I don't trust Andrew Weaver

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
I don't trust Andrew Weaver

Weaver says he wants PR. So do I. If PR gets adopted how does Horgan protect himself against Weaver pulling the plug on the NDP-Green agreement once PR is in place?

Pondering

Why would he? And if he does that would just lead to another election in which the Greens and NDP would have even more power wouldn't it? Wouldn't they win more seats under PR?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
If PR gets adopted how does Horgan protect himself against Weaver pulling the plug on the NDP-Green agreement once PR is in place?

I suppose he could at least re-read the parable of the scorpion and the frog.

But as Pondering notes, there's not much advantage to Weaver stinging Horgan.  The Greens have never had it so good, and while PR (and a new election) might shuffle the seat count somewhat, it wouldn't make it any better.

NorthReport

Weaver is a lot closer to the Liberals than the NDP, and actually used to be a member of the Liberals.

The only reason he didn't cut a deal with the Liberals instead of the NDP is that Premier Clark's vision of grandeur made her convince herself that she was too important to involve herself personally in the post-election negotiations with Weaver and Horgan.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The only reason he didn't cut a deal with the Liberals instead of the NDP is that Premier Clark's vision of grandeur made her convince herself that she was too important to involve herself personally in the post-election negotiations with Weaver and Horgan.

I guess it's all different now, though, and the Liberals are the kind of party of the people that Weaver can work with.

Well, what's the (projected) PR math say?  If the last election were a PR election, would the Liberals still be the party to stand with?

Heck, without the icky Clarke at the wheel, what would stop the NDP from standing with them?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Would it really matter if Weaver DID "pull the plug" after pr was implemented?  There'd be no chance of a "Liberal" majority being elected, so you'd just end up with another NDP-Green coalition(and that would likely be the governing arrangement for quite awhile to come).

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

PR can win the referendum, but the policy will not the deal is that it will not be enabled until the end of the term.  If the Green's pull the plug early - no PR.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

So Weaver has nothing to gain by pulling the plug.

 

Aristotleded24

Ken Burch wrote:
Would it really matter if Weaver DID "pull the plug" after pr was implemented?  There'd be no chance of a "Liberal" majority being elected, so you'd just end up with another NDP-Green coalition(and that would likely be the governing arrangement for quite awhile to come).

If he kept on doing that repeatedly just to be obstructionist and not get anything done, then I suspect that even with PR public support would coalesce behind either a single party or a coalition of parties in large enough numbers to ensure that the Greens would have no leverage.

NorthReport

Weaver, Suzuki Clash on Greens’ Site C Role

Party could have brought down the government, says enviro icon.

 

Weaver-Suzuki.jpg

‘Now politics comes before principle,’ says David Suzuki. ‘So I’m really disillusioned.’ Weaver photo from the BC Green Party Facebook page. Suzuki photo courtesy of the David Suzuki Foundation, Creative Commons licensed.

BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver says he was deeply stung by environmental icon David Suzuki’s criticism in a recent interview with an online magazine.

     

“Those comments hurt. I have a great deal of respect for David, but I simply don’t think he understands what our options are,” Weaver said. “It hurt because, why didn’t he pick up the phone? He can phone me up. He knows where I am. Why didn’t he pick up the phone and talk to me?”

Suzuki, who will be 82 this month, endorsed Weaver and the Green Party ahead of last year’s election. Last week the National Observer published a wide-ranging interview that included Suzuki talking about his disappointment with Weaver.

Suzuki said he had long hoped the Greens would hold the balance of power, but the party failed in its first big chance to make a difference with the decision on Site C.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2018/03/15/Weaver-Suzuki-Clash-Greens-Site-C-Role/

NorthReport

Why would he sue? Reminds me of Mulroney.

B.C. Green Party's Andrew Weaver loses defamation lawsuit

Judge says article by retired geography professor was derogatory, but poorly written, lacking in credibility

“In my opinion, the lawsuit was brought to silence me. I think that’s a total misuse of the law and I’m glad the courts recognize that,” he said. “This whole idea of suing individuals or suing publications to me is such a chill on free speech and expression of opinion. That’s why I think this ruling is so important, not just to me but to the media and society in general.”

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/b-c-green-party-s-andrew-weaver-...

