you go with ranked ballots if you're trying to minimize extremist voices and pull the spectrum into the centre. you go with proportional models if you want to give a platform to any nut that can elbow their way into the conversation, or yell loud enough to generate attention. there's no objective concept of "fairness". it's just a question of what kind of spectrum you want to engineer.

i'd prefer the ranked ballot approach because i think the major issue in the country is the majority constantly having the knife of conservative governance dangling over their head, which is preventing them from really voting with their hearts.

--

canada actually has a great case study against proportional representation that actually happened in real life. the 1979 election produced a minority government, with the conservatives controlling a small plurality. a now obscure party called social credit held the balance of power.

the social credit party was widely viewed as dangerously anti-semitic. yet, this was the situation canada found itself in: clark had to make a deal with what was essentially a nazi party in order to pass a budget.

that deal did not happen. there was an election very quickly. and the socreds were all but annihilated.

but, this is the situation we will no doubt see ourselves in if we go to proportional representation. conservatives will be force to cut deals with the chp in order to govern. the liberals will be stuck trying to cobble together legislation with the ndp and the mlms.

except, it won't be - what will actually happen is that the liberals and conservatives will functionally merge. and, you'll get the same system that exists in russia: perpetual one-party rule by a moderate lesser evil, to prevent extremists on both sides.

it's a bad idea. and, it's failed everywhere it's been implemented. look at israel for another horrendous example.

www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ranked-ballots-ontario-toronto-fair-democracy-1.3520703