75

This complicated democracy


 

Frances Woolley sets out to consider the efficiencies of vote-swapping and ends up considering the nature of our democracy.

The question is the wrong one to ask. If Party A wins three seats, then it can pursue policies that benefit people who do (or potentially might) vote for party A. If parties A, B and C win one seat each, they will pursue policies that benefit a different set of electors, not just those who vote for party A. But will a coalition government pursue policies that benefit a broader section of the electorate?

It’s not obvious. It all depends what happens at the coalition stage, when different parties are attempting to form governments. An interesting working paper by Amedeo Piolatto argues that, in certain circumstances, the power wielded by small parties in the coalition formation process can cause proportional representation systems to lead to political outcomes that are less representative of the interests of the broader population than first past the post type systems.


 

This complicated democracy

  1. Vote swapping does not work, for obvious reasons. That's why it has never caught on, despite the invention of the telephone.

  2. Vote swapping does not work, for obvious reasons. That's why it has never caught on, despite the invention of the telephone.

  3. Let's try this without the math:

    When, during the last parliamentary sitting, the NDP, Libs and BQ claimed to have had the most votes combined, and therefore their demands should have been met during the last Conservative government, then such logic should be consistent, as in:

    were the Liberals to form minority government, such minority government should implement most of what the opposition parties demand, including what the Conservatives would demand.

    In that case, it would be better for Canadian parties to aim coming in second place, because coming in second place means the first place winners must implement all of the second place winner's demands.

    I know such logic cannot be expressed in mathematical formulas, but I'm sure writers such as Ignatieff could explain it in simple words:

    If Ignatieff were to form a minority government, would he feel democratically oblidged to give into all of the oppostion demands, such as he and the opposition parties have demanded of Harper during his running of minority governments?

    It's a very simple question. I'm sure Ignatieff would be able to provide a very simple answer. Why not give it a try?

  4. Let's try this without the math:

    When, during the last parliamentary sitting, the NDP, Libs and BQ claimed to have had the most votes combined, and therefore their demands should have been met during the last Conservative government, then such logic should be consistent, as in:

    were the Liberals to form minority government, such minority government should implement most of what the opposition parties demand, including what the Conservatives would demand.

    In that case, it would be better for Canadian parties to aim coming in second place, because coming in second place means the first place winners must implement all of the second place winner's demands.

    I know such logic cannot be expressed in mathematical formulas, but I'm sure writers such as Ignatieff could explain it in simple words:

    If Ignatieff were to form a minority government, would he feel democratically oblidged to give into all of the oppostion demands, such as he and the opposition parties have demanded of Harper during his running of minority governments?

    It's a very simple question. I'm sure Ignatieff would be able to provide a very simple answer. Why not give it a try?

  5. Neither system works very well.

    First-past-the-post is only representative when there are just 2 parties. Introduce a 3rd party, and it splits the vote, allowing someone to come up the middle…when he's not the party the majority in the riding wants. In fact he may be the one party the majority hates!

    PR introduces lots of new parties….so the arguments in Ottawa will be longer and louder. It's like herding cats to get ANYthing done. Italy and Israel are good examples of this. And in the fast-moving world of today, it's dangerous to have bogged-down govts when action is called for. It means the man at the top…the PM, President, whatever….has to make unilateral decisions because nobody can agree on a course of action.

  6. All I can say is "Keep working, Amadeo!"

    I find those 'working' assumptions hard to believe.

  7. All I can say is "Keep working, Amadeo!"

    I find those 'working' assumptions hard to believe.

  8. It is impossible to compare the Canadian political landscape with any of the European countries.

    1. geographically speaking, Canada is uncomparably larger than any of the European countries (in fact, Canada is the second largest country in the world!)

    2. government-wise speaking, Canada has clear divisions of power between federal and provincial jurisdictions, clear and powerful divisions which do not exist within the European countries.

    3. If PR were to be implemented in Canada, we would end up with several fringe parties, regional or pet-peeve wise, and coalition forming would become the norm by necessity. And within such coalition forming, the country would no longer find a basis upon which to envision a truly national, federal outlook.

  9. It is impossible to compare the Canadian political landscape with any of the European countries.

    1. geographically speaking, Canada is uncomparably larger than any of the European countries (in fact, Canada is the second largest country in the world!)