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

As to the thread title...really, it doesn't come down to having to trust Weaver.  The guy knows he has nothing to gain from either forcing an early election OR deciding to join a coalition with the Liberals after all.  An early election would be fought under fptp and prevent pr from being brought in...if pr is stopped, there's no real chance of the Greens winning any more seats than they currently hold, and every chance that the Liberals would simply regain a majority even if they did.  

And if Weaver did offer to form a coalition with the Liberals, they would almost certainly turn him down and take their chances with an early election, or they would make it clear that such a coalition would mean the no pr at the next election.

Weaver is pretty much stuck with the existing arrangement until 2021.

NorthReport

Interesting that Suzuki’s wife read our her husband’s statement at the memorials for Dave Barrett (Dr Suzuki was unable to break free from a project he was involved with in Canada’s North so was there in spirit)

 

 

NorthReport

Weaver is such a windbag!

BC Greens back off threat to topple NDP government over LNG plans

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/british-columbia/article-bc-green...

NorthReport

‘We’re going to wait’: Greens defend decision to prop up NDP despite LNG plan

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4105535/were-going-to-wait-greens-defend-deci...

NorthReport

Weaver may find it tougher than he thinks to bring down government

The usual route for expressing non-confidence in the government is to vote against the budget. But the Greens have already voted in favour of this year’s budget and the next opportunity won’t be along until February of next year.

Until then, Weaver’s threat to bring down the government strikes me as more bluster than anything. And much could happen on LNG and any number of other fronts between now and next year.

 

http://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/vaughn-palmer-weaver-may-find...

Martin N.

Why should the NDP shoot themselves in the foot by enacting PR? BC turned it down previously and will again.

Horgan is doing a fine job leading the  Greenweaver around by the nose and neutering the loons in the party (Lana Popham forced to announce her own ministry's research showing she is wrong about fish farms).

The greens are irrelevant and the NDP can beat the Liberals ( with a positive Shell LNG decision he has a chance in the interior). What does Horgan need PR for?

NorthReport

Maybe because having a more fair and representative election system is the right thing to do!

Martin N.

NorthReport wrote:

Maybe because having a more fair and representative election system is the right thing to do!

Keep dreaming- politics is a blood sport. "A more fair and representative election system" is only of interest to perennial losers, not potential winners.

Aristotleded24

Martin N. wrote:
NorthReport wrote:

Maybe because having a more fair and representative election system is the right thing to do!

Keep dreaming- politics is a blood sport. "A more fair and representative election system" is only of interest to perennial losers, not potential winners.

So you're okay with the second place party winning an absolute majority as was the case in BC in 1996 and Quebec in 1998?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Maybe because having a more fair and representative election system is the right thing to do!

That's adorable!

Aristotleded24

NorthReport wrote:
‘We’re going to wait’: Greens defend decision to prop up NDP despite LNG plan

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/4105535/were-going-to-wait-greens-defend-deci...

So after spending a decade and a half whining about how the BC Liberals put the interests of their corporate buddies ahead of the well-being of regular people, the BC NDP is prepared to offer PST and carbon tax rebates on the construction of an LNG plant while carbon taxes are going to go up for every day British Columbians? Will that not have an impact on dealing with poverty the NDP claims is so important?

Weaver's hands are practically tied at the moment. He has the option of either going along with the NDP bribing the LNG producers, or forcing an election and risking the Liberals regaining their majority and then doing the same thing. Nonetheless, he is absolutely right to call this out.

JKR

Martin N. wrote:

Why should the NDP shoot themselves in the foot by enacting PR? BC turned it down previously and will again.

Horgan is doing a fine job leading the  Greenweaver around by the nose and neutering the loons in the party (Lana Popham forced to announce her own ministry's research showing she is wrong about fish farms).

The greens are irrelevant and the NDP can beat the Liberals ( with a positive Shell LNG decision he has a chance in the interior). What does Horgan need PR for?

Horgan needs PR because the BC NDP and BC Greens have gotten into bed with each other so they are now vulnerable to splitting the centre-left vote versus the BC Liberals in the next election in 2022.

NorthReport
NorthReport

B.C. Green party reveals it hired Victoria tech company caught up in Brexit scandal

 

https://www.straight.com/news/1051516/bc-green-party-reveals-it-hired-vi...

jerrym

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Well, what's the (projected) PR math say?  If the last election were a PR election, would the Liberals still be the party to stand with?

The previous election gave the Liberals 40.36%, the NDP 40.28%, the Greens 16.84% and the Conservatives 0.53%.

