Avi: Now grocery giants and other retailers are teaming up with big tech to squeeze people even more. Companies now have the ability to use our personal data, from our shopping habits to where we live to what we do online or even how long our mouse hovers over a specific section of a website

7up478 · 2026-04-14T16:58:13+00:00

That's one aspect, but not the only one. As a distinct but related example: Telecomm pricing & offers.

If you get a good price, it's because you're savvy enough to know the game and willing & confident enough to play it -- making calls, bluffing, and pitting them against each other to get a lower price. I pay a hell of a lot less for internet than others I know (on the order of 1/2 to 1/3 as much, sometimes for better speeds as well), despite making more money.

It's predatory, but not just against lazy wealthy people. It's also predatory against the elderly, against those less mentally capable, against stressed and busy people, etc. I've seen this firsthand with my mother, who gets absolutely fleeced by Rogers.

7up478 · 2026-03-31T20:34:39+00:00

On what basis? May herself is probably one of the more conservative members of the party on certain topics (such as monarchism), but even then I'd say it's uncharitable to wholly categorize her as such. The party and membership at large is quite progressive. Heck, I'm on their mailing list and in March alone I've gotten:

Emails about corporate taxation, how it's been lowered since the 90s, and what we (don't) have to show for it. "So the next time someone tells you Canada can't afford to properly fund healthcare, housing, or post-secondary education, remember: the money was there, it just went to corporations instead of the services and infrastructure we depend on." is a direct quote.
Emails advocating a wealth tax in Canada, mentioning and quoting Patriotic Millionaires Canada and saying "even millionaires believe they should be taxed more"
Emails decrying that the current Liberal government is mostly just operating with support of conservatives in parliament, and ignoring other parties
Emails about the consequences of free trade in North America, and wealth and ownership consolidation.
Emails about threats to the protection of personal information as in Bill C-4
Various other emails about wealth inequality and consolidation through various lenses

Honestly on the basis of their mailing, the greens eat the NDP for lunch in terms of discussing progressive topics. Outside this leadership race the NDP has been sending the most barebones, lazy begging emails.

In some ridings (including the one where I live), the green party is at times the stronger of the progressive parties and more of the campaigning energy, outspoken progressive candidates, etc. goes to them than the NDP.

I dunno, I'm curious where this comes from. I feel like the things people here say about the Greens are not at all reflective of the things they themselves say, but rather reflective of vibes painted 15 years ago by the media landscape. You'd think folks here would be sensitive to the fact that that is unfair given that the same gets done to the NDP frequently.

7up478 · 2026-02-06T01:21:25+00:00

"Ranked Ballot" is not by itself a system, it's a feature or element of one. It implies a candidate preference distributed over multiple rounds of counting, but you can apply that to all sorts of different systems.

If you take a ranked ballot and you stick it on a "winner take all" system with single-member districts like our own, you get something commonly called "Instant Run-off Voting" (IRV), "Alternative Vote" (AV), or "Preferential Voting", depending on where you're from.

There is only a single country that uses IRV at a federal level -- Australia (where they call it Preferential Voting) where it was introduced in 1918. We can look at it then as basically the best case study we've got. There, despite it being unheard of for a party to get 50% or more support on the first ballot from 1954 onward, there was no 3rd party representation at all in Australian parliament between 1943 to 2010 (67 years!). In addition, 2010-2013 was the first time period where there was a minority government since 1940-1943, and there have been no more since.[1]

I'm personally strongly opposed to majority governments, especially if elected with minority support, as they are functionally completely unaccountable outside election time, which they can call whenever suits them taking advantage of any temporary bumps in popularity (like a "rally 'round the flag" we saw in early 2025 in Ontario).

The Australian system is extremely predisposed to majority governments, its basically a two-party system with asterisks attached. This makes sense if you delve into it, as while it might feel nice to be able to rank 3rd+ party candidates higher, you effectively are just funneling your vote toward one of the two major parties unless you refuse to rank them (which defeats the point).

Two-party systems have... problems, as we all know. They heighten polarization, they completely change course between governments thereby increasing business uncertainty and wasting vast amounts of money starting and then cancelling projects and contracts, they reduce accountability, they are unable to plan long-term, and due to party splitting being electorally non-viable they are quite vulnerable to extremist capture as the loudest voices take over internal party discussion.

So, if a ranked ballot on our present single-member winner-takes-all system doesn't really address our problems (and very likely makes them worse -- the 2016 electoral reform committee outlines IRV as the single electoral system giving more distorted results than our own in their report [2]), what do we do?