    2. government-wise speaking, Canada has clear divisions of power between federal and provincial jurisdictions, clear and powerful divisions which do not exist within the European countries.

    3. If PR were to be implemented in Canada, we would end up with several fringe parties, regional or pet-peeve wise, and coalition forming would become the norm by necessity. And within such coalition forming, the country would no longer find a basis upon which to envision a truly national, federal outlook.

    • Your third statement is very wrong. It is the current system that magnifies the effect of regional parties and regional differences. If PR were implemented tomorrow, the Green party would surpass the Block in seats. It is the current system that disenfranchises Liberals in Alberta and Tories in Toronto and artificially magnifies regional differences. Coyne has made this point several times.

      My personal irritation with the current electoral system is that it isn't even a second best or third best system. If you don't like PR, then you should at least be for Condorcet methods. Plurality voting fails at a basic mathematical level based on any sane set of goals. FPTP is only a bit better than choosing winners based on alphabetical order.

  10. The problem in Canada does not centre around PR versus FPP. The real problem isn't about coalition forming per se; the problem facing Canada is that the established bounderies existing between federal and provincial jurisdictions have been muddied for far too long.

    But it seems, to me me in any case, that a discussion about such muddying of bounderies is off limits. I have no idea why such discussion would be off limits.

    Does anyone have any ideas of why Canada is unwilling to talk openly about establised provincial and federal bounderies, when in effect the muddying of the established bounderies makes it difficult to discuss the healthcare issue, makes it difficult to discuss a whole range of other issues.

  11. The problem in Canada does not centre around PR versus FPP. The real problem isn't about coalition forming per se; the problem facing Canada is that the established bounderies existing between federal and provincial jurisdictions have been muddied for far too long.

    But it seems, to me me in any case, that a discussion about such muddying of bounderies is off limits. I have no idea why such discussion would be off limits.

    Does anyone have any ideas of why Canada is unwilling to talk openly about establised provincial and federal bounderies, when in effect the muddying of the established bounderies makes it difficult to discuss the healthcare issue, makes it difficult to discuss a whole range of other issues.

    • The provinces don't want to cede power, and they gang up on a moment's notice whenever the feds look like they're trying to take a national angle on anything that has been traditionally provincial. I think the feds just generally figure it's not worth the hassle of having a public debate and losing, so they just try to do what they can in the backrooms instead.

      /not a professional politician or bureaucrat

  12. FPTP, in Canada, has resulted in a messy, unsatisfactory academic situation that nonethless has given us almost 144 years of democratic, economic, social and cultural growth. Regardless of who is in power, people who have massively more significant problems than we do dream of being us.

    Sure, there are things that aren't perfect and they probably can be fixed. But let's remember that for all its imperfections, the quirks of our system have had to overcome religious and linguistic differences, lingering cultural battles from our respective homelands, vast regional distances and differences, and really big mosquitos in Manitoba.

  13. FPTP, in Canada, has resulted in a messy, unsatisfactory academic situation that nonethless has given us almost 144 years of democratic, economic, social and cultural growth. Regardless of who is in power, people who have massively more significant problems than we do dream of being us.

    Sure, there are things that aren't perfect and they probably can be fixed. But let's remember that for all its imperfections, the quirks of our system have had to overcome religious and linguistic differences, lingering cultural battles from our respective homelands, vast regional distances and differences, and really big mosquitos in Manitoba.

    • And 32 million Canadians are fed up with the lot of them, so a sizeable number of Canadians no longer vote.

      • 32 million Canadians minus one: I am not fed up with the lot of them.

        The more Ignatieff makes a fool of himself, the more I enjoy these election games.

        What's not to like?

        • We are discussing voting systems, not your personal partisan campaign.

          • We? As in you and me?

            Ok, I will try again ( the first go attempt at this can be found in one of my postings above)

          • You are again a broken record I have no interest in hearing.

          • Gosh, Emily, can't you take a joke?

            I know going in that you're not interested in debating anything with me.

            But it's so much fun trying.

    • Well said, Be_Rad!

    • I keep trying to imagine how things were back when there was only Upper and Lower Canada, back when the English were finally getting a population proportional the the French. Given the environment back then, I can't imagine Etienne Taché being too happy with how Canada turned out, despite Laurier's and Trudeau's best efforts.

      I live by "Je me souviens que, né sous le lys, je crois sous la rose.", but even I feel like the French just haven't done enough to uphold the English to their promise.

