Lessons for the UK; The Canadian Election and Voting Systems

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

On May 2nd Canada held a Federal election, contested primarily by the governing Conservatives, the opposition Liberals and the New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Quebecois. The election was called because the ruling Conservative Party suffered a motion of no-confidence, after the electoral commission found that the Conservative Party had contravened the Elections Act five years prior. The Conservatives promised to re-introduce warrant-less Internet surveillance legislation along with a bundle of crime-related bills emphasising punishment, in contrast with preventative measures suggested by the opposition. The Conservatives promised to purchase no less than 65 F-35 attack jet fighters, whereas the NDP preferred a more defensive naval orientation. The Conservatives claimed that they were economically responsible, successfully steering the country through the financial crisis. The Liberals countered this, claiming that they had left the country with a $13 billion surplus which was now in deficit. The Conservatives wanted to cut company tax down to 15%; the NDP wanted to increase it by 1.5% and double the pension plan.

During the election the Conservatives expressed fears that there would be a left-wing coalition between the Liberals, the NDP, Le Bloc and the Greens. This was repeatedly denied by these parties; they should have realised that this was a potential strength. Prior to the poll, there was an enormous swing to the New Democratic Party, but most of this came from the Liberals and Le Bloc. This was replicated on polling day; the Conservatives, with a mere 39.62% (+1.96%) of the vote, have achieved a majority government with 167 seats (+24). The progressive vote was split between the New Democratic Party (30.63%, +12.44%, 102 seats, +66 seats), the Liberals (18.91%, -7.36%, 34 seats, -43), Bloc Quebecois (6.04%. -3.94%, 4 seats, -43) and the Greens (3.91%, -2.87%, 1 seat, +1).



This is the second election is succession won by the Conservatives with the range of left-leaning opposition parties achieving around 60% of the vote each time. This is absolutely maddening for the majority of Canadians who, once again, have to put up with a government that the majority does not support and will implement policies that they are opposed to. The reason for this alienating outcome is quite simple; Canada, like the United Kingdom, uses a first-past-the-post electoral system, which ultimately means for each seat (or "riding") that victory is given not to the majority, but to the biggest minority regardless of preferences or proportionality, a fact quickly pointed out by Fair Vote Canada.

Of course, many Canadians have some understanding of this. Not surprisingly, the NDP has strongly argued for mixed-member proportional representation. The Conservatives are certainly aware of the popular desire for electoral reform, but will not support any method that creates large ridings (which basically means opposing MMP) whereas the Liberal Party has consistently taken no position. When taken to referendum however, a single-transferable vote proposal received majority support but failed to reach the required 60% support in British Columbia in 2005, and MMP options failed to receive even a majority in Prince Edward Island, also in 2005, and Ontorio in 2007. Notably in the latter case those most of those who were aware of the issue were going to support the case for change, but over half the population were not.

A significant part of the problem does lie with the Liberals, who have consistently failed to display any leadership on the matter. This is poor politics on their part, obviously living in hope of dominating the centre and left-of-centre party, as they have done in much of Canada's history. But circumstances have changed, and the Liberals have not, and as a result of this lack of leadership they are now not even the main opposition party, when they could have found themselves in coalition government with the NDP. A similar situation also applies in the UK; there elements of the oppisition Labour Party have also supported FPTP, primarily because they see the opportunity to colonise the entire left-of-Tory vote and partially because they fear that preferential voting will lead to left-wing Labour voters placing the party behind the far-left parties.

Which makes the opposition of varios far-left parties to the Alternative Vote referendum utterly bizarre. The Respect Party, the Communist Party of Britain. the Socialist Party of England and Wales, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and the major GMB Union. Apparently unable to engage in the most basic democratic political calculation (i.e., counting votes), they are seemingly unable to realise that the Thatcher government would have almost certainly been defeated after one term under prefential voting and possibly never elected in the first place. The supposed 'alternative' offered by such groups is abolishing capitalism is more important than an improved democracy. Worker's Liberty, for example, argues for items that aren't in contradiction with either FPTP or AV, points out the litany of problems with FPTP, and then recommends a 'no' vote because - quelle surprise - it means a distribution of preferences and that major parties will have to engage in discussion with minor parties - un scandale!