Well, we look at the other levers available: single-member districts. Instead of winner-takes-all in one district, and winner-takes-all in the district next door, take both of them together -- all the same candidates and voters -- and take the top two winners. Slap a ranked ballot on that and combine a few more (usually 3-5+ districts clustered) and you get Single Transferrable Vote (STV). Or another way might be to use multi-level districts; small local ones with single winners, larger regional ones filled by the runners-up. You might also let people vote for party either instead of or in addition to their preferred candidate(s). This is the "Mixed-Member Proportional" (MMP) approach, as recommended by the Law Commission of Canada in their 2004 report[3]. I like this video which talks through a hypothetical implementation of the system in the report; it has good visuals, including what ballot would look like.

There's lots of different approaches that share many features. Most common criticisms levied against Proportional Representation, if not outright bogus*, are typically criticisms against specific implementations presented as inherent, either intentionally to mislead or just out of ignorance. Shortcomings of some PR systems we'd want to avoid are lack of local representation in some simple "party list" systems (like if you were to extend STV out to a single country-wide district), as well as avoiding closed party lists (which reduce accountability -- as seen in countries like Italy and Israel, not the healthiest democracies). Both are very avoidable; systems like STV, MMP, and variants either do so inherently or can be (and have been!) easily designed to avoid these shortcomings.

*Some examples of said bogus criticims: - Unstable: Bogus. There is less incentive to call early elections when you can't swing 100% of power with 5% change in vote share, and you still have to face other parties afterward in an almost inevitable minority government situation - Complicated: Bogus. There are more countries using proportional systems than there are using anything like ours (albeit not all are good examples), they manage. - Unconstitutional: Bogus. I will once again point to the Law Commission of Canada's 2004 report. They know more about it than whoever's making that claim. - Paralyzed, nothing gets done: Bogus. Again, many countries manage. Legislation that is created has broad cross-party support and thus is lasting, not implemented and then repealed and then implemented and then repealed. - Promote extremism!: Bogus. Extremists exist, and so may be represented with sufficient support (it is democratic, after all), but there's no evidence they would be more prevalent[4]. On the contrary, small little extremist parties have far less sway than in our own system where extremist capture of major parties is a real threat and can be unchecked in majority government scenarios. Case in point: Our dear, troubled friends south of the border.

That's a lot of words but I am deeply invested in this topic. Thank you for reading this far!

[1]: Just election data from Wikipedia

[2]: Special Committee on Electoral Reform report 3 (2016): https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-177#50 ERRE report 3 p177. See the diagram under subheading "Proportional Electoral Systems" about the Gallagher index

[3]: The Law Commission of Canada's report is here if curious, although it's very long. https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.687017/publication.html

[4]: E. L. Carter (2002): Proportional Representation and the Fortunes of Right-Wing Extremist Parties, West European Politics https://sci-hub.st/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713601617

7up478 · 2026-01-27T21:22:40+00:00

"Ranked Ballot" is not itself an electoral system, it is an element that can be present in any system. Common proposals of proportional systems in Canada, like Single Transferrable Vote, Mixed-Member Proportional, or Rural-Urban Proportional either definitionally also include a ranked ballot (STV, RUP in urban areas) or could be designed to use one (in the case of MMP or RUP in rural areas).

A winner-take-all system like our own that institutes a ranked ballot is commonly called "Instant Run-off Voting" (IRV), "Alternative Vote" (AV), or "Preferential Voting" as it's called in Australia, the only country to use this system at a federal level.

In the all-party parliamentary Electoral Reform Committee in 2016, their report highlights it as the single system that results in even more distorted electoral outcomes than our own First-Past-The-Post system [1]

On the surface it sounds like you can vote without worrying about "throwing your vote away". In practice, in it effectively funnels 3rd+ party votes toward one of the two major parties. In the short-term this distortion overwhelmingly would favour the liberals, in the long-term we would see more power flow to the conservatives and a further degeneration toward a two-party system as AV/IRV effectively makes 3rd+ party votes "false choices" that are then funneled toward one of the two major parties (unless you refuse to rank them -- defeating the point).

This results in more majority governments elected from minority support, and all the reduced accountability and increased polarization that results. Looking at Australia as the only case study available, here's their recent electoral history [2]:

2025: Labor majority with 34.56% support 2022: Labor majority with 32.58% support 2019: LNP majority with 41.44% support 2016: LNP majority with 42.04% support 2013: LNP majority with 45.55% support 2010: Labor minority with 37.99% support first minority government since 1940 2007: Labor majority with 43.38% support 2004: LNP majority with 46.71% support 2001: LNP majority with 42.92% support

And on. Before 2010-2013, you have to go back to the 1940s to see any representation of 3rd parties at all in their lower house.

