But to be honest , what really is the difference between talk and say ? <| sep |> The guys from Top Gear have a new show on Amazon called The Grand Tour . I found it a bit disappointing . I believe the cricket likely to be more entertaining . <| sep |> Fuck Mike Mitchell <| sep |> Even beyond that , they sell refurbs , and mark the price way up before Black Friday just to create an illusion that you ' re getting a deal . <| sep |> How about Gradings forI ' d rather grade comments here for how closely they hew to the truth . Has 150 year track record of Stable Governance in CanadaHow about has a track record of greater stability overseas . And you ' d need to define stability . Risk of causing political instability through changeYes , New Zealand is now a smoking ruin . MMP caused their earthquake last week . Risk of resulting in deadlocked governments eg SpainCan you think of another country where there was a crisis when separatist parties held the balance of power ? It starts with a C and ends with an anada . Can ' t quite place it though . Amusingly enough though , their economy is doing better during this fractured parliament than before . Risk of fringe parties playing KingmakerFirst of all , if no one has a majority of the vote , there is no king . And there ' s never an actual kingmaker because larger parties always have the option to work together . Like Germany has right now . But if we get an altright party playing kingmaker , a huge majority of Canadians don ' t consider that be a good thing . I think we ' d be more pissed off with an altright government elected with a minority of the vote . Or with a moderate party forming a coalition with an altright party rather than another moderate party which is why they won ' t do that . If you ' re considered with a minority having too much power , consider this 1 Proportional results will always distribute power more closely to party support than majoritarian ones . Take for example the extreme case of two parties with 49 % and 48 % of the vote and one with 3 % the kingmaker you worry about . In that case , all 3 parties have 33 % of the power . That tracks closer than giving any of the parties 100 % of the power . And the 49 working with the 48 is actually realistic . They can just abstain on confidence votes . Sweden has this arrangement , as does Spain and Ireland in Ireland not because of extremistseparatist parties but because of civil war politics from 100 years ago . 2 If you want a widely supported government , doesn ' t basic math suggest that 50 % in PR versus 2938 % Alberta 1921 and Canada 1996 for FPTP is broader ? Highly fractured parliaments can give small parties influence far above their voting percentages , way worse than the false majorities of FPTP . So , FYI none of the systems on his chart produce highly fractured parliaments . See the Eff Ns numbers here for example more than a little of base . Highly fractured parliaments don ' t actually have a problem with kingmakers though it ' s quite the opposite , because you end up with a huge number of possible coalitions . It ' s that complexity that can be a bit undesirable . It ' s more something along the lines of a rigid three party system that you should watch out for . IE two big parties with only 1 small party between them . We ' ve had that as often as New Zealand has since their reforms though once for us and once for New Zealand , and in New Zealand ' s case the same party had the balance of power based on the FPTP results . That ' s why this is so hilariously biased . The idea that being ' fair ' to fringe parties is simply assumed to be a good thing . He says fair to voters . And yes , being fair to voters is assumed to be a good thing . Kind of the basic premise of democracy . Notice none of the criteria you list necessarily lead to better governance or outcomes for Canadians . The fewer wasted votes one actually does since it ' s a restatement of proportionality , and there are pretty strong relationships there for economic growth , income inequality and better environmental outcomes . Our system requires parties to have a wide base of support in order to have their political voices heard . Not particularly . 5 % of the vote has guaranteed parties a seat in parliament in all but one instance the Greens in 2008 . That ' s the same threshold that Germany and New Zealand have under MMP . Would you note agree though that when your base becomes so wide that it has to include the KKK , maybe the tent is a bit too big ?