      • Alors mon ami, comme M. Duceppe a dis dans les debats anglais, les francophones comprisent 2% de la population d'Amerique du nord. Surely things are not as bad as all that? Even an old anglo dog can learn a few new linguistic tricks if necessary.

        And there wasn't "only" Upper and Lower Canada; we had to accommodate the more established, wealthy Maritimes as well. The Fathers knew that Quebec's population advantage was already waning. Quebec's interests are so built into the Constitution that it is distorting rep by pop in her favour. And almost a quarter of the Senate remains at her disposal. The language of life is now french in Quebec, including most workplaces.

        • I see history in a different way, and I don't know where to begin…

          Population has never been an advantage, since the French lost support of France, they knew they depended on the English to defend them from the Juvenile Empirical America down bellow.

          The constitution was not about appeasement, but rather for coexistence and cooperation, that's the promise I'm referring to. Now, despite all appearances, it is impossible for the French to maintain their culture outside of Québec, and the French only has themselves to blame for that. The constitution of 1867 gave them the opportunity to create a truly bilingual Canada and they couldn't be bothered.

          It's too late now. For the vast majority of anglophones, Canada is English with French attached as a ball and chain.

  14. And 32 million Canadians are fed up with the lot of them, so a sizeable number of Canadians no longer vote.

  15. 32 million Canadians minus one: I am not fed up with the lot of them.

    The more Ignatieff makes a fool of himself, the more I enjoy these election games.

    What's not to like?

  16. I like instant runoff voting or the alternative vote. Voters just note their 1st, 2nd, 3rd,.. choices for the candidates running in their riding. If no one gets more than 50% of the vote, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminate and votes for that candidate are assigned according to the second choices – the idea being, if that candidate had not been running, who would those people have voted for. Just keep going until a candidate has more than 50% and he/she becomes your local rep.

    This tends to soften the impact of vote splitting a bit, gives more input from voters, encourages parties to appeal outside of their core, still maintains local rep and so would be a simple change to implement.

  17. I like instant runoff voting or the alternative vote. Voters just note their 1st, 2nd, 3rd,.. choices for the candidates running in their riding. If no one gets more than 50% of the vote, then the candidate with the least votes is eliminate and votes for that candidate are assigned according to the second choices – the idea being, if that candidate had not been running, who would those people have voted for. Just keep going until a candidate has more than 50% and he/she becomes your local rep.

    This tends to soften the impact of vote splitting a bit, gives more input from voters, encourages parties to appeal outside of their core, still maintains local rep and so would be a simple change to implement.

    • I'm in complete agreement that IR is completely superior to FPTP for all the reasons stated and more. But, why not choose a Condorcet Method? They take the voter preferences into account in a far more thorough and accurate way. Switching from FPTP to IR is sort of like changing the official legal definition of Pi from 5 to 3.5. It's a huge improvement… and wrong.

    • It occurs to me that what we really need in Condorcet Referendum or our voting system. A list of FPTP, MMP, Condorcet elected MPs, etc.

      • My understanding of most groups who push for voting reform in Canada is that they are opposed to any kind of run-off selection because they think that if 5% of the people want X, then 5% of Parliament should be X, even if 95% of the people really don't want X and independent of what kind of actual government this might lead to. Fair Vote Canada has changed their website over the last year or so, but they used to have a long "explanation" of why any kind of run-off voting was even worse than FPTP because it wasn't proportional representation.

    • IRV has a weird side effect in that you might not put your most favored candidate in first place if they'd just be knocked out anyway, and instead give that vote to a candidate more likely to knock out your least preferred, even if you don't like them much either. So it doesn't really deal with strategic voting at all, just makes it a bit more complicated.

      Plus is has the problem of requiring voters to rank choices, making votes more difficult to tabulate and requiring (possibly multiple) recounts to be sure the numbers are right. Think hanging chads and you can see why this can be a problem.

  18. We are discussing voting systems, not your personal partisan campaign.

  19. Well said, Be_Rad!

  20. We? As in you and me?

    Ok, I will try again ( the first go attempt at this can be found in one of my postings above)

    Let's have the discussion you're aiming for, Emily:

    When, during the last parliamentary sitting, the NDP, Libs and BQ claimed to have had the most votes combined, and therefore their demands should have been met during the last Conservative government, then such logic should be consistent, as in:

    were the Liberals to form minority government, such minority government should implement most of what the opposition parties demand, including what the Conservatives would demand.