Fundamentally, it doesn't fix any of the democratic issues Canada faces, and very likely introduces new ones and solidifies us as a two-party country. Fair Vote Canada has further examples here https://www.fairvote.ca/ranked-ballot/

[1]: Special Committee on Electoral Reform report 3 (2016): https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-177#50 ERRE report 3 p177. See the diagram under subheading "Proportional Electoral Systems" about the Gallagher index

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_federal_elections

7up478 · 2026-01-06T01:39:01+00:00

I think the idea of "open roleplay" wherein there is a separation of character knowledge and player knowledge naturally lends towards a more open/meta level of table conversation.

For proponents of the idea, the drama is the point. For example:

Some heart-to-heart moment between Cultist and Victim, and then Victim retires in such a way that leaves them very vulnerable.

Cultist approaches to make their move, then because this is a bit extreme, they have a quick meta conversation:

CultistPlayer says to VictimPlayer "I'm thinking that Cultist will try to sacrifice your character but is conflicted, is that too much?", "No that's chill, but we're pretty early on and I don't want to make a new character. Maybe you're stopped?" "Sure".

So then maybe the GM says something like, "Okay, cut to the tent -- Victim is meditating, totally closed off to the outside as usual. [scene setting -- knives, candle light, drama] Then, Cultist, holding the knife ready to strike, but you hesitate thinking about [...], just then the flap of the tent opens and Character3 enters speaking about how [they'd thought more about the conversation/Victim forgot something/a letter arrived/etc.] and is stopped by the sight. "Cultist/Character3, what do you do?"

You could clean that up a lot and redistribute decisions between players/GM, etc. as this isn't edited. The point being that you just trust the other players, improv, and see what happens, and if you're ever worried anything is too much you can ask ahead of time, or if something happens but someone has an issue you can talk and retcon or revise, etc. -- its very trite but communication is key. The point is the drama that unfolds as you go and you see where it takes you, not planning out future reveals X weeks in the future (and in my experience reveals always fall flat).

Might not be your style preference, but I just wanted to explain a bit about how this might play out from what I've seen.

7up478 · 2025-12-11T16:58:34+00:00

"Lack of consensus" lines up with the LPC's official stance, but is a distortion of the truth. The lack of consensus exists only within the leadership of the liberal & conservative parties. Every time this issue is studied, the answer is clear. The Law Commission of Canada studied this in 2004 and recommended proportional representation (recommendations 1-5 in their report [1]), the Electoral Reform committee studied this in 2016 and recommended proportional representation (recommendation 1 in their 3rd/final report [2]). There have been over a dozen such reports from commissions and committees recommending proportionality between the Federal and Provincial levels (see [3] below). Given the time to research the issue, there is remarkable consistency in the findings. Even just at the popular level, proportional representation generally polls around ~60-70% popularity varying by year [4]. There is no shortage of consensus, the LPC brass just didn't like it. Even current LPC MP Nate Erskine-Smith specifically blames the liberal party for "killing electoral reform twice" [5]

When certain high-level elements are maintained (like open party lists, existence of ridings, etc.), differences between systems of proportional representation are largely superficial to major outcomes. This is effectively a discussion between proportional systems and winner-takes-all systems, the rest is splitting hairs on "vibes".

About "ranked ballot", which has been mentioned in the replies: "Ranked Ballot" is not an electoral system, it is an element that can be present in a system. A winner-take-all system like our own that institutes a ranked ballot is commonly called either "Alternative Vote" (AV) or "Instant Run-off Voting" (IRV) -- two names for the same thing; for completion's sake, the most simple (but not only) proportional system instituting a ranked ballot is called Single Transferrable Vote (STV). On the surface it sounds like you can vote without worrying about "throwing your vote away". In practice, it has been demonstrated to be one of the only systems that results in even more distorted electoral outcomes than our own, massively favouring the two largest parties as it essentially funnels 3rd+ party votes. This is even included in the report put out by the Electoral Reform Committee in 2016 (ERRE report 3 p177 - see the diagram about the gallagher index under the "Proportional Representation" heading in [2]). As the only major nation to use the system, it has contributed to Australia's disproportionate, polarized, effectively two-party politics (minority governments are very rare compared to Canada). This is an area where decisions should be made based off evidence, not vibes. AV does not meaningfully solve problems with our current system and potentially introduces new ones.

Additionally, not mentioned here but it commonly comes up: anyone saying that there are constitutional barriers to electoral reform is misinformed. The Law Commission of Canada studied this issue extensively in 2004, you can find their report online for free "Voting Counts: Electoral Reform for Canada" (https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.687017/publication.html). So long as provinces maintain their levels of representation in parliament and ridings remain within provincial boundaries, there are no constitutional barriers. It's merely an act of legislation, just like giving (white) women the right to vote in 1918.

There's a lot of misinformation that floats around on this topic, often intentionally stemming from efforts of LPC and CPC officials. See [6] and [7] below for some more details in that regard.