Not that any of this is meant to heap great praise on the Conservative side of politics; it is just that they have been more clear-sighted and more disciplined on this issue than the various liberal and left political forces. They have realised that if you have the biggest minority against a fractured majority, then plurality voting will provide power, and in reverse that if you're part of a fractured majority then preferential voting is your best option. It can be readily assumed that if the situation was reversed, both the Canadian and UK Conservatives would be promoting preferential voting with equal vigour. In all probability the UK Labour and Canadian Liberals would remain as they are now; undecided. Congratulations can also be given to the UK Conservatives for letting the Liberal Democrats carry the can on this issue as well; they have already become the scapegoat for the Tories more distasteful policies.

Why can such an assumption be made? Because of the utterly disingenous arguments that have been made by opponents of electoral reform. To claim that preferential voting breaks the principle of "One Person, One Vote" or that "[p]eople who vote for the fringe parties... can have their vote counted several times" can only be made by a person who is stupid, or a liar - and there's been plenty of that in this particular campaign. It is a single transferable vote. It might be physically counted multiple times in the distribution of preferences, but with the exclusion of each candidate it still only counts once. Little wonder that a former leader of the UK Liberal Democrats has realised that the party has become a willing patsy.



Ultimately it comes down to the question of what one wants from a voting system. Putting aside equally important issues such as constituency size, recall provisions, and suffrage issues, if one is dedicated to the principle of majority rule plurality voting cannot be supported, as it does not ensure this eventuality and, over time, ensures a two-party system. In this sense both preferential and proportional voting systems are vastly superior. From the two alternatives, preferential voting makes sense for single-member electorates and single-transferable vote representation for proportional multi-member electorates; it is right to combine these as a means to represent both local interests (preferential representation) and general interests (proportional representation). Because in democratic politics, it is bad enough to be in a minority and having put up with a government of the majority. But it is always worse to be in a majority and to be governed by a minority. That is the lesson that Canada can send to the UK.


Crossposted at You know where.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The more I read about AV/IRV, the more it comes across as whining, to be frank. What the proponents of these systems want is less cooperation and more acceptance of fringe viewpoints in the government, which helps nothing.

If you can't get a plurality, figure out a way to change it or accept that your views are not mainstream enough to do it. Period. As someone who leans libertarian, I'd benefit from AV or IRV - I still know it's a bad idea, though.

Early reports suggest that AV is going to fail at the referendum in the UK, too. People don't want what you're selling.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Apparently you missed the points about (a) people not understanding it, and those that do support it and (b) the litany of outright lies that have characterised the UK campaign.

Care to come up with solutions on those two?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I think it's the typical "the people who disagree with me are idiots" argument. Obama does the same thing regarding opposition to health care reform - it's a poor way to define opposition, and encourages sore loserism.

Errors, bad assumptions, and the Constitution

[tridus.livejournal.com]

Since you're not a Canadian these are forgivable, but you've made several mistakes here.

The election was called because the ruling Conservative Party suffered a motion of no-confidence, after the electoral commission found that the Conservative Party had contravened the Elections Act five years prior

Actually it was called because the government was found in contempt of Parliament for withholding documents. Or politically: because the opposition parties thought they had an issue they could win on. They would have simply defeated the budget if they didn't use the non-confidence motion first. The issue with Elections Canada is years old, in the courts, and has pretty well zero traction amongst voters.

During the election the Conservatives expressed fears that there would be a left-wing coalition between the Liberals, the NDP, Le Bloc and the Greens. This was repeatedly denied by these parties; they should have realised that this was a potential strength.

It was repeatedly denied by the *Liberals*. The NDP and BQ have no particular problem with it, but the Liberals do for reasons that will become apparent later in my post.

This is the second election is succession won by the Conservatives with the range of left-leaning opposition parties achieving around 60% of the vote each time. This is absolutely maddening for the majority of Canadians who, once again, have to put up with a government that the majority does not support and will implement policies that they are opposed to.

Actually it's not. People were sick of minority governments (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/public-tired-of-political-games-minority-rule-study-shows/article2011836/), even ones who voted for another party. They want to see governing instead of constant instability.

It's also worth mentioning that the previous majorities were all Liberal victories and all also around the 40% vote area. The country survived then, including the conservative part that didn't vote Liberal. That's been a magic number for victories in Canada for both parties for quite a long time. (And that Fair Vote Canada is hardly an impartial source.)

Of course, many Canadians have some understanding of this. Not surprisingly, the NDP has strongly argued for mixed-member proportional representation. The Conservatives are certainly aware of the popular desire for electoral reform, but will not support any method that creates large ridings (which basically means opposing MMP) whereas the Liberal Party has consistently taken no position. When taken to referendum however, a single-transferable vote proposal received majority support but failed to reach the required 60% support in British Columbia in 2005, and MMP options failed to receive even a majority in Prince Edward Island, also in 2005, and Ontorio in 2007.

It failed twice in BC. The second time featuring a more expansive public education campaign, and it got less then 40% support (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_electoral_reform_referendum,_2009).

Federally, MMP also happens to be virtually impossible because switching to it requires changing the Constitution, and trying that in Canadian politics is suicidal given all the issues around it.

A significant part of the problem does lie with the Liberals, who have consistently failed to display any leadership on the matter. This is poor politics on their part, obviously living in hope of dominating the centre and left-of-centre party, as they have done in much of Canada's history.

You know why the Conservatives beat the Liberals over the head with coalition talk to successfully? Because the beliefs that the Liberals are a progressive & left party are wrong. The Liberals are a centrist party. When they were winning, they had the ability to draw on a wide range of voters, including those who tend to lean Conservative but aren't partisans. When Dion turned them into a Left party with his climate change plan in 2008, it was a disaster.

A coalition with the NDP scares those people off and drives them to the Conservatives. It also has the added effect of sending progressives to the NDP, because why vote for the Liberals when you can vote for the real thing and not worry about vote splits?

Continued (I'm long winded on this issue)

[tridus.livejournal.com]

The Liberals don't support it because for them, it's a bad idea.


It can be readily assumed that if the situation was reversed, both the Canadian and UK Conservatives would be promoting preferential voting with equal vigour.

Your assumption is wrong. This has in fact happened in Canadian history. In 1993 the Progressive-Conservatives were oblitterated in an election (going from majority to 2 seats), due to the party's support splitting into three chunks (PC, the conservative Reform party, and the seperatist Bloc Quebecois).

The Reform party (later renamed the Canadian Alliance due to branding issues) and the PC party are both conservative parties, and both fought elections from 1993-2003. The Liberals won every single time (1993, 1997, 2000).

Neither of them tried to change the voting system). In the end they got together and merged into the Conservative party, and won in 2006, 2008, and now again in 2011.

Incidentally, you can also now expect the NDP to quietly drop their support for changing the voting system when faced with the twin facts that it's basically impossible anyway, and that the current system is now working pretty well for them.

Besides all that, FPTP foces mainstream parties that want to win to temper their policies towards the center to appeal to a wide range of voters. You can't win on your core support, which is why the NDP never got anywhere in Quebec until they changed and started adapting more Quebec friendly policies. The Conservatives have had to temper their own supporters desire for a socially conservative agenda because as soon as they try it, their broader support will run back to the Liberals. The median voter theorem forces parties that want to win to act this way, because you can't win in FPTP by being a fringe party.

What we actually get out of FPTP does a good job of representing a plurality of voters even when it doesn't take 50%+1 to win. What it doesn't do is give fringe special interest parties a voice, and I fail to see a downside to that.

Ultimately this system has served Canada well for the entire history of the country, and there's no reason to screw with what works.

Re: Errors, bad assumptions, and the Constitution

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Since you're not a Canadian

So what? I mean if I was talking about the politics of Bhutan that might make a difference. But the assumption that I haven't followed Canadian politics, or associate with Canadians who are politically active is a rather long bow to draw (admittedly they do come from lefty political strongholds in Toronto, Halifax and Vancouver).

Actually it was called because the government was found in contempt of Parliament for withholding documents

That's right; badly summarised in my part suggesting that the two events were strongly related.

The NDP and BQ have no particular problem with it,

BQ would form an agreement; I would appreciate a statement from the NDP that says they would support a coalition government.

It failed twice in BC

Yes, and again primarily because people where not aware of the issues. "While support for BC-STV continues to grow,
awareness (http://stv.ca/node/810) of the upcoming referendum is at 44 per cent. You know as well as I do that people stick with what they know when they're uncertain of a change. Better the devil you know etc. That's why electoral reform usually comes from parliament or commissions, rather than plebiscites.

People were sick of minority governments, even ones who voted for another party.

That's not what your link describes; being tired of political games does not mean that they support governments elected with a minority of votes but a majority of seats.
When Dion turned them into a Left party with his climate change plan in 2008, it was a disaster.

Umm... what? Stéphane Dion slightly improved the party's vote (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_Canadian_federal_election,_2008) from when the election was called.

Because the beliefs that the Liberals are a progressive & left party are wrong. The Liberals are a centrist party.

They're a centre and centre-left party. That is consistent with their policies and membership.

A coalition with the NDP scares those people off and drives them to the Conservatives.

Well, it didn't do a very good job, did it?

A change in ritual for the church of democracy?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Tyranny only gets worse when the suckers who vote are promised a closer representation of what they "really want." There is nothing inherently "fair" about democracy. It's only utility is it's ability to frequently, but not always, prevent a minority from tyrannizing the majority. Often times, due to factional politics, it does not even accomplish that. It does almost nothing to prevent majorities from tyrannizing minorities. Democracies can often be much worse tyrannies than other forms of government. The problem with government is that it is government. The problem with big government is that it is arbitrary rule by a few over the many, no matter what dog and pony show people go through to select that minority, and the exericse of far too much power that is far too centralized for the good of those are looted to satisfy the ambitions of special interests. At root, political governance is the imposition of coercion and force against otherwise peaceful people who have not threatened or deprived others of their rights. "Democracy," even new and improved, more fair Democracy, does not change that fact. All "fair voting" does is give the appearance of legitimacy to ideas which are flawed from the outset: the idea that factions and groups of individuals have more rights than individuals and the related idea that might makes right. If we want "fairness" then at minimum we should decentralize and shrink government. The smaller and more local government is the more it has to compete with other governments for the loyalties of people, also the more likely it is that the government will reflect the values of the majority of the community, also the less "surplus resources" and ability to create debt the government has to enable it to engage in mischief. The less power a government has to impose one set of arbitrary values on personal lives and decision-making of every individual the less the acrimony it creates in society. Ideally, people should stop agitating for forcing their neighbors into involuntary associations. That course of action will go much further than all the crazy schemes to make massive-scale democratic tyranny look palatable.

"Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses."
— H. L. Mencken

Re: A change in ritual for the church of democracy?

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

But don't you realize that if you don't tell people what to do they may make bad choices?

Re: A change in ritual for the church of democracy?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

You mean like the bad choices made by government bureaucrats? Er, wait...there are already people telling them what to do. Apparently, we may need to rethink this idea of assigning people who make bad choices to supervise people who make bad choices...or else just keep adding more layers of supervision. Right?

Re: A change in ritual for the church of democracy?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Hobbes was right, absolutism for the win!

Re: A change in ritual for the church of democracy?

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Hobbes was wrong and his leviathan is a common human delusion which acts as a cancer upon civilization. Power becomes more centralized and more comprehensive, and thus more corrupting, until the political sphere crowds out enough of the productive social sphere to produce a collapse. The cycle then starts over.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

"if one is dedicated to the principle of majority rule"

But why should we be dedicated to this principle?

There is nothing special about a majority that makes it always right or it's ideas inherently superior to a minorities.

This is especially true when the differentiation between the "majority" and the minority is relatively small (less than 75/25).

In fact there are a great many instances in history where it can easily be shown that the majority WAS wrong, for example public support for segregation in the 1950's and earlier. If our predecessors were "dedicated" to the ideal of majority rule then separate but equal never would have been overturned.

"Majority rule" is itself a fiction

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

For one thing, there are studies which show that democracy very often results, even of necessity, in outcomes that none of its participants would have chosen, had they acted independently. For another, in democratic systems it is easy for special interests, who are motivated by the prospect of concentrated benefit, to loot favors at the expense of everyone else, due to the fact that the losses suffered by everyone else for any particular event of looting are diffused over a large population. On top of that, the legislatures in modern, Western democracies have delegated so much of their decision-making power to bureaucracies full "civil service" protected career bureaucrats that it no longer matters who wins the elective offices anymore.

Re: "Majority rule" is itself a fiction

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Hail the Leviathan, granted contract by the ravenous rabble unable to run itself. Why we can't trust the mob to secure our property, so let's grab some random monk from a cellar and declare him Caesar, what can possibly go wrong?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given that segregation in the South was maintained by terror, it's quite arguable that the people segregated really *didn't* like it and like slavery before it it lasted as long as it did because white liberals were pussies afraid to piss off white Southern doctors and lawyers who led the lynch mobs. Perhaps, in fact, it's not a good idea to compare state-sanctioned terror to democracies as the states that require terror operate on the basis of "I have a rocket launcher, you have a slingshot, do what I tell you to do" as opposed to "popular sovereignty."

Keep playing out rope, you're going to hang yourself

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Throughout history, more murder and other criminal wickedness has been done under the color of governing authority than has ever been done by individuals and small groups acting on their own criminal motivations.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Are you seriously trying to argue that there was ANY mass of white southerners prior to ~1950 who did not at least passively hold to the tenants of white superiority forget a silent majority of them to afraid to speak up?

No, the terror was used to impose on the black under class, the white upper class were almost universally either active supporters of the situation or at least passively in agreement.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

But why should we be dedicated to this principle?

Because you have the opinion that others have an equal right as you do concerning the governance of the public sphere.

If you don't believe this, you can grant me all your all your voting rights. Cheers!

[okmewriting.livejournal.com]

Apparently unable to engage in the most basic democratic political calculation (i.e., counting votes), they are seemingly unable to realise that the Thatcher government would have almost certainly been defeated after one term under prefential voting and possibly never elected in the first place

You do realise that most commentators have been saying that AV would have made Thatchers majority even more extreme?

Congratulations can also be given to the UK Conservatives for letting the Liberal Democrats carry the can on this issue as well; they have already become the scapegoat for the Tories more distasteful policies.

They aren't actually. People know very well what the Tories are, that's why their share of the vote hasn't changed. It is the Liberal Democrats who have broken trust with the electorate. They said one thing - no to tuition fees then backed the Tories on it (for instance).

The LD's are being punished for being caught out lying to the electorate. It goes to show that the country expects an election manifesto to mean something. They don't want coalitions where manifesto commitments get ripped up. Which is probably why 70% of those who voted, voted against AV.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

You do realise that most commentators have been saying that AV would have made Thatchers majority even more extreme?

I'd like to see how they justify that. On a per seat basis with distribution of preferences (the variation would occur depending on the SD/LP went) that seems to be a very unlikely scenario.

It is the Liberal Democrats who have broken trust with the electorate.

My bad; it should read the LD have become scapegoats for the government, not the Conservatives,

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Given that nobody really won the last general election for the UK Parliament, isn't the right answer to that to make those parties actually offer what the British people want and sell *that* to them as opposed to rigging the rules to make the fringe parties happy? Do you *want* the 21st Century Oswald Moseley as PM?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

This article really suffers from ignorance about the relevant Canadian history.

"The election was called because the ruling Conservative Party suffered a motion of no-confidence, after the electoral commission found that the Conservative Party had contravened the Elections Act five years prior."

No. What are you thinking of here? The "in-and-out" allegations? Anyway, this is incorrect. The motion of no-confidence followed a report by the opposition party that the Conservatives were in contempt of parliament. In short, the opposition said "We don't trust you to work with us the way we think you're obliged to, and we're going to force a vote on this matter which, if we win, will result in an election." Because the Conservatives were a minority government, they need opposition support not to lose such a vote, which of course they didn't have.

"During the election the Conservatives expressed fears that there would be a left-wing coalition between the Liberals, the NDP, Le Bloc and the Greens. This was repeatedly denied by these parties; they should have realised that this was a potential strength."

