No large political party has shown intention of electoral reform, and no large party ever will. The Liberals betrayed electoral reform. The BC NDP has abandoned efforts for PR. The Alberta NDP isn't going to do shit.
This is purely because electoral reform doesn't benefit large parties in a given election race.
So here's just a quick idea. What if a single issue group is made, that's independent of party lines with a single affirmation:
"I am person X, and I'm a member of party Y. I will not vote in the upcoming election unless my party promises to enact MMPR within 365 days of forming government. If they betray this promise, I will not vote in any given election until electoral reform is passed".
While I don't have data, I think that people irrespective of parties, AND non leading factions within political parties would like PR. Why?
People: Most people I've encountered, hate what their party does. The only way they vote is to keep the "worse guy" out. I've observed this in the Federal liberals, Alberta and BC NDPs and even the Alberta UCP. If we frame this correctly as "people vs politicians" instead of "party A vs party B", then there could be some non partisan momentum to this.
Politicians: As a politician in the current system, either you join the two largest political parties in a race, or you never win a seat. The Alberta NDP for example, is made up of quite a few politicians who ideally should've been Liberals or Greens. Same with the UCP, who should've been everything from Liberals, progressive conservatives to straight up separatists.
Splitting up into independent parties without fear of vote splitting gives more power to these politicians as well. I can't see why a politician would be against gaining more power.
Also, the movement doesn't even have to be THAT large to be a pain in the ass for political parties. Seats are won on razor thin margins. If even a single digit percentage of the electorate identifies as the "MMPR or we won't vote at all" bloc, then political parties are forced to address these demands if they have any desire to win.
Hmmm, good example.
Although this is kinda different, is it not? From what I understand, the vote withholding was purely one sided.
Republicans: Majority were pro Israel. Minority were apathetic, and preferred that the US stay out of the "Israel-Palestine situation" entirely.
Democrats: Half were pro Israel, half were pro Palestine, cuz the IDF was genocidal.
Even within the Democrats, a huge chunk was fiercely pro Israel. A pro Palestinian stance meant that this section would either not vote/flip red.
BUT
The electoral reform thing is quite different from what I understand. No faction in the NDP, Liberals and Greens is absolutely anti electoral reform, right? Half is pro electoral reform while half is just apathetic. There will still be a big and powerful pro electoral reform faction in a "big tent" party, which all of them are cuz of fptp.
If the "we won't vote till electoral reform is promised to us" group is diverse in terms of political affiliation, then EVERY party has to make and keep this promise (assuming at least one large political party accepts the demands first).
Let's take the case of Alberta. The NDP and the UCP are the big parties. The electoral reform block is made of progressive conservatives and maybe separatists too on the UCP side, and Liberals and Greens on the NDP side. Let's say the NDP blinks first (as they have a greater numerical disadvantage due to the electoral reform block than the UCP) and accepts the demands. From the UCP's standpoint, only their own voters will have lower turnout now that the NDP has given in to their side of the block. This is bad. Internal pressure from PC and separatist politicians would force them to eventually accept the demands as well.