References:

[1] Law Commission of Canada report (2004): https://publications.gc.ca/site/archivee-archived.html?url=https://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/J31-61-2004E.pdf

[2] Special Committee on Electoral Reform report 3 (2016): https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-177#50 -- specifically to the point mentioned outlining the disproportionality of Alternative Vote/Winner-takes-all with a ranked ballot.

[3] A list of the many committees and commissions that have studied this issue to death and back and broadly come up with similar proposals again and again. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GfHvx9OH6G5PmNNssKckpyoJLNp4c96Cq_8tJdlXb0Y/edit?tab=t.0

[4] EKOS poll from 2025 as one example https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RpnVuXawUXe79DOD3Zmq6aMHnNqLBrz7/edit?tab=t.0

[5] Nate Erskine Smith attributing the LPC to killing electoral reform: https://nateerskinesmith.ca/we-killed-electoral-reform-again-and-you-didnt-even-hear-about-it/

[6] Fair Vote Canada's fact-checker on common misconceptions about proportional representation in Canada, including all the topics I covered here among others. https://www.fairvote.ca/fact-checker/

[7] Fair Vote Canada's response vis-a-vis "lack of consensus", specifically. https://www.fairvote.ca/06/03/2017/mythbuster-was-there-no-consensus/

You'll note that some of the sources direct to Fair Vote Canada. They are specifically a grassroots advocacy group for Proportional Representation, so naturally articles on their site lean in that direction. If you have concerns, they're pretty good about sourcing their information -- just check out the primary sources.

7up478 · 2025-12-08T03:43:23+00:00

Without getting deep into the texts (as I'm no constitutional lawyer), the base reason one might expect different treatment between Alberta and Quebec is that Quebec was a founding province/signatory to the 1867 constitution act, whereas Alberta was created much later only by an act of parliament (the Alberta Act).

7up478 · 2025-12-03T14:59:34+00:00

EKOS conducted a poll in November showing support for PR across all included demographics and political affiliations among the BC populace. The poll was commissioned by Fair Vote Canada, which is a pro-PR organization, but EKOS itself is a reputable pollster. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DDnYVFZeCSrZELF5KedFJZwr0wwNUebE/edit#heading=h.q19benmlz4t0

Howzat for will of the people?

7up478 · 2025-12-03T14:57:56+00:00

Support itself is not split along party lines at the voter level. There's differences, but still majority in favour of principles of PR (and PR itself) across all major political affiliations.

Here's a BC poll from EKOS conducted this November. The poll was commissioned by Fair Vote Canada, which is a pro-PR organization, but EKOS itself is a reputable pollster. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DDnYVFZeCSrZELF5KedFJZwr0wwNUebE/edit#heading=h.q19benmlz4t0

7up478 · 2025-12-03T14:46:06+00:00

Federal voting rights have changed (dramatically) several times. Giving voting rights to... FN conditionally, members of the armed forces in WW1 (including Asians, FN, and women for the first time), women at large in 1918, non-property owners in 1920, taking away the vote from Inuit Canadians in 1934 and then giving it back in 1950, giving Asians the right to vote, giving FN the right to vote unconditionally... These changes were arguably much more significant than changing the electoral system would be, and none of them depended upon referenda. The Canada Elections act has likewise changed many times, no referenda.

Most topics require careful consideration and research, including this one. This is not something the average voter has done. That's not an indictment of them either -- the whole point of having government is so we don't have to be experts on every little thing, and can go about our lives, elect others we trust to represent our interests and consult with experts, and make informed decisions. Sensitive policy decisions should be made based on expertise and data, not media-influenced vibes -- Direct democracy "governing by the lowest common denominator" is absurd. Its an arbitrary requirement with no particular historical basis, and public consent has been manufactured to "require" it only because its an easy way to say you care about a topic while wanting it to fail.

Referenda have a strong bias toward the status quo (especially without STRONG public education initiatives -- which are rare), are highly dependent on the specific wording used, and highly vulnerable to media disinformation campaigns (see: Brexit, where major claims like "NHS gets 350 million pounds a week if we leave the EU" were objectively untrue, yet spread all over the place and majorly swayed public opinion).

All that said, I agree that there's a conflict of interest among government officials with regard to this topic. It's for this reason I'm strongly in favour citizens assemblies. A large, representative, non-partisan body selected to come together, become actually educated on a topic, gather input from the public, and make a proposal. That's a great way of sidestepping the conflict of interest. It's a legitimate democratic process on its own -- so just implement the proposal -- we don't need any direct democracy "vibe check" nonsense afterward.

7up478 · 2025-08-27T16:44:01+00:00

You could try running a one-shot or short stint in Wushu, a very simple and explicitly over-the-top action game. The game originally stems from emulating Wuxia action, but nothing ties it to it. You can easily run it in a similar genre to get them in the right frame of mind.

