It depends; if by “electoral reform” you strictly mean switching to PR/RB without addressing provincial seat allocations (which assume FPTP), 7:50 likely isn’t required, per the 2014/2016 rulings and recommendations (although they certainly would have faced challenges).
However, PR, and especially MMP, would naturally create an imbalance, necessitating either seat adjustments or additions (which increases costs), which could likely trigger 7:50. Any meaningful Senate or Governor General reforms would definitely require it.
That said, this was likely a moot point. ERRE recommended PR, but the Liberals preferred RB, ostensibly because it was easier to implement (and, not coincidentally, would have favored them long-term). The Conservative Senate caucus opposed any reform, while the ISG in 2018/19 - which Trudeau had aggressively pushed to be less partisan - was dubious at bestjust as the Liberals were losing ground before the election. Public sentiment was another obstacle; two years later, people occupied Ottawa for months over American border policy and Timbits, and largely coordinated disinformation campaigns. Pushing electoral reform then could have been a death knell for the Liberals.
It was an incredibly messy, uncertain process, costly both politically and legislatively, and still subject to Senate roadblocks and revisions had it passed. There was no simple path, even just for the ballot format portion of that reform.
However, PR, and especially MMP, would naturally create an imbalance, necessitating either seat adjustments or additions (which increases costs), which could likely trigger 7:50. Any meaningful Senate or Governor General reforms would definitely require it.
It is not necessary to change the number of seats as you can still have MMP system with the same 338 composition dividing them into 207 regional seats (67%) and 131 regional seats (33%). The Sections 40 and 41 of the Constitution Act 1867 clearly empower the federal parliament to alter its own election rules, it simply requires a majority of the house to vote in favour. The issue is that too many establishment politicians in the CPC and the LBC refuse to commit to the necessary action that leads to electoral reform, thus we the people must pressure them greatly to do whats right for our country.
Look, you keep debating step 3 while ignoring steps 1 and 2. My point remains it never even gets that far under historical context; pragmatically, there are many hurdles beyond just the legal framework.
I think we can at least agree that a major root cause of our electoral issues is FPTP, same with OP, so I’ll leave it at that.
E: Just wow. Wow. What a waste of time - textbook strawman sealion debate; nothing has nuance, everything is easy. Definitely not wasting more time on this.
No you’re trying to make electoral reform seem much more complicated than it is. Stop providing cover for corrupt politicians holding back Canada with a 2 party system.
It depends; if by “electoral reform” you strictly mean switching to PR/RB without addressing provincial seat allocations (which assume FPTP), 7:50 likely isn’t required, per the 2014/2016 rulings and recommendations (although they certainly would have faced challenges).
However, PR, and especially MMP, would naturally create an imbalance, necessitating either seat adjustments or additions (which increases costs), which could likely trigger 7:50. Any meaningful Senate or Governor General reforms would definitely require it.
That said, this was likely a moot point. ERRE recommended PR, but the Liberals preferred RB, ostensibly because it was easier to implement (and, not coincidentally, would have favored them long-term). The Conservative Senate caucus opposed any reform, while the ISG in 2018/19 - which Trudeau had aggressively pushed to be less partisan - was dubious at best just as the Liberals were losing ground before the election. Public sentiment was another obstacle; two years later, people occupied Ottawa for months over American border policy and Timbits, and largely coordinated disinformation campaigns. Pushing electoral reform then could have been a death knell for the Liberals.
It was an incredibly messy, uncertain process, costly both politically and legislatively, and still subject to Senate roadblocks and revisions had it passed. There was no simple path, even just for the ballot format portion of that reform.
It is not necessary to change the number of seats as you can still have MMP system with the same 338 composition dividing them into 207 regional seats (67%) and 131 regional seats (33%). The Sections 40 and 41 of the Constitution Act 1867 clearly empower the federal parliament to alter its own election rules, it simply requires a majority of the house to vote in favour. The issue is that too many establishment politicians in the CPC and the LBC refuse to commit to the necessary action that leads to electoral reform, thus we the people must pressure them greatly to do whats right for our country.
Look, you keep debating step 3 while ignoring steps 1 and 2. My point remains it never even gets that far under historical context; pragmatically, there are many hurdles beyond just the legal framework.
I think we can at least agree that a major root cause of our electoral issues is FPTP, same with OP, so I’ll leave it at that.
E: Just wow. Wow. What a waste of time - textbook strawman sealion debate; nothing has nuance, everything is easy. Definitely not wasting more time on this.
No you’re trying to make electoral reform seem much more complicated than it is. Stop providing cover for corrupt politicians holding back Canada with a 2 party system.