To the Editor,
Re: Electoral system works if we use it the right way, Letters, Sept. 27.
The problem with the letter writer’s attempted defence of our current electoral process is that the argument is prefaced by the word, “if.” But, alas, structures, all structures, tend to constrict outcomes in a manner quite consistent with their structural bent.
An electoral system which only requires a candidate to collect one vote more than any other single candidate (first past the post, single-member plurality) can only give rise to a political landscape which rewards the ethos, ‘divide and conquer,’ and in doing so, elevate those most proficient in campaign strategies of puffery, illusion, dissemble, sophistry and evasion, while surreptitiously encouraging voters to project their wonts onto the skeletal party platform that’s just rung the doorbell (rather than risk alienating voters with a firm stance in regards to all the contentious issues).
Electoral reform is long overdue, more specifically, that electoral reform which, without compromise, emphasizes exceedingly low election thresholds so that candidates – no longer able to reap disproportionate rewards via practiced deceits – will be best rewarded for speaking honestly and sensibly. Only a very carefully structured version of mixed-member proportional can effect that end.
David S. DunawaySouth Wellington
To the Editor,
Re: Electoral system works if we use it the right way, Letters, Sept. 27.
The reason we need proportional representation is not just to avoid 40 per cent ‘majority’ governments, but to make sure all Canadians have the opportunity to have a meaningful vote. While having majority governments with much less than majority support is one issue, another problem is the fact the majority of voters aren’t even represented by the person they voted for.
In the last election, less than 48 per cent of voters ended up being represented by the person they voted for. As a result, over 52 per cent of voters were effectively disenfranchised because, while their votes were counted, those votes had no bearing on the MPs that ended up in Parliament. In fact, 23 MPs were elected with less than one-third of the popular vote, including Nanaimo’s MP. Considering these numbers, how can anybody argue that ‘first past the post’ elections are a solid foundation for a modern democracy?
With proportional representation, all MPs together would represent close to 100 per cent of votes cast, and there would be no need to engage in ‘strategic voting.’ There would also be no excuse for not bothering to vote because your candidate ‘doesn’t have a chance.’
Let’s give proportional representation a chance so every vote counts.
S.I. PetersenNanaimo