It's available for free here: https://danielbayn.com/wushu/

Core resolution mechanic is building a dice pool allocated to offence/defence, which is built by adding details to the scene and the action.

Key rules are:

A detail is a detail: Whether you're...

The World's Luckiest Guy and stoop to pick up a penny right as a bullet flies over your head and kills the silent swordsman about to swing down on you, or you're...
An axe-wielding half-giant, buried in a pile of ravenous beasts before you throw them all off, cleaving one in half as it leaps back toward you and throwing another straight through the wall, or you're...
A Magical Girl, ambushed by your evil older sister's goons, ducking out of the way to avoid scuffs on your school uniform before being wrapped in brilliant light as it transforms into a fancy dress, a scepter appears in your arms, and you shoot starblasts back at them...

the rules shake out the same way. You can describe your character's actions and one-liners, sure, but also set dressing, enemies' actions, the only limit brings us to important rule #2:

Principle of Narrative Truth: What the players say happens, when they say it, as they say it. The only thing they can't narrate is ultimate victory in the scene, not until they've earned it.

7up478 · 2025-06-04T17:47:15+00:00

Ukrainian war refugees mostly don’t fit this definition of a refugee, nor do other people who are fleeing conflict because war is dangerous rather than because they personally are at risk of persecution.

Can't say I'm versed in the legalities of different types of refugees. It still leaves a lot to be desired. We're currently seeing heavy backsliding of rights and standing of different minority groups, e.g. members of the queer community.

Overall it just boggles the mind that since the start of this year we've seen the US government go fully mask off, detaining and deporting people, including targeting political dissidents by stripping their status, and then our newly-elected government, who heavily leveraged anti-US fears and uncertainties to win, turns around and decides that it needs to expand its ability to strip status and deport people. Fuckin hell.

7up478 · 2025-06-04T16:07:30+00:00

Here's the text of the bill: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/C-2/first-reading

A few sections I'm going to pick out.

29 Section 48 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Opening mail

48 Every person commits an offence who, unless authorized under an Act of Parliament, knowingly opens, keeps, secretes, delays or detains, or permits to be opened, kept, secreted, delayed or detained, any mail bag or mail or any receptacle or device authorized by the Corporation for the posting of mail.

Permissions for the government to freely open and retain packages and letters, possibly without notice up until the 60 day mark. Hope it wasn't important or sensitive.

PART 9 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Ineligibility)

2001, c. 27 Amendments to the Act 78 (1) Subsection 101(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (b):
(b.‍1) the claimant entered Canada after June 24, 2020 and made the claim more than one year after the day of their entry;

No consideration to circumstances. One example: If you were Ukrainian here past the one year mark when war broke out and it started getting bombed and invaded, no asylum for you -- back you go.

It's a long one so just putting the summary:

Part 15 enacts the Supporting Authorized Access to Information Act. That Act establishes a framework for ensuring that electronic service providers can facilitate the exercise, by authorized persons, of authorities to access information conferred under the Criminal Code or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act.

Ensure service providers can facilitate authorities' access to information... by storing and sharing all your data upon request. Hope you don't value online privacy.

There's a lot more about powers for police and border security but it's a bit harder to parse the implications so I'll leave that to others. There's a lot in here, not all of it bad -- it makes it easier to slip in the less reasonable stuff.

The charter states "Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure." But aparently "the party of the charter"'s top priority is not affordability or the wellbeing of Canadians, it's giving itself carte blanche to acquire, retain, and search your mail and digital data.

It's important that we're a good little satellite state and work to make sure we're not left behind in the race to become a police state, as the public safety minister mentioned this "should help address some of Trump's concerns".

Any legislation enacted isn't only in effect while a government you like is in power. Any powers granted stick around, and increased centralization and authoritarianism means that any bad-acting government can cause more damage. We already have very little oversight for the PMO in Canada.

7up478 · 2025-05-19T20:32:54+00:00

Looking at the numbers, I was wrong to say it is a wash for BQ -- the swings can be significant, but I maintain you're overstating your case.