    In that case, it would be better for Canadian parties to aim coming in second place, because coming in second place means the first place winners must implement all of the second place winner's demands.

    I know such logic cannot be expressed in mathematical formulas, but I'm sure writers such as Ignatieff could explain it in simple words:

    If Ignatieff were to form a minority government, would he feel democratically oblidged to give into all of the oppostion demands, such as he and the opposition parties have demanded of Harper during his running of minority governments?

  21. Oh, and it would likely reduce the Bloc seats, as it tends to reduce seats where there is a single option on a dividing issue (e.g. separatist) against several similar options (federalist) – in this way it is more representative of the population's wishes. Australia uses it.

  22. You are again a broken record I have no interest in hearing.

  23. "It is parties that advocates of proportional representation think should be the beneficiaries of proportionality. Why? What are parties for? … To be a party as generally understood, an association must put up candidates selected by its own rules and run some kind of campaign on behalf of them. Any association that does that assumes responsibility for all that governments may do, even if the legalization of marijuana or the independence of Quebec or farmers' interests are what got them into politics, and even if their position on everything else is indifference or that nothing should be done. That is a position in itself … MPs are called to deal with all our public business. They cannot choose to only deal with some of it. Nor can voters, in choosing an MP, limit themselves to some issues and interests. Government will not.

  24. "It is parties that advocates of proportional representation think should be the beneficiaries of proportionality. Why? What are parties for? … To be a party as generally understood, an association must put up candidates selected by its own rules and run some kind of campaign on behalf of them. Any association that does that assumes responsibility for all that governments may do, even if the legalization of marijuana or the independence of Quebec or farmers' interests are what got them into politics, and even if their position on everything else is indifference or that nothing should be done. That is a position in itself … MPs are called to deal with all our public business. They cannot choose to only deal with some of it. Nor can voters, in choosing an MP, limit themselves to some issues and interests. Government will not.

    • But tell us then: What are FEDERAL elections for?

    • "A party exists to form a government. It is a political association of people whose interests and ideas and confidence in each other make it possible that they should be able to work together to support coherent measures, a ministry, and, most important, a budget. No party has any value in politics unless it is a potential government. Any political association can call itself a party. If it promotes only one issue or interest, or if it so positions itself that it can never hope to form a government, it cannot serve the purpose for which parties exist and does not deserve the name.

      "A so-called party that has no hope of forming a government is necessarily a fraud and undemocratic. It cannot honestly promise to do anything because it will never, by itself, be able to do anything. It offers what it cannot deliver. Its goals can only be achieved with the help of others who share its goals and are there fore equally worthy of the votes of its supporters, or others who are prepared to support something they do not believe in for the sake of power, making a corrupt bargain and allowing a minority to lever a balance of power in a fragmented Parliament … to get what it wants against the will of the majority.

      • "Proportional representation's assurance of seats to parties that can neither hope nor intend to form a government by themselves means that elections do not decide who governs. A coalition becomes necessary to form a government. What the coalition may be cannot be known until after the election. The voters can have no say on it. Parties haggle in secret over shares in a government thet was not on offer in the election and could not be foreseen."

        — John Pepall, Against Reform

        • And if all the government was representing was a single person, he'd have a point.

          Because, however, government is representing a broad spectrum of people, compromise within positions is not a bad thing. Does anybody get exactly what they want? Probably not. But more people get at least a portion of what they want.

          • Government does not "represent" anyone. If you are referring to Parliament, why should compromises be made between parties that have significantly different priorities which voters cannot affect be preferred over coherent (or not) platforms that people who have enough confidence in and regard for each other have collectively agreed upon which voters can judge?

  25. Gosh, Emily, can't you take a joke?

    I know going in that you're not interested in debating anything with me.

    But it's so much fun trying.

  26. But tell us then: What are FEDERAL elections for?

  27. "A party exists to form a government. It is a political association of people whose interests and ideas and confidence in each other make it possible that they should be able to work together to support coherent measures, a ministry, and, most important, a budget. No party has any value in politics unless it is a potential government. Any political association can call itself a party. If it promotes only one issue or interest, or if it so positions itself that it can never hope to form a government, it cannot serve the purpose for which parties exist and does not deserve the name.

