Both claims are debatable.

Do you think things won’t get worse under trump? Or do you think some 50,000 dead a year is the worst Israel can do?

Kid, you should try reading things by actual, paid journalists, who aren’t just contributors to free online “news” sources.

Or good books.

Lol, I keep joking to people that my side is dumb enough to believe the two are equal on that and every day one of y’all proves me right.

Vote Harris… Wait. Damnit.

I think you meant to respond to op, but I pretty much agree with what you wrote.

We can’t even get more progressives than moderates/centrists to the Democratic primaries so I’d be pretty surprised to see even half that show up for something radical.

Exactly. Given that this election came down to what, a few dozen ballots, every little bit helped.

The NDP is one of the few incumbent governments that survived (barely!) an election after this bout of record inflation and whatnot. I don’t think the tax cuts were ideal but people feel the pinch right now and if they hadn’t offered them, I imagine Rustad would be digging us an even deeper hole.

It’s the difference between being in a burning building and being the same burning building while people throwing Molotov cocktails through the windows.

Both are dangerous but one is worse.

No one can change everything but everyone can change something.

Ech, tonight sucks but please don’t make lemmy suck too.

Talk and gasp befriend those with whom we disagree.

The fact that not one comment thus far has grappled with “we might just not be as popular as the republicans” is kind of telling.

We either write of slightly more than half the country or figure out a way to win them over.

(Admittedly, there’s a slim chance where we rack up very specific sets of votes but I haven’t seen anything to make that a reasonable bet.)

Well, I for one, make it rule to always trust someone whose sources are “trust me bro” !

Why do you think it’s moderation?

And why on Earth would you think Lemmy doesn’t skew young?

I don’t think it’s moderation. I think people are genuinely less capable these days at processing news with which they disagree.

That and I think Lemmy skews young, I bet a lot of folks here don’t know anyone socially who would vote for trump.

Stop thinking with your feelings and how you wish things were Lemmy.

That’s kinda how things work here/online. Did you not notice how every poll with trump up was downvoted to oblivion?

Yeah, I realize it won’t work for most who haven’t seen the show but hoe many people like that could there be? Ten?

CBC/BBC/Al Jazeera, checking the Economist for my minute by minute bellweather county level fun.

Homogenous really? Are you really going to pull that racist dogwhistle… First off keep it civil, there’s no need to swear.

When your first line is all but accusing someone of being racist, you’re going to engender a reaction. Especially when that accusation is levelled for the crime of using a word in its* exact correct context*. (Though, I’m curious, what word would you use to describe the socio demographics of Denmark?)

the Conservative Party of Canada who have striking similarities to the AFD

That’s an insane comparison. You’re really comparing the Conservative party to the mass deportation, anti Islam, anti gay marriage party? I get that you probably don’t like the Conservative’s positions but that’s at best, childishly ignorant.

Here you’re ignoring the countries where pr performs well like in Norway, Switzerland, Denmark. You have been cherry picking the dysfunctional countries to suit your flawed reasoning.

Wait, it’s cherry picking when I give you a boatload of examples, but when you give two examples of small homogenous countries and one of the richest countries in the world (gotta love that moral flexibility around Nazi gold!) that’s just as things should be? And are the Netherlands, who are pretty similar to Denmark and Norway just not worth looking at, even though Geert Wilder’s party is now in charge of immigration?!? Do we not want to look at that because it’s damaging to your argument or because you don’t feel immigrants deserve protection?

The Pierre Poilievre Conservative Party is literally the anti-trans party and your suggestions of keeping the same electoral system in place would give him a much easier time of winning all the power with only a minority of the vote.

This is the sort of silliness that tells me you haven’t looked at the issue or how PR tends to affect issues like this. First, the Conservative positions are generally well within mainstream Canada’s e.g., some 47% of Canadians are not comfortable with kids under 18 accessing gender affirming treatment. When I say a radical anti-trans group, that means one that would go much further, say those who believe transgender folks are a threat to children and would maybe seek to ban them from positions of authority around them or bar gender affirming care all together or at the very least make it a privately funded thing. You could see such a party pull support off the Bloc, maybe some Liberal/NDP economic voters, as well as some Conservatives. But the concern is a party like that could pull enough support from the other parties and end up teaming up with the Conservatives. (Hey folks, you get all your economic policies, in return, some bad things happen to a group you’re already “meh” on. That’s a pretty damned appealing deal.)

legislation without accountability with only 42% of the popular vote

What do you think the word accountability means? In a political context, it usually means that a party has to answer for what they’ve done. And yes, if the Conservatives win, they’ll have a 4 year track record on which to be judged. The same thing that is happening to Trudeau and the Liberals. And after those years, the voters consider the record, consider the promises for future governments and make another decision. That’s how the system is designed to work and why Canada isn’t mired in the same dysfunction as America. (Please don’t be so silly as to say we’re doing exactly the same, please.)

Where candidates have to attack their opponents to win their races that increases polarization. Policy lurch where the policies of the previous government are cancelled out by the new government where nothing gets done.

PR in no way mitigates or solves these problems.

I think it’s clear you haven’t really thought about these things. You just feel that Conservatives are fascists (which is another wildly childish claim) and that PR will somehow stop them, presumably because you think all the good parties will band together to stop them. Which is a fairly ignorant assumption on how things work. Much more likely is someone like the Bloc cuts a deal or a few new fringe parties do.

I doubt you’re old enough to remember but about 16ish years ago, BC looked pretty heavily at adopting a form of PR (MMP was the recommendation if I recall correctly) and there were some really interesting books written about the pros and cons at the time. If you’d like to actually learn about the concerns and possibilities, I’ll try and dig up one of those for you. I can’t help with the widespread ignorance, like calling the AFD similar to the Conservatives but at least on the mechanics and examples of PR. (The really interesting part is of course that this happened just at the start of the wild bifurcation we’ve seen in the decades since.)

I ow a how much?