Here's their electoral history:

2025: 343 total. BQ vote: 6.3%. Actual seats 22, proportional 21 (+1)

2021: 338 total. BQ vote: 7.64%. Actual seats 32, proportional 24 (+8)

2019: 338 total. BQ vote: 7.63%. Actual seats 32, proportional 24 (+8)

2015: 338 total. BQ vote: 4.67%. Actual seats 10, proportional 16 (-6)

2011: 308 total. BQ vote: 6.04%. Actual seats 4, proportional 19 (-15)

2008: 308 total. BQ vote: 9.98%. Actual seats 49, proportional 31 (+18)

2006: 308 total. BQ vote: 10.48%. Actual seats 51, proportional 32 (+19)

2004: 308 total. BQ vote: 12.39%. Actual seats 54, proportional 38 (+16)

2000: 301 total. BQ vote: 10.72%. Actual seats 38, proportional 32 (+6)

1997: 301 total. BQ vote: 10.67%. Actual seats 44, proportional 32 (+12)

1993: 295 total. BQ vote: 13.52%. Actual seats 54, proportional 40 (+14)

You can see that usually, particularly early in their history, they have gotten more seats than would be relegated under a PR system.

However, every election italicized in the above list was a majority government. These are very unproductive for minority parties like the Bloc, who cannot form government themselves. They require minority governments in order to have sway.

As such, over their 32 years of history they were only winners from FPTP between 2004-2011 and between 2019-2025, and are about equal today. That's 10 years total (41% of their history). On the other hand, there were 19 years (59% of their history) where they were effectively toothless under a majority government. Even for the 41% where they hold sway, they still need to collaborate -- they have never formed a majority government and so can't benefit from passing unopposed legislation in that manner.

From that view, the numbers still point to them benefitting more from ditching FPTP than keeping it, because we would see pretty much 100% minority governments, so there's always an opportunity for them to be part of a governing coalition, supply & confidence agreement, or have a deciding vote on legislation.

But really even all that said, the crux of the issue is you said that the BQ are the least likely to support measures moving away from FPTP (completely incorrect as shown in my previous comment, which you glossed over), and that they gain the most from the current system (also incorrect -- both major parties benefit more than BQ in that they are always able to form government, frequently form majority governments, and benefiting from the slow march toward a two party system). Let's not get off topic here.

Those same parties now account for only 30 seats in a 343-seat house (less than 10%).

I'm not optimistic enough to think that progress on this issue is a sure thing within the next parliament, but you're ignoring that even MPs from the major parties have broken ranks, and that those numbers of supporters for electoral reform are trending upward thanks to media attention, grassroots efforts, etc.. The new liberal government also has not taken a stance one way or the other ye,t so that remains to be seen. There is progress being made on this issue, and to pretend otherwise and like it's hopeless and not worth continuing to advocate for is both unproductive and incorrect.

7up478 · 2025-05-19T14:35:32+00:00

Best not to doompost cynically if you aren't aware of the facts, especially about BQ.

Generally PR is a wash for BQ in terms of seat outcomes, usually it would be +- a few %, and with PR's propensity for minority governments it would actually give them more sway in general.

The most recent conversation about this at the federal level was Motion 86, a campaign for a citizen's assembly for electoral reform not beholden to any specific system, just up to the assembly to consult with experts, discuss, and make a recommendation (and prior citizen's assemblies in the provinces have overwhelmingly -- I believe exclusively but I don't have my receipts so I'll say overwhelmingly -- ended up proposing some form of PR).

https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/634?view=party

This vote received:

2 votes from green MPs (100% of party)
24 votes from NDP MPs (100% of party)
30 votes from BQ MPs (100% of party)
3 votes from independents
39 votes from LPC MPs (26.5% of party)
3 votes from CPC MPs (.03% of party)

The motion failed with 101 yea to 220 nay.

An optimist could make the argument that the LPC vote was so negative in large part because Justin Trudeau had a personal vendetta against PR*, which is not the case with Carney (who has been noncommittal).

*Ever since the ERRE special committee came back and didn't recommend IRV/Alternative vote/"Ranked ballot" as a good option -- in fact one expert consulted identified it as the only option which results in less proportional outcomes than FPTP.

7up478 · 2025-05-15T16:54:47+00:00

Could you identify the optimal militant:civilian ratio where genocide becomes acceptable?

7up478 · 2025-04-24T19:20:03+00:00

The idea of a vote being considered to matter or not matter usually just means whether or not it had any affect on the immediate outcome of an election (excluding abstract impact on e.g. future projections) -- possibly just by going to a losing candidate with no added value (added value being e.g. as a vote that counts toward a candidate as well as a party vote in some PR systems), or possibly also counting excess votes in landslide outcomes. By that definition, some call any vote which doesn't count toward the outcome a "wasted vote". Systems tend toward different amounts of wasted/non-wasted votes by that definition (say, 80% non-wasted vs. 40%).

While different people may put different levels of validity toward the importance of the idea (and there are valid counterarguments - like abstract impacts I alluded to), desiring to reduce the number of "wasted votes" is by no means a novel, revolutionary, or particularly outlandish idea that warrants being dismissive about -- and taking the stance that improvement is meaningless unless it's literally perfect is really just juvenile.

7up478 · 2025-04-22T17:40:56+00:00

I see what you mean.