Under a pure PR system this would would result in 34 Liberal seats, 34 NDP seats, 15 Green seats and 1 Conservative seat.

Under PR, one can also expect a significant growth in the Conservative vote as there are actually more federal Conservatives within the BC Liberal party membership than federal Liberals. The right-wing coalition has held together since 1941 in various forms of Liberals, Conservatives and Social Crediters with the aim of preventing the NDP from taking power.

This coalition would break apart under PR because there would be a slight advantage to having two right-wing parties as there is a small group of Conservatives who would never vote for any party with the Liberal name and a separate Conservative party could then push an even more right-wing agenda without costing them seats. Right wing voters could also shift between these two parties when one became more unpopular without costing them seats, as is now the case, reducing the risk of their reuniting again. 

The NDP and Greens on the other hand would have the advantage of a majority of voters supporting them, assuming that they did not alienate their previous supporters in the process of governing. 

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

jerrym wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Well, what's the (projected) PR math say?  If the last election were a PR election, would the Liberals still be the party to stand with?

The previous election gave the Liberals 40.36%, the NDP 40.28%, the Greens 16.84% and the Conservatives 0.53%.

Under a pure PR system this would would result in 34 Liberal seats, 34 NDP seats, 15 Green seats and 1 Conservative seat.

Under PR, one can also expect a significant growth in the Conservative vote as there are actually more federal Conservatives within the BC Liberal party membership than federal Liberals. The right-wing coalition has held together since 1941 in various forms of Liberals, Conservatives and Social Crediters with the aim of preventing the NDP from taking power.

This coalition would break apart under PR because there would be a slight advantage to having two right-wing parties as there is a small group of Conservatives who would never vote for any party with the Liberal name and a separate Conservative party could then push an even more right-wing agenda without costing them seats. Right wing voters could also shift between these two parties when one became more unpopular without costing them seats, as is now the case, reducing the risk of their reuniting again. 

The NDP and Greens on the other hand would have the advantage of a majority of voters supporting them, assuming that they did not alienate their previous supporters in the process of governing. 

 

And there would also be the possibility, if left voters in B.C. found the NDP insufficiently radical, to form an independent left party that could win enough seats to push the NDP towards a more truly "left" position.

NorthReport
Rev Pesky

From North Report:

Maybe because having a more fair and representative election system is the right thing to do!

Let's not forget that a very large part of the BC population lives in the lower mainland. Any PR voting system could deprive the rest of the province a chance at representation in the government.

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

From North Report:

Maybe because having a more fair and representative election system is the right thing to do!

Let's not forget that a very large part of the BC population lives in the lower mainland. Any PR voting system could deprive the rest of the province a chance at representation in the government.

Some PR systems like MMP and STV can give the areas of BC, including the Lower Mainland and outside of the Lower Mainland, the same ratio of representation they currently have. Here's an example of the dual member proportional (DMP) system which is another PR system that could maintain current urban-rural ratios:

https://youtu.be/5GiYwdMjAWE

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Well, PR supporters seem to like to say things like "everyone's vote should count equally" and suchlike, but pretty much any attempt to "tweak" PR models -- even things like a thresholds -- work against that.  It seems strange to me to want a proportional system, but then introduce arbitrary "fixes" to intentionally make the new system more like FPTP.

If we consider a population that's (let's say) 80% urban and 20% rural, I really can't see how we can ensure that the rural voters and urban voters have equal electoral power overall without basically giving each rural voter a larger "vote" than the urban voters.  That's just math.

JKR

I don't think anyone is saying that rural voters and urban voters should have equal electoral power while rural voters make up a much smaller portion of the population.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I don't think anyone is saying that rural voters and urban voters should have equal electoral power while rural voters make up a much smaller portion of the population.

OK.

Is anyone saying they should have ANY more electoral power than their proportion?

Same thing, just dialed down slightly.  But if the rural vote is worth anything more than exactly 1X the urban vote, that's the opposite of proportional.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I don't think anyone is saying that rural voters and urban voters should have equal electoral power while rural voters make up a much smaller portion of the population.

OK.

Is anyone saying they should have ANY more electoral power than their proportion?

Same thing, just dialed down slightly.  But if the rural vote is worth anything more than exactly 1X the urban vote, that's the opposite of proportional.

