Canadian Politics Today

Put it on your back burner wilbur and bring it up again when your Cons form government.

I can assure you that none of Trudeau's supporters are the least bit interested in sharing power with the Cons or any other backward thinking fascist regime's ideology.

Or in other words wilbur, STFU for a while unless you have some proposals for a Con agenda.

Quoting yourself now.

It's my mistake; it was meant to quote waldo. But I don't regret it when it causes some pleasure for you at least. Regardless, you need to get over your bad feelings and come to the conclusion that you're going to have to spend more time thinking before you allow your gums to start flapping.

member wilber, since you're holding up Australia as the model for Canadians to follow:
=> Australia uses Alternative Vote (AV) for its House... Single Transferable Vote (STV) for its Senate. Accordingly, still following parts of the Westminster model, the Australian Prime Minister is selected by the controlling House party chosen by AV. Alternative Voting, sometimes referred to as 'ranked balloting' was said to be the preferred Liberal Party of Canada choice over FPTP.
=> member wilber, given this bonehead play of yours, do a bit of research and come back and advise why Australia still uses AV for its House... and STV for its 'sober second thought' Senate - yes?

as for the second emphasis I put forward... that you completely ignored... there's a past thread here where I provided key examples where your favoured PR has limitations/problems; again, as in failing coalitions and fringe party control. Don't make me search for it! 

Apparently. Real leaders can still survive nicely with PR. Witness Merkel in Germany and Ardern in NZ who managed a majority in their recent election.

That Waldo goes all Waldo to smear PR is also not surprising.

poor lil' Gorgeous! Quit making shyte up! Correcting member wilber's failures isn't, as you say, "going all waldo"! Providing facts/details isn't, as you say, "going all waldo"!

like I said, there are many forms of PR - and those variations matter. But instead of qualifying the variants, you low-information types choose to simply blather on with broad, sweeping proportional nothingness.

and the perpetual whine is so telling!  If you can't accept the offered rationale for not proceeding with electoral reform - that no clear-cut alternative choice came forward after all the review & discussion held - then keep on whining!

c'mon member wilber - you ignoring your bigTimeFail concerning Australia won't make it go away!

and now you do it again with Germany & New Zealand... where both countries use a form of PR - Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). The forms of PR are many - you so over simplify with your lack of specificity/detail. Since you continue to reference countries without providing any detail, the waldo asks if you'll do some research and come back and advise on the Germany/New Zealand % splits of local versus regional party members elected... and whether the local members elected are no different than how we elect all members here in Canada (i.e., winner takes all). Facts/details matter member wilber!

That's rich coming from someone who writes off all forms of PR by saying it will be dominated by fringe groups.

In 2004,  BC formed a Citizens Assembly to look at all forms of PR and come up with one form for a referendum. The assembly consisted of of 161 members, one woman and one man randomly selected from each of the 79 existing electoral districts, two first Nations members and a chair. The system was to be selected by the people, not partisan political parties. This is why Trudeau's excuses are bullshit. He wants control, period.

After a year the assembly finally decided on STV as the best system.

The bar set for passing was a 60% majority in a minimum of 60% or 48 of the 79 provinces electoral districts. STV received  57.7% of the vote and a majority in 77 of 79 districts. There was a clear vote for change but the government set the bar too high, otherwise BC would have had PR in 2005.

I did no such thing. Most certainly I noted there have been significant problems associated with PR; e.g., failed coalitions & fringe party control. Of course you were quite dismissive of said criticism.

bottom line: you PR proponents make broad, sweeping claims without regard to the many variants of PR that exist... like all you're looking for is that magical/mystical word (to you), 'proportional'! 

ya ya, you made me look! Notwithstanding both referendums failed to realize your PR nirvana, there no shortage of criticism for the process followed. How ironic that you PR proponents had no objection to a fraction of B.C. voters choosing a new electoral system... one that was short on specifics and that few understood.

but wait, it gets even better! It's like you PR proponents were in search of something you pretty much already had in past elections; specifically as I read: "in the 2017 B.C. election, just over 86% of the B.C. legislature seats were representative of the votes cast. Furthermore, when applying that same 2017 standard of measure to the 1996, 2005, 2009, and 2013 B.C. elections, the average proportionality level exceeded 89%". Like I said, in search of a solution to a "problem" that doesn't exist in B.C.!