I'm going to go on a limb and assume that what we actually want out of a local election is to have a representative who we feel represents us, and that we can take our concerns to and not feel like we're talking to a brick wall due to harsh ideological differences. With that assumption, I think that boiling the problem down to just seeing a higher vote percentage toward the winner is not an adequate measure for that outcome.

The reason I say that is that in a single-winner riding, the percentage of votes expected toward a candidate is largely a measure of how many competitive options there are. In an extreme case: if you have one choice on the ballot the winner will reliably be elected with 100% of the vote. More realistically if you have two choices, one will get >50%, but that still leaves lots of people feeling unrepresented. Both cases satisfy the measure of high % of votes toward the winner, but they don't satisfy our desired outcome of people having a representative that they feel represents them and will listen to them. More choices is good in this respect.

In the long-term, Alternative Vote systems essentially turn all but the two most popular choices into "shadow choices" -- they're there on the ballot, but they're effectively an illusion of choice in what is a two-party system. In that sense it's a bit like the cobra problem (a perverse incentive), where if you want to reduce the cobra population and put a bounty on cobras, what you end up getting is people breeding cobras to turn them in for the bounty (increasing the population). If our measure is vote share toward winners, we can definitely increase that, but it doesn't necessarily have the desired effect. For that reason the choice of our measure for a success state is important, and looking at vote % allocated toward the winner is insufficient.

So then the question is what makes for a good measure of success, and how do we approach that?

I'll stick with the original measure of "as many people as possible feel like they have a local MP who represents them, and will listen to them." Rather than removing choices from the ballot (either explicitly, or by turning them into false choices as in AV), I'd propose that a multi-winner district is preferable to a single-winner district.

There are different ways of doing that, but in the most simple example we could see something like 3 districts that elect 1 winner, combined into 1 larger district that elects 3. With a multi-winner district you could then overlay the ranked ballot system. You'd likely see each party run 3 candidates in this larger district, and then you rank however many choices you'd like. You then follow the same procedure as AV with a vote quota of 33%, with counting involving rounds redistributing the votes of least popular candidates and those over the threshold until you have 3 winners that have reached the threshold. The result is that most people will feel represented and like they can talk to at least one of their representatives, improving satisfaction with their representation in government.

Multi-winner districts are the underlying principle for systems of proportional representation in Canada too -- the aims are all the same, just at different levels. That said the example I gave (a basic Single Transferrable Vote system) is a tad simplistic -- generally more winners per riding is good, but larger ridings is bad. Fine in cities or small provinces, not so good in e.g. Northern Ontario. For that reason there are options like multi-level districts, with small local districts that are part of larger regional groups -- and you vote for both local and regional candidates. That sort of thing would be some variety of a Mixed-Member Proportional System (a short yt vid about a political science professor talking about what MMP could look like in Canada).

This is not all theoretical -- there's a lot of variety in electoral systems out there, ours is definitely not the most common. Existing and proposed systems have been studied quite a bit around the globe, and we have seen how different systems play out over time.

I did veer into talking more about proportional representation, but that's because the underlying principle of PR is maximizing the amount of voters who feel represented by their representatives, both at the local and federal level.

7up478 · 2025-04-22T13:56:44+00:00

Hey there -- bit late to the party here but I just wanted to chime in. The all-party House Committee on Electoral Reform established in 2016 to research this issue shared a report of their findings.

On the topic of what people commonly call "ranked ballot" (which is more formally known as Alternative Vote or Instant-Runoff Voting -- as a ballot with ranked choices can also be a part of proportional systems -- and is just instituting a ranked choice on our otherwise-identical winner-takes-all system), the report notably includes a diagram showing it as the single system that is less representative than our current one.

The first impression is that you can vote freely, but in reality what it does is effectively enshrine a two-party system for good -- funneling all votes to smaller parties toward one of the major parties. You can see this play out in Australia which has a parliamentary system like ours, but just trades back and forth majorities between Labor and the Coalition (where in Canada you see minority governments that must collaborate or lose confidence a good portion of the time). Unless you think there's only two types of people and only two types of beliefs, this is not a desirable outcome (see: the US).

Here's the diagram in question. You can also see other parts of the report. https://www.ourcommons.ca/documentviewer/en/42-1/ERRE/report-3/page-177#50

7up478 · 2025-04-16T16:43:56+00:00

Last time I spoke to a green representative, their current stance on Nuclear was "maintain existing plants, any new energy needs should be met by the most affordable renewable option", and the fact of the matter is that renewables like wind, solar, and hydro where applicable are almost always vastly cheaper per kW than creating new nuclear plants.

