AlolanVulpix

The LPC campaigned on 2015 being the last election under FPP, along with ensuring "every vote counts".

When you say "make every vote count" this necessarily means proportional representation (PR). PR is the only viable long term solution being pushed by electoral reform advocates. Some examples of PR electoral systems:

• Mixed member proportional (MMP)
• Single transferable vote (STV)

Trudeau has only ever (secretly) wanted instant runoff voting (IRV) to replace the current first past the post (FPP). So when the tide shifted against him, he broke his election promise and bailed on electoral reform.

In either IRV or FPP, many votes will not count at all (>=50%). So neither IRV nor FPP satisfy the criteria for proportional representation (PR).

Note: lots of people use the term "ranked ballot", but this is inaccurate. Ranked ballot is simply a mechanism, and not an electoral system. For example, both IRV and STV use the ranking mechanism, but only STV is considered PR.

So while Trudeau was pushing for "ranked ballot", along with the "make every vote count" messaging, people are right to infer that STV would be implemented. STV uses ranked ballot but is still considered PR.

So that's 4 electoral systems:

1. First-past-the-post (FPP)
2. Instant-runoff voting (IRV)
3. Mixed member proportional (MMP)
4. Single transferable vote (STV)

Only MMP and STV are considered PR!

Join the conversation at [email protected].

The only viable long term solution is proportional representation (PR). Some electoral systems meeting this criteria:

• Mixed-member proportional (MMP)
• Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Canada needs to stop believing that PR requires a referendum. The only people pushing a referendum are those with ulterior motives or are misinformed.

1. There is no constitutional requirement. For example, in 1924 Alberta substantially changed their electoral system, adopting some PR elements.
2. In 2005, BC held a referendum with 57.69% in favour of a PR electoral system known as Single Transferable Vote (STV). No change whatsoever occurred.
3. The electoral system has been modified many times without a referendum. For example, per-vote subsidies were removed by Conservatives in 2011 no less, which sparked the famous prorogation of parliament.
4. Why would we need a referendum to restore the fundamental rights of voters? The right to vote must necessarily include the right for the vote to have an effect. Literally millions of perfectly valid ballots are simply tossed out every single election. This would be an outrage had we not been conditioned to accept it.

The key to unlocking political parties like these is proportional representation. Some electoral systems meeting this criteria:

• Mixed-member proportional (MMP)
• Single Transferable Vote (STV)

Nobody is disputing that the wealthy consume more than the poor.

We are disputing your claim that the wealthy do not pay their fair share of greenhouse gas emissions. Please provide evidence to substantiate your claims.

Thank you for this point. This is important to highlight in the age of carbon pricing misinformation.

Do you have evidence indicating that corporations and the wealthy do not pay their fair share of the carbon emissions they generate?

I am not denying that the upper class may pay a lesser percentage of their wealth. What I am saying is that even if it is true, this is not relevant to the discussion on carbon pricing because that is not the objective in the first place.

The point of the carbon pricing is to mitigate the effects of the climate crisis.

Wealth redistribution is well deserving of its own discussion. However, on its own wouldn't be a very effective tool to address the climate crisis as it does not hit the core of the issue, which is greenhouse gas emissions.

Under the current carbon pricing scheme, there is no such thing as purchasing of carbon credits. This might be the case under a cap and trade system, which currently only exist in places like Quebec and California (and formerly Ontario). Additionally, if corporations were exempt, there would be no need to buy carbon credits.

There are special areas such as home heating where there is a temporary hiatus on the carbon pricing.

The carbon tax rebates apply uniformly. But remember that carbon pricing punishes those who heavily rely on carbon based fuels (e.g. people with multiple vehicles, homes, etc).

Carbon pricing is not intended to redistribute wealth. So the point about the upper class paying a lesser percentage of their wealth is not relevant and we also don't have evidence of this.

Do you have evidence that the carbon pricing scheme as implemented disproportionately affects the middle/lower class? I would legitimately like to know. Keep in mind that while it's often referred to as the carbon tax, there is also the carbon tax rebate that goes hand in hand with the implementation. The Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) did an analysis and found the following:

Relative to disposable income, our estimates of household net carbon costs continue to show a progressive impact that is, larger net costs for higher income households.

As for the wealth of the economists that signed the letter, unless there is evidence of such, please don't make claims you have not substantiated. I look forward to healthy, civil discussion.