I think there's a difference between "proportional" and "perfectly proportional." The PR systems being advocated for in BC are not perfectly proportional but they are much more proportional than FPTP.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I think there's a difference between "proportional" and "perfectly proportional."

Sure, like the difference between a circle, and something that's slightly circular.

Quote:
The PR systems being advocated for in BC are not perfectly proportional but they are much more proportional than FPTP.

I don't disagree, they're incrementally better.

It's just funny that perfectly proportional is not any less possible, and yet we'd rather be less than perfect.  While still saying things like "every vote should count equally".

At the very least, PR supporters could change their rallying cry to "every vote should be somewhat more meaningful, or at least more meaningful than FPTP!  That's enough!"

PR supporters have literally suggested a Charter challenge to FPTP, on the grounds that all votes should be equally meaningful, but as soon as that idea looks like it might tank because of "regionality", they stop thinking that all votes should be equally meaningful and try to take a pure system and make it a little bit more like the one that's supposedly violating Charter rights.  Can't have it both ways.

So... can we agree that PR is "a little bit better" and drop the over-the-top stuff?

FWIW, I voted for PR when I had the opportunity, and I'm sure I'd do it again.  But it can't be all about giving everyone equal rights, then clawing back those rights because someone in a rural area is going to feel all hard done by if their MP isn't someone who knows them by their first name.  We simply cannot have a proportional system and also have townships of a few thousand people get their own MP/MPP because that's what they like and because only a local can understand their challenges.

cco

As we went over in this thread, the existence of provinces and the fact most people seem to desire a geographically based MP whose office they can find (unless they live in, say, the Northwest Territories) get in the way of a single national list system. And of course, even under a system like that, there'd be a minimum threshold of one seat; a party that gets one vote in all of Canada can't have its vote "count", even if the slogan is "make every vote count".

Is your concern really about overblown rhetoric, though? If so, I'm curious why you didn't object to the Liberals and NDP saying they favour "gender equality", when neither party has proposed a nationwide forcible genetic engineering project to eliminate all vestiges of gender within a generation. I mean, under both Liberal governments and hypothetical NDP ones, men and women will continue to exist, and only one can get pregnant! Surely the slogan should've been something like "looking into maybe doing something about the pay gap, and on a good day taking rape accusations seriously".

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
and the fact most people seem to desire a geographically based MP whose office they can find

I could post a link to Google Maps, if that would help?

But is that really a problem?

Quote:
there'd be a minimum threshold of one seat; a party that gets one vote in all of Canada can't have its vote "count", even if the slogan is "make every vote count".

Absolutely!  Any party that earns less than 1/338th of the vote should have no reason to expect a seat.

But what of a party that receives just slightly more than 1/338th of the vote?  Should they earn a seat?  Or what does "threshold" mean, in PR terms?  Why should they NOT receive a seat?

Quote:
Is your concern really about overblown rhetoric, though? If so, I'm curious why you didn't object to the Liberals and NDP saying they favour "gender equality", when neither party has proposed a nationwide forcible genetic engineering project to eliminate all vestiges of gender within a generation.

Ah, if only it really worked that way.  Sure, nobody could criticize anything, and that would be the downside, but at least we'd all have to be totally honest and fight a hundred battles on a hundred fronts or whatever. 

I'm sorry, though, if my criticism of "Equal Votes-Lite" isn't to your liking.  But we can't talk about the equality of one vote while also arbitrarily making some votes worth more than others.

Or can we?  Over to you.

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I think there's a difference between "proportional" and "perfectly proportional."

Sure, like the difference between a circle, and something that's slightly circular.

Quote:
The PR systems being advocated for in BC are not perfectly proportional but they are much more proportional than FPTP.

I don't disagree, they're incrementally better.

It's just funny that perfectly proportional is not any less possible, and yet we'd rather be less than perfect.  While still saying things like "every vote should count equally".

At the very least, PR supporters could change their rallying cry to "every vote should be somewhat more meaningful, or at least more meaningful than FPTP!  That's enough!"

PR supporters have literally suggested a Charter challenge to FPTP, on the grounds that all votes should be equally meaningful, but as soon as that idea looks like it might tank because of "regionality", they stop thinking that all votes should be equally meaningful and try to take a pure system and make it a little bit more like the one that's supposedly violating Charter rights.  Can't have it both ways.

So... can we agree that PR is "a little bit better" and drop the over-the-top stuff?

FWIW, I voted for PR when I had the opportunity, and I'm sure I'd do it again.  But it can't be all about giving everyone equal rights, then clawing back those rights because someone in a rural area is going to feel all hard done by if their MP isn't someone who knows them by their first name.  We simply cannot have a proportional system and also have townships of a few thousand people get their own MP/MPP because that's what they like and because only a local can understand their challenges.

I think it's difficult to sufficiently understand the case for PR without taking into consideration the flaws of FPTP. The strongest case for PR is that it would mitigate the flaws of FPTP. That's probably why you voted for PR.

One flaw of FPTP is that it allows a party that doesn't come in first place to win a majority government.

Another flaw of FPTP is that it allows a party with a minority of votes to win a majority government.

Another flaw of FPTP is that it often elects a party to govern that is the most disliked party of a majority of the voters.

Another flaw of FPTP is that parties often get a significant amount of votes but win very few seats or no seats at all.

Another flaw of FPTP is that it under-represents minorities.

Another flaw of FPTP is that often voters don't vote for the candidate they like the most out of
fear of vote splitting.

Another flaw of FPTP is that it leads perspective candidates to not enter elections or drop out of elections in order to avoid vote splitting.

Another flaw of FPTP is that it hinders the establishment of new parties out of the fear of vote splitting.

Another flaw of FPTP is that it gives monopolistic power to big tent parties and the insiders that run them.

Another flaw of FPTP is that it creates the false impression regions only support one party. This causes regional antagonism.

And there are many more flaws....

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
And there are many more flaws....

And they're all super.

But my point was never that FPTP is superior to PR.  I was suggesting that while true PR is the most proportional, we don't seem willing to fight for that, and want to "fudge" it a little to make it more like FPTP.  Any thoughts on that?

What are the similar flaws of a straightforward, mathematical PR (with no thresholds, no jerrymandered ridings, no special exceptions made)?

If you can't think of any downsides, then why aren't we considering that?  PURE PR.  What's not to like?

Aristotleded24

Rev Pesky wrote:
From North Report:

Maybe because having a more fair and representative election system is the right thing to do!

Let's not forget that a very large part of the BC population lives in the lower mainland. Any PR voting system could deprive the rest of the province a chance at representation in the government.

And you don't think there's potential in Manitoba, which uses FPTP, the parts of the province outside of Winnipeg might be deprived of a chance at representation in the government?

cco

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But what of a party that receives just slightly more than 1/338th of the vote?  Should they earn a seat?  Or what does "threshold" mean, in PR terms?  Why should they NOT receive a seat?

I said in the thread I linked that I don't believe there should be any threshold beyond the mathematical minimum necessary to obtain one seat, but that that'd be split over provinces, so it'd take a different amount on PEI than in Ontario.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

I'm sorry, though, if my criticism of "Equal Votes-Lite" isn't to your liking.  But we can't talk about the equality of one vote while also arbitrarily making some votes worth more than others.

Or can we?  Over to you.

At a certain point, "Why isn't your slogan more accurate than is possible in a soundbite?" becomes a call for unilateral disarmament in a campaign. I am, however, willing to trade "Make every vote count" for "Make 99.21% of votes count, give or take provincial distribution, understanding that list MPs will be elected differently than riding ones", if the FPTP side reciprocally adopts a slogan along the lines of "Vote for the MP whose party leader you want to be prime minister, unless it's a local MP you really like, or a party that wants your province to separate from Canada, or another small party running in a minority of ridings, understanding that the local winner doesn't need more than 28% of the vote, and a majority government will likely be formed by a party more than 60% of Canadians voted against."

Let me know when the Nuanced Sloganeering Act clears the Senate!

JKR

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
And there are many more flaws....

And they're all super.

But my point was never that FPTP is superior to PR.  I was suggesting that while true PR is the most proportional, we don't seem willing to fight for that, and want to "fudge" it a little to make it more like FPTP.  Any thoughts on that?

What are the similar flaws of a straightforward, mathematical PR (with no thresholds, no jerrymandered ridings, no special exceptions made)?

If you can't think of any downsides, then why aren't we considering that?  PURE PR.  What's not to like?

I think there are some downsides to "pure PR" which I take to mean "a party list system where proportionality is calculated from the whole province."

I think one downside of a pure PR system would be that independents couldn't run for election. Another flaw of a pure PR system would be that there would be no local representation. Another downside would be that political parties would be given too much power over politicians as politicians would be much more dependant on their party than on the voters to get elected. Another flaw of pure PR is that it would give a lot of power to one issue parties.

Electoral systems represent different values so balancing important values when establishing electoral systems can be difficult and complicated as upsides and downsides are calibrated. This is especially so when one of the upsides prized in an electoral system is "simplicity." Simplicity is the value that FPTP accomplishes best compared to other systems. Unfortunately, FPTP has a lot of downsides. FPTP only has few downsides in elections where there are only two candidates competing. So FPTP would be great in presidential or mayoral elections limited to only two candidates competing. The problem of FPTP vote splitting happens once there are more than two candidates competing, which is almost every election.

Rev Pesky

From JKR:

Some PR systems like MMP and STV can give the areas of BC, including the Lower Mainland and outside of the Lower Mainland, the same ratio of representation they currently have. Here's an example of the dual member proportional (DMP) system which is another PR system that could maintain current urban-rural ratios:

Here's one of the problems. Every time some soft spot in PR is pointed out, the PR supporters tell us about another PR system in which that problem doesn't exist. All fine and dandy, but which PR system is being proprosed for BC? Does anyone know? Can you have more than one voting system in the same jurisdiction?

​In fact there are no two jurisdictions that have the same PR voting system. There are hundreds of different PR systems, and the proponents of each one says exactly the same as the proponents of another.

From cco:

At a certain point, "Why isn't your slogan more accurate than is possible in a soundbite?" becomes a call for unilateral disarmament in a campaign.

I'm perfectly happy to have FPTP described as 'First Past The Post'. Nothing confusing or untrue about that.

Now, if someone could point out a PR voting country that is much better governed than Canada, please do. Italy, perhaps, or Portugal, or Israel, or Greece.  
 

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

From JKR:

Some PR systems like MMP and STV can give the areas of BC, including the Lower Mainland and outside of the Lower Mainland, the same ratio of representation they currently have. Here's an example of the dual member proportional (DMP) system which is another PR system that could maintain current urban-rural ratios:

Here's one of the problems. Every time some soft spot in PR is pointed out, the PR supporters tell us about another PR system in which that problem doesn't exist. All fine and dandy, but which PR system is being proprosed for BC? Does anyone know? Can you have more than one voting system in the same jurisdiction?

​In fact there are no two jurisdictions that have the same PR voting system. There are hundreds of different PR systems, and the proponents of each one says exactly the same as the proponents of another.

From cco:

At a certain point, "Why isn't your slogan more accurate than is possible in a soundbite?" becomes a call for unilateral disarmament in a campaign.

I'm perfectly happy to have FPTP described as 'First Past The Post'. Nothing confusing or untrue about that.

Now, if someone could point out a PR voting country that is much better governed than Canada, please do. Italy, perhaps, or Portugal, or Israel, or Greece.  
 

Where is the post in FPTP? It would be more accurate to call instant runoff voting "first past the post" as IRV has a 50% post that candidates have to cross. A flaw of FPTP is that it has no post. The accurate name for FPTP is "single-member plurality."

I think countries like New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands are better governed than Canada.

Rev Pesky

From JKR:

Where is the post in FPTP?

First past the post is a common phrase for the winner of a horse race.

Further from JKR:

I think countries like New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Austria, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands are better governed than Canada.

Even if I accepted that, which I don't, there is an equal number who are government poorly. I'm glad you mentioned mostly European countries because they are the one most often pointed to as the cause of the UK vote against remaining in the EU. The common phrase being that Europe is ground zero for neo-liberalism. 

How well a country is governed is not a function of the electoral system. It is a function of how willing the population is to force the government to operate in the interests of that population. If that energy doesn't exist, it doesn't matter who you elect, nor how you elect them. 

JKR

Rev Pesky wrote:

How well a country is governed is not a function of the electoral system. It is a function of how willing the population is to force the government to operate in the interests of that population. If that energy doesn't exist, it doesn't matter who you elect, nor how you elect them. 

But under FPTP just a minority of the voters usually elect a political party to govern unilaterally. FPTP allows governments to act in the interests of just the minority of the voters that elects them over the majority of voters that vote for the other parties. Ideally a government should take into consideration the interests of all of the population but a government should at least represent the interests of the majority of voters. FPTP does not even meet this limited standard. Shouldn't governments have to represent at least the majority of voters?