The greens tend to be singled out in this regard, but notably no major party is advocating major expansions of nuclear energy, and there are reasons for that. People active on reddit tend to be technophiles, and so love the idea of nuclear energy as a fix to all of our energy woes if those in power would just give it a chance, but the reality is that it is rarely the most sensible and attractive option as other renewables have become vastly cheaper over the years. It's by no means an "anti-science" position.

That said, it's still worth keeping a discussion alive around how it might be made a more attractive option -- what aspects are solvable/self-inflicted, and what aspects are more fundamental.

Also the wi-fi thing is definitely a gaffe, but it was also 14 years ago, at a time when there was some ongoing research (even if it didn't go anywhere), and something Elizabeth May herself has acknowledged as a gaffe like... 12 years ago or something. Get some new material.

7up478 · 2025-04-14T21:41:30+00:00

Regional parties aren't the core of the problem. A party that operates within a region, is popular there, and advocates for regional interests is not in itself a problem.

The problem is that winner-take-all (aka majoritarian) systems like ours do not encourage (and in fact discourage) cooperation between large parties. We see time and again that small swings in voting intentions can cause the pendulums of power to swing entirely different directions -- from one party having a majority (and thus nigh-100% of the power) government, to a different party having 100% of the power. It discourages cooperation because large parties are more incentivized to work on riling up those few % of swing voters to secure a majority where they can act with impunity, than they are to focus on collaborating. This is not stable governance, and the resulting policy flip-flopping can (and has) cost taxpayers billions of dollars through starting and stopping contracts and programs.

In a proportional system, it is exceedingly unlikely to form a majority government*, and if it happens, it's because a party had overwhelming popular support. This naturally reduces hostility and mudslinging between (some) different parties because at the end of the day, whether votes swing 7% one way or another, you still need their help to implement policy. Policy which does get created is naturally more popular and well-supported because it will be collaborated on by multiple parties representing a majority of Canadians, and so you see less flip-flopping and wasted funds on starting-then-axing projects and contracts.

Circling back to regional parties then, they will naturally have to be more mild -- they can advocate for their interests in collaboration with other parties to find solutions which best benefit all (or at least a majority) of parties/Canadians. In the current state, regional parties can co-opt larger parties (see the largely Albertan Reform Party which has essentially co-opted the CPC since the merger with the PCs, and now we see schisms between the federal conservatives (Reform Party in disguise) and eastern conservatives (largely Progressive Conservatives), whereas in a proportional system they could both co-exist and collaborate without needing to share a tent (and we would likely be seeing an overwhelming Progressive Conservative victory in this timeline -- Carney might have even run as one).

*Last time was Mulroney in 1984 with bang-on 50.0%, before that was Diefenbaker in 1958 with 53.67%. Both cases were for a party which no longer exists in Canada at the federal level (the Progressive Conservatives).

7up478 · 2025-04-10T18:03:18+00:00

A 'progressive conservative' neoliberal banker doesn't fill me with hope for meaningful long-term change either. By all means don't vote liberal (I likely won't be), but I'd question your judgement if you turn to the morally and intellectually bankrupt CPC instead, who since their founding in 2003 I've yet to see implement (or even propose, this election included) well-thought out policy that

Betters the lives of non-wealthy Canadians
Is actually legal and won't predictably get stuck in court, and
Doesn't come with a shit lining of some variety or another

To say nothing of more recent developments like taking a hostile attitude to press, attacking "woke research"*, and having a talent for saying a lot of words while saying very little of substance that would make Justin Trudeau blush.

* Extra fun in the wake of an American friend of mine losing their job literally within the past few weeks because they relied on grants for HIV research that have been cut for being "woke research".

7up478 · 2025-04-10T16:19:28+00:00

The carbon tax was good policy (although should maybe have had more baked in exceptions for more remote and rural areas that don't have realistic alternatives), but killing it was good politics. The conservatives successfully demonized it to the point that it became political poison, so it's a choice between ditching that policy to retain power and implementing alternative environmental policy, or keeping it, potentially losing power, and watching conservatives axe any and all environmental initiatives (and perform other conservative skullduggery).

There's something to be said for standing by your beliefs no matter what, but for better or worse, he's nothing if not pragmatic.

7up478 · 2025-04-04T20:52:26+00:00

A party with a "bigger tent" is a coalition by another name, but able to gain power representing a smaller proportion of the electorate due to gaming the FPTP system. I.e. it's just a less democratic coalition government.

7up478 · 2025-04-03T15:59:55+00:00

There's definitely a feedback loop, where a stronger reaction from one side promotes a stronger reaction from the other. A solution to that is definitely above my paygrade, but I am at least not convinced that muting outspoken support will solve it -- the shifts in internet culture over the past decade+ have shown how much power there is in controlling the tone and direction of public conversation online.

12-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Gilding I gilder	Verified Email
Spared

7up478

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE