, but:
One of the things that bugs me is people don’t seem to want to do anything except in the days leading up to the election. Then they want to vote for some moonshot candidate.
To me the strategy should be a lot of hard work throughout the year, and then harm reduction as needed (eg: vote against trump). The hard work may be phone calls, canvassing, protesting, coalition building, I don’t know.
When people do nothing political except vote for a fringe party, it seems ineffective. Maybe even counter productive.
I mean, I’m lazy and being strangled by capitalism too, so I kind of get it.
Again, voting for a “fringe” party that might advance proportional representation, is always better than any party that won’t advance proportional representation.
Besides, Canada is not like the US. We do elect Green and NDP candidates, and they’ve formed government on occasion (e.g., the BC government as of now). It’s hard to say they are fringe, when it’s just not the reality.
And even if these are “fringe” parties, it’s not a “fringe” idea to ensure that every vote counts, as it would under proportional representation.
That’s incorrect if the party you voted for has no chance of actually bringing about proportional representation, and you end up with a party wildly opposite to your ideals in office.
It’s a very entitled viewpoint; thinking “They need to please me” rather than “what’s realistically best for everyone overall?”.
A better idea may be to keep the leftmost VIABLE party in office and work with those representatives from the bottom up to implement incremental change.
Parties who don’t manage to get in office can make no change at all.
Yeah, that’s how representative democracy is supposed to work. Candidates are supposed to cater to their constituent’s needs. You have it the other way around.
It’s wildly entitled to think that a candidate, who hasn’t done any work to earn my vote, should earn my vote. That’s extremely delusional thinking.
What’s best for everyone overall is a strong democracy. I’m not going to vote for a candidate that won’t advance that priority, and neither should anybody else.
And parties that don’t promise any meaningful change also don’t make any change at all.
I’ve been down this conversation before. I refuse to vote for a party that doesn’t advance proportional representation. That’s entirely in my right to do so. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want to believe that it is me the problem who is preventing the advancement of proportional representation and democracy.
These talking points were widely and aggressively deployed before the US presidential election, leading to a Trump win.
If you don’t recognize that reality, you are encouraging a similar outcome.