No, the Liberals were the ones loudly decrying any talk of a coalition. NDP and Bloc have been more open to the idea. Despite this, almost everyone suspected the Liberals were thinking of coalition, on the reasonable basis that the polls indicated with as much strength as polls could ever indicate anything that a coalition was the only possible way this election could, from the perspective of the Liberals, result in any traction whatsoever gained against the Conservatives. Whether the Liberals in fact had a coalition in mind (and what on earth they were thinking if they didn't), we'll now never know. Certainly, suspicions of coalition are likely to cost the Liberals votes (and may indeed have, in this case), because the campaign as and by their strident supports are seen as the definitive centrist party, a vision which some reasonable suspicions fear would be compromised by merger and coalition efforts. Ignatieff in particular, the Liberal leader in this election, regards the Liberals this way, and his concession speech can be read as indicating to the future liberals to remain a centrist party and avoid talks of merger. (Contrast Rae's speech only moments later.)

"This is the second election is succession won by the Conservatives with the range of left-leaning opposition parties achieving around 60% of the vote each time. This is absolutely maddening for the majority of Canadians who, once again, have to put up with a government that the majority does not support..."

No, it's not absolutely maddening for the majority of Canadians. Even if it's "absolutely maddening" for every single person who voted against Conservatives (which it isn't, I personally know a swath of people who voted against conservatives and aren't absolutely maddened), then only a touch above 1/3rd of us are so maddened.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

No. What are you thinking of here? The "in-and-out" allegations? Anyway, this is incorrect. The motion of no-confidence followed a report by the opposition party that the Conservatives were in contempt of parliament

Poorly phrased on my party, I agree.

NDP and Bloc have been more open to the idea.

I'd like to see a statement from the NDP that says this.

Even if it's "absolutely maddening" for every single person who voted against Conservatives

Which is about 60%, right?

[anosognosia.livejournal.com]

But not to quibble over numbers: there's nothing to be absolutely maddened here any more than there is to be absolutely maddened by the entire history of the Canadian nation (which I assure you, we aren't absolutely maddened by; rather, we think we have a pretty fine country up here), since this is the way it always is. Ruling Canadian parties don't rule with the majority support of the voters, let alone the populace. I understand this is strange to people who are used to two-party systems, but that's the way it's been up here, and it has nothing to do with the Conservatives in particular. Indeed, the Liberals won in 2004 with only 36.73% of the vote and in 1997 with 38.46%, both less than what the Conservatives got this time. In fact, only six Canadian elections have ever resulted in the ruling party getting a majority vote, and only one in the past half century (going to the Conservatives in 1984).

"A significant part of the problem does lie with the Liberals, who have consistently failed to display any leadership on the matter."

That the Liberal views on this matter is not the same as yours hardly indicates that they've failed to show leadership. Liberals don't oppose this kind of election reform out of sheer stupidity, but out of a vision for strong federalism which is among the defining features of their party. The fact that both FPTP and vote-splitting (between a number of right-wing parties) has tended to serve them well surely doesn't hurt either.

"It can be readily assumed that if the situation was reversed, both the Canadian and UK Conservatives would be promoting preferential voting with equal vigour."

But the situation was reversed. Canadian Conservatives in most of our elections, particularly of late, would have been served very well by this kind of electoral reform. Again, what is in fact an explicit, informed, ideological opposition to this kind of reform you're confusing (because it doesn't fit with your position) as stupidity. Among Canadian conservatives, the PC's were largely opposed to voter reform for the same reason the Liberals have been, namely to the end of supporting a strong federalism--a problem which in Canada has had a unique urgency owing particularly to French-English relations. Conversely, the Reform party had been in favor of, well, reform for the obvious reason of having a strong grassroots rather than strong federalist orientation. So the situation among Canadian (small-c) conservatives on the issue of democratic reform is complicated.

[tridus.livejournal.com]

But even Reform wasn't in real favor of overhauling the electoral system. They wanted to have true voter parity (one person equals one vote, as opposed to the slanted representation we have in the House of Commons today) and the triple-E Senate. They never wanted to rip up FPTP.

Other then that, agree with you totally. His post gets pretty well everything related to Canada wrong.