Talk:Canadian House of Commons Special Committee on Electoral Reform

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Canada: Governments C‑class Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada.

Politics C‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Recommendations in the report

This line was in the article: "On December 1, 2016, the committee released its report recommending that a form of proportional representation be adopted, and that a referendum be held on the issue.[1][2][3][4]"

This is untrue. The report Committee Report clearly states as it's recommendations:

"E. Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Government should, as it develops a new electoral system, use the Gallagher index in order to minimize the level of distortion between the popular will of the electorate and the resultant seat allocations in Parliament. The Government should seek to design a system that achieves a Gallagher score of 5 or less.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that, although systems of pure party lists can achieve a Gallagher score of 5 or less, they should not be considered by the Government as such systems sever the connection between voters and their MP."

It says that a system should reflect the will of the people better, but that a party list should not be considered. Proportional representation is never mentioned by name and the concept of eschewing party lists is antithetical to proportional representation altogether. I have no idea why someone mis-understood that as meaning "report recommended the very thing it discredited" but someone wrote that down so I am removing it on the basis it is untrue. Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both splitting hairs and misunderstanding a common usage of a term. When the committee says they're recommending an electoral system with a Gallagher score of 5 or less, they're recommending a proportional system. Hence the multiple news articles saying the same thing. I'm not sure why you think "the concept of eschewing party lists is antithetical to proportional representation altogether", just look at the very wikipedia article on proportional representation, there are multiple forms of it that do not have party lists. I have no idea how you got "report recommended the very thing it discredited". It discredited party-list PR, not PR altogether. I think you may have the idea that the definition of proportional representation implies party-list, when it does not. moeburn (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]