[beaned]

As someone with no knowledge of the topic, why was electrical reform needed? Wouldn't one assume that either party motivated to do it while in power would be doing it with the goal of positively affecting the outcome for their party in the future? It would seem weird for a candidate to reform how voting works knowing it could negatively affect their side, right?

[Jalad]

> why was electrical reform needed?

Canada uses a first past the post system for federal elections, which usually boils down to a two party state equilibrium

> It would seem weird for a candidate to reform how voting works knowing it could negatively affect their side, right?

Possibly, but I want to believe that politicians can put country over party (I haven't found a huge amount of evidence for this though unfortunately)

[busterarm]

> Canada uses a first past the post system for federal elections, which usually boils down to a two party state equilibrium

To be fair, that two-party equilibrium is the thing that keeps every minor political crisis from causing no-confidence votes and failed governments because all of the special interests involved break the coalition.

Other Parliamentary governments that don't have this kind of equilibrium end up with minor political parties holding massively outsized influence and concessions just to keep them in the coalition. See Denmark (this is pretty much the subject of every season of Borgen).

[mardifoufs]

It was one of his core promises back in 2015. He almost instantly broke it when he got elected, by saying it won't happen.

[thesh4d0w]

We have two left parties that votes are split across, and a single right party.

This means the conservative party often ends up getting more power since they're "first past the post" even though the majority of the population may not agree with them.

[jyscao]

> and a single right party

No longer true. Canada now also has the PPC - the People's Part of Canada (see: https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/).

> even though the majority of the population may not agree with them

Well that certainly won't be true for the upcoming election.

[AnimalMuppet]

So? "The rules need to be changed because the wrong people keep winning" sounds very suspicious to me.

If the situation is as you describe, what really needs to change is that the two left parties need to merge, or one of them needs to become such a marginal player that it doesn't matter. If the leaders of those parties can't or won't do that, well, then you get the situation that you have.

[swat535]

I beg to differ, the polls say otherwise regarding who the population wants and more importantly, the unhealthy coalition of NDP / Liberals have been preventing the parliament from functioning, we would have had an election by now had NDP stopped propping the Liberal party by preventing the non confidence vote.

[dylan604]

The GOP has used the party in power manipulation to keep themselves in power very effectively at the state level with gerrymandering.

[sdwr]

In a functional organization, personal interests are balanced against ideals, decorum, and the interests of the group.

[Tiktaalik]

Canada has a FPTP system but multiple parties. This means that it becomes possible to form a distorted, outsized government (even a majority government!) with a remarkably little amount of the popular vote. In 2019 the Liberals won the election and took 46% of the seats with a mere 33% of the vote. That is a remarkable distortion.

The argument as to why electoral reform is needed is because of this distortion and the view that the FPTP system itself is resulting in peculiar outcomes that do not reflect the actual wishes of the voting public.