The image is an infographic titled “The Liberal’s Broken Promise: Electoral Reform” that displays a vertical timeline with colored dots and information boxes chronicling electoral reform events in Canada.

The timeline shows six key events:

  1. June 2015 (pink dot): Campaign Promise - Justin Trudeau pledges: “We are committed to ensuring the 2015 election will be the last election using first-past-the-post.”

  2. October 2015 (blue dot): Election Victory - Liberals win a majority government with 39.5% of the popular vote, securing 184 seats (54% of the House of Commons).

  3. June 2016 (light blue dot): Special Committee Created - The Electoral Reform Committee (ERRE) is established to study options. The committee conducts consultations across Canada.

  4. December 2016 (red dot): Committee Recommendations - The ERRE recommends proportional representation. 88% of electoral experts consulted favoured proportional representation.

  5. February 2017 (blue dot): Promise Abandoned - PM Trudeau abandons electoral reform, claiming “no consensus” despite clear committee recommendations and public consultations.

  6. October 2024 (black dot): Looking Back - Trudeau admits he should have “immediately shut down talk about proportional representation” and that Liberals were “deliberately vague.”

Below the timeline is a “Key Statistics” box showing:

  • 63% of voters cast ballots for parties promising electoral reform
  • 80% of town hall participants asked for proportional representation
  • 71% wanted parties to govern together

The infographic includes a Creative Commons license icon in the bottom left corner and a QR code in the bottom right. The footer cites sources: House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform, Fair Vote Canada, Policy Options.

  • OrteilGenou@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    The prospect of a madman pushing annexation and meeting lukewarm opposition from a career politician whose only argument is this exact argument doesn’t give anyone the warm fuzzies.

    Was Trudeau’s tenure a roaring success? Doesn’t matter, that’s yesterday’s news .

    • ragepaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Agreed. I’ll take a party that broke our trust over a party that wants to break our country.

      Sadly, there is not a realistic 3rd option at this time.

    • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      While I appreciate the point about immediate geopolitical concerns, I’d argue that our democratic weaknesses make us more vulnerable to external threats, not less.

      A country that is governed by its people, and truly so with proportional representation, is the strongest force there can be against an authoritarian takeover. It provides true and uncompromising democratic legitimacy to the government – as a healthy democracy demands.

      This isn’t just about Trudeau - it’s about a pattern across Liberal leadership (since Mackenzie King in 1919) of promising proportional representation then abandoning it once in power. Now Mark Carney continues this tradition with his non-committal stance on electoral reform despite his economic expertise.

      The timing is actually perfect for this discussion. When facing external threats, we need a strong, legitimate democracy where every Canadian’s vote counts. Our current system regularly allows minority governments to rule for the majority, creating democratic vulnerabilities that potential adversaries can exploit.

      The solution to threats isn’t less democracy - it’s making our democracy stronger through proportional representation. That’s not yesterday’s news; it’s tomorrow’s national security.

      • RalphWolf@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 days ago

        We’re facing a very real threat to our very existence. Splitting the votes in the middle and left will only guarantee that the conservatives win.

        Also, I don’t trust anyone who won’t get security clearance, seriously what is he hiding?

        • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I understand the concern about threats to Canada - that’s precisely why we need a stronger democracy, not a weaker one.

          The “vote splitting” fear is exactly what keeps our broken system in place. Under proportional representation, this wouldn’t be an issue - your vote would actually count toward electing someone who represents your values.

          On security clearances, I agree they’re important. They should be administered by an independent body with transparent criteria and applied equally to all candidates. This isn’t contradictory to electoral reform - they’re complementary.

          A country with true democratic legitimacy, where every vote matters, is actually more resilient against external threats, not less. Fixing our democracy strengthens our sovereignty, it doesn’t weaken it.

          • RalphWolf@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Security clearance should not be administered by any independent anything. It needs to be done by the intelligence arm of the government that has access to everything they need to access. Any candidate that won’t apply should not be able to run. Period.

            What party do you think who has any chance of forming a majority government will fix our broken FPTP electoral system?

            • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              By “independent”, that means free from undue influence from other branches of government

              Security clearances can play an important role in our electoral system, but must be carefully designed. If failing a clearance disqualifies candidates, then several critical safeguards must be in place.