    "A so-called party that has no hope of forming a government is necessarily a fraud and undemocratic. It cannot honestly promise to do anything because it will never, by itself, be able to do anything. It offers what it cannot deliver. Its goals can only be achieved with the help of others who share its goals and are there fore equally worthy of the votes of its supporters, or others who are prepared to support something they do not believe in for the sake of power, making a corrupt bargain and allowing a minority to lever a balance of power in a fragmented Parliament … to get what it wants against the will of the majority.

  28. "Proportional representation's assurance of seats to parties that can neither hope nor intend to form a government by themselves means that elections do not decide who governs. A coalition becomes necessary to form a government. What the coalition may be cannot be known until after the election. The voters can have no say on it. Parties haggle in secret over shares in a government thet was not on offer in the election and could not be foreseen."

    — John Pepall, Against Reform

  29. Your third statement is very wrong. It is the current system that magnifies the effect of regional parties and regional differences. If PR were implemented tomorrow, the Green party would surpass the Block in seats. It is the current system that disenfranchises Liberals in Alberta and Tories in Toronto and artificially magnifies regional differences. Coyne has made this point several times.

    My personal irritation with the current electoral system is that it isn't even a second best or third best system. If you don't like PR, then you should at least be for Condorcet methods. Plurality voting fails at a basic mathematical level based on any sane set of goals. FPTP is only a bit better than choosing winners based on alphabetical order.

  30. I'm in complete agreement that IR is completely superior to FPTP for all the reasons stated and more. But, why not choose a Condorcet Method? They take the voter preferences into account in a far more thorough and accurate way. Switching from FPTP to IR is sort of like changing the official legal definition of Pi from 5 to 3.5. It's a huge improvement… and wrong.

  31. It occurs to me that what we really need in Condorcet Referendum or our voting system. A list of FPTP, MMP, Condorcet elected MPs, etc.

  32. I gather than none of you promoting PR/Condorcet etc have ever counted ballots?

    Hard enough to get people to mark a simple X in a circle, much less anything more complicated.

  33. I keep trying to imagine how things were back when there was only Upper and Lower Canada, back when the English were finally getting a population proportional the the French. Given the environment back then, I can't imagine Etienne Taché being too happy with how Canada turned out, despite Laurier's and Trudeau's best efforts.

    I live by "Je me souviens que, né sous le lys, je crois sous la rose.", but even I feel like the French just haven't done enough to uphold the English to their promise.

  34. I gather than none of you promoting PR/Condorcet etc have ever counted ballots?

    Hard enough to get people to mark a simple X in a circle, much less anything more complicated.

  35. The provinces don't want to cede power, and they gang up on a moment's notice whenever the feds look like they're trying to take a national angle on anything that has been traditionally provincial. I think the feds just generally figure it's not worth the hassle of having a public debate and losing, so they just try to do what they can in the backrooms instead.

    /not a professional politician or bureaucrat

  36. Alors mon ami, comme M. Duceppe a dis dans les debats anglais, les francophones comprisent 2% de la population d'Amerique du nord. Surely things are not as bad as all that? Even an old anglo dog can learn a few new linguistic tricks if necessary.

    And there wasn't "only" Upper and Lower Canada; we had to accommodate the more established, wealthy Maritimes as well. The Fathers knew that Quebec's population advantage was already waning. Quebec's interests are so built into the Constitution that it is distorting rep by pop in her favour. And almost a quarter of the Senate remains at her disposal. The language of life is now french in Quebec, including most workplaces.

  37. I agree the Condorcet Method is even better. I just use IR as a fairly widely known example of a single-MP selection process based on taking into account rankings beyond first choice. But to simulate an actual run-off election is the best.

  38. IRV has a weird side effect in that you might not put your most favored candidate in first place if they'd just be knocked out anyway, and instead give that vote to a candidate more likely to knock out your least preferred, even if you don't like them much either. So it doesn't really deal with strategic voting at all, just makes it a bit more complicated.

    Plus is has the problem of requiring voters to rank choices, making votes more difficult to tabulate and requiring (possibly multiple) recounts to be sure the numbers are right. Think hanging chads and you can see why this can be a problem.

  39. And if all the government was representing was a single person, he'd have a point.

    Because, however, government is representing a broad spectrum of people, compromise within positions is not a bad thing. Does anybody get exactly what they want? Probably not. But more people get at least a portion of what they want.

