Dear Editor:
My ballot has been mailed in and I voted for rural-urban proportional.
During the last referendum we were given only one option and after deliberating on it for a long time I finally voted no because I could see that the system that was proposed (STV or single transferable vote) would not work in the rural areas. The next referendum (both under Liberal governments – the ones who are squawking the loudest against it now) gave us the same option, as if they expected us to have suddenly come to our senses.
The rural-urban proportional system has recognized that flaw and will use the STV system for the urban areas and MMP (mixed member proportional) for the country.
In our current system, first-past-the-post, or winner take all, 68 per cent of the seats are considered safe and majority governments are won with less than half of the votes cast.
Of all the OECD countries, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States have stuck with the old system that was designed decades ago for a two-party system. Now, with five or six or more parties, it makes no sense whatsoever. None of the countries that changed to a proportional system have opted to go back to the old FPTP system.
The naysayers are terrified that they will no longer get a majority government, and rightfully so, because they won’t. They will no longer be able to make decisions on their party stance rather than on what’s good for the province. If it takes a little longer to reach a consensus, isn’t it better than making decisions that will be overturned if another party gets in? Or that possibly over half the province disagrees with?
Take a look at Ontario where Doug Ford got all the power, even to use the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution, with only 40 per cent of the vote, under the winner-take-all system.
Think it over. Do we want to stay with the horse and buggy and blinkers or do we want to catch up with the other countries? I say, let’s catch up and maybe inspire a few more people to vote in the next election. It will be a lot more interesting than what we have now.
Donna Stocker
Cawston, B.C.
Take the blinders off Donna. PR is only going to confuse voters not inspire them. On the news they said that so far only about 3% of the ballots have been returned and the reason is as plain as day: no one understands what is being proposed. There are so many holes and unanswered questions it’s ridiculous. And in regards to taking a little longer to reach a consensus that’s the least of the problems because with so many one agenda cooks in the political kitchen there never will be any consensus under PR.
And Donna the good people of British Columbia would be lucky to have a leader like Doug Ford. He may have been elected by your so-called horse and buggy system but now he’s cracking the whip. Not that we’re all not enjoying watching our current NDP/Green alliance accomplish absolutely nothing other than trying to make it possible to appoint people no one actually cast their votes for.
Well said, John. I agree totally.