<'ll answer that - at this point, no>
Yes, that was true about 1760 to 1770.
<as its not an option although is discussed with increasing frequency in certain circles.>
Additionally implemented all over the globe except in some few left-overs.
<PR would make it harder to obtain majorities>
Yes, Scandinavia has never complained about that, except for those few funny swedish years in the late 1700s.
(they too tried it, funny stuff these days)
<which certainly is a disincentive to the Liberals to ever bring it in.>
"Liberals" is obviously one of the funnies Orwellian things in this present time of history.
< But Canada has a history of doing things differently, so I would not count out electoral reforms.>
Differently from what?? those few non-PR systems left from theose late 1700s??
<Who knows what we might do as we move ourselves along.>
Well, that is, maybe a good point, but considering the rest of the world and UK, PR seem to be the way to go, maybe even Mexico will put some pressure on Canada.
< Canada has shown itself able to change; we are not hitched lock-step to our southern neighbour. >
Greate old joke from the late 1700s.
<We even spell neighbour differently.>
How do you spell FPTP??
< In the meantime, you've been hitched to this PR/FPTP issue ever since I noted you posting after 9/11>
9/11/177-what??
<Perhaps its time to broaden your own horizons? >
yes, I wonder how the moonians and marsians do their elections, but other than that I have enough of horizons.
Ilmarinen
However, interesting to find such black holes. In terms of US I understand it, deadly stuff for them. I even understand the problems in UK, and now I am learning more about Canada. |
