Dear Editor:

I am responding to the Letter to the Editor that appeared in last week’s edition of the Osoyoos Times under the headline, ‘First Past The Post is still the best alternative to electoral reform.’

Really?

Ken Murray refers to electoral reform as being an incidental matter during the campaign, but more than 60 per cent of voters disagree.

‘If the voices of all are to be considered’ then FPTP has to go, especially since in the riding of Okanagan-Kootenay, the winning NDP candidate earned only 37.3 per cent of the vote, leaving 62.7 per cent of voters without their desired representation.

The results in Okanagan-Kootenay are mirrored in the national election results, albeit with a different party in power.

The Liberals with only 39.5 per cent of the national vote gained a majority of 54.4 per cent of the seats, giving them 100 per cent of the legislative power. Whatever the Liberals legislate passes with 39.5 per cent support?

That, to me, is very wrong and not representative of true democracy.

There are only so many seats to go around. The bonus of seats awarded to the Liberals is earned at the expense of the smaller parties, thus suppressing the views of large segments of the political spectrum.

Murray’s comment and I quote, “I submit to you that the supporters of electoral change are campaigning for change because they are unelectable with FPTP” is absolutely correct, but why deny considered political viewpoints because of the dictates of a broken system?

The views of supporters of smaller parties need to be admitted to the tables of parliament, in proportion to their numbers.

There are other distortions.

FPTP rewards concentrations of votes, such that it under represents Liberals in the west and over represents them in Ontario and the Maritimes.

It also significantly over represents the Bloc Quebecois, a party that would like to divide the  country.

FPTP gives a completely false image of our country. It exaggerates regional differences and gives rise to false majorities

It wastes more that half of the votes, stranding many voters in ‘safe ridings’.

FPTP is cited as creating strong governments with legislative authority, but it can be seen from the above that these ‘strong’ governments act without broadly based support.

They are like a house of cards, strong for awhile and then blown away by slight changes in support in a few swing ridings.

New governments waste enormous resources throwing out previous legislation and enacting new.

Soon Canada will have a new voting system, with a more consensual politics, MP’s who are accountable to their constituents and laws that we all can support.

We will be like most other developed nations with more equitable access to resources, fair treatment of indigenous people, women, minorities and the poor.

Let’s get on it. FPTP has had the bun!

Timothy Jones

Fort Langley, B.C.