              The clearance process must be:

              • Administered by a truly independent, non-partisan body with clear oversight
              • Completely transparent in its methodology and criteria
              • Applied equally to all candidates regardless of party affiliation
              • Subject to meaningful appeal mechanisms through our courts
              • Protected against partisan manipulation
              • Focused only on legitimate security concerns (foreign influence, corruption)

              Having the intelligence arm of the government administer clearances without independent oversight creates dangerous potential for abuse. Intelligence agencies should provide information, but final determinations should be made by a body insulated from political pressure from the executive or legislative branches.

              As for your second question about electoral reform - the math is clear. Neither the Liberals nor Conservatives have demonstrated genuine interest in proportional representation. The Liberals have repeatedly promised reform (since 1919!) only to abandon it once in power. Trudeau’s explicit admission that they were “deliberately vague” to appeal to electoral reform advocates speaks volumes.

              The only parties consistently supporting proportional representation are the Green🟢/NDP🟧/Bloc⚜️. None may form a majority government under our current system precisely because FPTP systematically disadvantages smaller parties.

              That’s the catch-22 of electoral reform: the parties that benefit from the broken system have no incentive to fix it. This is why focusing on principled candidates who support PR, regardless of their chance of forming government, is so important.

              Remember, in a democracy, citizens are deserving of and entitled to representation in government. Only PR can dependably deliver that.

              • RalphWolf@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 hours ago

                I won’t even remotely consider voting for anyone who refuses to apply for and receive security clearance because having it is essential to running the country. The system currently in place is fine, no need for your ai-generated utopian wish.

                Parties at the bottom of the polls can promise literally anything in their platform, it’s irrelevant because they’re not going to form government.

                This election is do or die for our sovereignty, for our economy, and likely for our very existence. We face an absolutely real threat, and now is not the time to let vote splitting allow the conservatives to win.

                I used to vote conservative, but I will never vote for a party with a “leader” that is like a dollar store version of Trump, who parrots many of the same bullshit talking points, including the use of childish nicknames for people. The refusal to apply for a security clearance is shady, and implies that he’s hiding something.

                I will never support a party that wants to take away people’s rights, whether women, visible minorities, lgbtq, or anything else. Don’t even get me started on healthcare.

                The government is to support the citizens, not to remove rights and cause harm.

  • Binzy_Boi@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    OP does realize that it is possible to be equally frustrated at the minority parties right?

    The NDP has broken my trust with their poor performance as of late. Ditch Singh as a leader, and I’ll be on board with the party again. Singh’s lack of effective leadership skills as a party leader would NOT translate well if it came to him being a COUNTRY leader.

    Also the Green party broke my trust with all the backdoor nonsense they had to elect Annamie Paul as party leader when it was clear as day Dimitri Lascaris had better skills as party leader. While they’ve been winning me back a little seeing Pedneault’s performance as a co-leader, May still being the main leader of the party is a hard sell seeing how her work in getting Paul elected as leader literally ended up fracturing the party.

    • AlolanVulpix@lemmy.caOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I hear you on leadership frustrations - that’s completely valid. But I think we’re conflating two different issues here.

      Electoral systems are separate from party leadership. The beauty of proportional representation is that it actually gives voters more power to hold parties accountable, not less.

      Under PR systems like STV, you could vote for NDP candidates you respect while avoiding Singh if you wanted. Or support certain Green candidates but not May. That’s because PR gives voters more nuanced choices rather than forcing all-or-nothing decisions.

      The current winner-take-all system is precisely what traps us with leadership we don’t fully support. It forces us to accept entire party packages because our electoral districts only elect one representative.

      I’m not asking you to support any particular leader - I’m suggesting we fix the system that limits our choices. With PR, we’d have more parties, more diverse voices, and more accountability for leaders who aren’t performing.

      What if you could vote your actual preferences instead of being trapped in this system that makes us settle?

  • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I have such a bad feeling about Carney. This is classic Shock Doctrine shit. Our collective attention is so focused on this one totally engineered thing that may or may not even be real. We are unable to protect ourselves, and we are at risk of being severely exploited no matter who wins.