  40. My understanding of most groups who push for voting reform in Canada is that they are opposed to any kind of run-off selection because they think that if 5% of the people want X, then 5% of Parliament should be X, even if 95% of the people really don't want X and independent of what kind of actual government this might lead to. Fair Vote Canada has changed their website over the last year or so, but they used to have a long "explanation" of why any kind of run-off voting was even worse than FPTP because it wasn't proportional representation.

  41. Proportional representation is a very very very bad idea. Ignatieff said he favours it, but then he is full of bad ideas. Just another reason to vote Conservative.

  42. Proportional representation is a very very very bad idea. Ignatieff said he favours it, but then he is full of bad ideas. Just another reason to vote Conservative.

    • What makes it a bad idea? Other than it probably turfing the Chicken Party of Canada, that is?

      • It will limit the voice of regions with smaller populations such as: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, PEI, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, NWT, Yukon, and Nunavut.

        • Again, depends on the type of proportional system.

  43. What makes it a bad idea? Other than it probably turfing the Chicken Party of Canada, that is?

  44. Government does not "represent" anyone. If you are referring to Parliament, why should compromises be made between parties that have significantly different priorities which voters cannot affect be preferred over coherent (or not) platforms that people who have enough confidence in and regard for each other have collectively agreed upon which voters can judge?

  45. Why bother taking into account rankings beyond first choice though, when we can develop proportional systems that use only that?

    Percentage Proportional System
    Vote as normal. One vote/person, vote for your preferred.
    Any candidate > 50% of the riding vote gets a seat.
    Parties get % of remaining HoC seats by % total vote, if they meet minimum threshold of enough % for one seat.
    Seat selection order goes by party with fewest candidates running, party with lowest total vote %.
    Which particular seats the party wins are those where the party candidate received the highest percentage of the vote from all the candidates in the party.
    Repeat for the next party with the remaining seats.

    This has the result of the total seat makeup of the house very closely matching the total percentage vote, and of the most popular candidates being the ones to generally get their ridings. Also positive, it prevents the "party list" problem, where the party has more control over who gets sat than doesn't, and makes it impossible to determine the results of the election until every riding is counted.

    It has the downside of ridings which are highly conflicted generally being represented by a candidate that matches the national selection rather than specifically that of the particular riding. But does so in a manner that aggravates the smallest percentage of voters.

  46. Why bother taking into account rankings beyond first choice though, when we can develop proportional systems that use only that?

    Percentage Proportional System
    Vote as normal. One vote/person, vote for your preferred.
    Any candidate > 50% of the riding vote gets a seat.
    Parties get % of remaining HoC seats by % total vote, if they meet minimum threshold of enough % for one seat.
    Seat selection order goes by party with fewest candidates running, party with lowest total vote %.
    Which particular seats the party wins are those where the party candidate received the highest percentage of the vote from all the candidates in the party.
    Repeat for the next party with the remaining seats.

    This has the result of the total seat makeup of the house very closely matching the total percentage vote, and of the most popular candidates being the ones to generally get their ridings. Also positive, it prevents the "party list" problem, where the party has more control over who gets sat than doesn't, and makes it impossible to determine the results of the election until every riding is counted.

    It has the downside of ridings which are highly conflicted generally being represented by a candidate that matches the national selection rather than specifically that of the particular riding. But does so in a manner that aggravates the smallest percentage of voters.

  47. It will limit the voice of regions with smaller populations such as: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, PEI, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, NWT, Yukon, and Nunavut.

  48. Jack Layton is the one who favors PR. The only thing I heard from Ignatieff was he thinks we should better understand our current system before making changes.

  49. Jack Layton is the one who favors PR. The only thing I heard from Ignatieff was he thinks we should better understand our current system before making changes.

  50. I see history in a different way, and I don't know where to begin…

    Population has never been an advantage, since the French lost support of France, they knew they depended on the English to defend them from the Juvenile Empirical America down bellow.

    The constitution was not about appeasement, but rather for coexistence and cooperation, that's the promise I'm referring to. Now, despite all appearances, it is impossible for the French to maintain their culture outside of Québec, and the French only has themselves to blame for that. The constitution of 1867 gave them the opportunity to create a truly bilingual Canada and they couldn't be bothered.

    It's too late now. For the vast majority of anglophones, Canada is English with French attached as a ball and chain.

  51. Again, depends on the type of proportional system.

Sign in to comment.