Shane Dyson’s April 10 letter deserves a response. He calls our voting system “inherently wrong” because percentage voter support is not reflected in percentage of elected representatives. Presumably, he prefers voting for a party’s national list with percentage support determining percentage of representatives.
Our present system, although imperfect, has many advantages. Residents have a Member of Parliament who is accountable to that constituency and willingly helps all constituents. MPs know that if they don’t do that, they may be defeated. Also, our system typically produces stability, even with coalitions, which are rare.
The national list system, with its proportional representation, is seriously flawed. First, there are no accountable local MPs. Second, in all countries with such a system, governments are typically multi-party coalitions and often unstable. Third, many minor parties still elect no one. Fourth, minor parties whether in opposition or part of a coalition, cannot really influence policies.
In its 2014 election, Indonesia had 23 parties, it had 44 in 2009. None of the 10 elected parties could implements its policies. In 2013, Italian voters faced 40 political parties; 15 elected legislators. The result today is an unstable coalition.
In Canada a totally democratic list system would likely be very problematic. With 338 MPs to be elected in October, any party garnering 1/338 or 3/10ths of one per cent could elect an MP. We might easily have 40 parties representing regions, provinces, cities, ethnic groups, religious groups, professions, etc. Under our present system parties tend to be moderate to aggregate many votes. Given totally democratic proportional representation, parties cater to special interests in order to get support. For a huge country already facing numerous divisions and cleavages, this would be disastrous.
John H. Redekop, Abbotsford
Abbotsford,BC
