Actually in this specific scenario, when we are trying to encourage and grow the buy Canadian movement, and move away from reliance on American, it makes sense.
Those uncomfortable conversations are essential, and I appreciate that you're putting in the work. It's not about "deprogramming" so much as encouraging critical evaluation of news sources.
Media literacy is becoming increasingly vital as we approach the election. The challenge is that many people don't realize how their media consumption shapes their political views—they just see it as "the news."
What's worked for me is asking questions rather than making statements. "Where did you hear that?" followed by "Have you verified that information with a Canadian source?" opens the door without creating immediate defensiveness.
Your dad's willingness to engage with alternative sources shows he values truth over tribal politics, even if reluctantly. That's actually quite rare these days and worth appreciating.
The "betraying the community" feeling is something I've noticed with older conservatives too. There's this sense that changing one's mind is somehow disloyal, when really it's just part of being an informed citizen. Democracy depends on people who can evolve their thinking based on new information.
There was a point where Democracy didn’t exist, and it wasn’t that long ago
Yeah, back when democracy didn't exist, humanity lived in misery compared to today's living standards.
We can do better than our less intelligent ancestors can’t we? Especially when we all agree generally that the systems we have aren’t working.
Yeah, the better system is called proportional representation.
political parties from the system wholly impractical
Believe it or not, there is no part of our FPTP electoral system entrenches that political parties in the first place. I know you might not like it, but it's factually the truth. They organically come about because people, it's the most efficient way to organize.
otherwise do not waste further time responding with wikipedia links you clearly do not understand.
You are a very angry person, lol. But regardless, Duverger's law is the reason we have a "two party" system.
There isn't a modern democracy in the world that doesn't have political parties. And for good reason, it's wholly impractical. Even single party states such as China have political parties...
The reason we have two major parties is described in Duverger's law. You don't have to think I'm right or wrong, because this is just the reality.
But proportional representation does not require political parties to be a part of the electoral system.
See single transferable vote (STV): A Simple Guide to Electoral Systems. It's still a work in progress, but lays out a good framework for discussing electoral systems.
Mark Carney's position on electoral reform: "open". However...
He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quite nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.
His public persona is that he is intelligent. But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts?
Mark Carney's position on electoral reform: "open". However...
He’s an economist, and the mathematics pairs quite nicely with the mathematics of electoral systems.
His public persona is that he is intelligent. But when asked specifically about electoral reform and proportional representation, he says he’s uncertain and open to exploring options? Why would someone as smart as him be uncertain about ensuring every vote counts.
Who is saying the information isn't sound?