To the editor,
Re: Vote reform not in our best interests, Letters, May 29.
Politics can polarize people, as we’ve been witnessing even in B.C. It comes as a relief, then, that the provincial government has just announced its questions for the vote on our electoral system – and the questions are direct and clear.
This is our chance to be direct and clear right back, and to change our archaic, oppositional winner-take-all electoral system to one of proportional representation. We can change to a system where the popular vote is actually reflected in how we are governed, and where our members of the legislative assembly are expected not to yell at each other but to talk with each other, co-operatively. Proportional representation is less divisive and more inclusive.
Critics sometimes claim that proportional representation is too hard to understand. However, more democracies worldwide, by far, use proportional representation right now than use our antiquated first-past-the-post system. If citizens in Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, and Uruguay, for example, can figure out how to tick boxes according to their preferences, then surely so can we. Bring it on.
Eileen Dombrowski, Nanoose Bay
To the editor,
Re: Vote reform not in our best interests, Letters, May 29.
The first-past-the-post side in the referendum has three main arguments against going to a proportional voting system.
1. It could take longer to form a government. This is just a red herring. B.C.’s majority Liberal government was happy to adjourn legislature for nine months in 2012-13, so why is a bit of a delay in forming a government a big deal?
2. With PR seat distribution, your MLA may not be as local. This is true, but would you rather be represented by a local person whose policies you hate or a less local person with whom you agree?
3. PR will make it harder to get consensus on legislation. This is true and a good thing. If the Liberals had had to get another party’s support to pass the HST bill, we might have avoided that fiasco.
The FPTP campaign’s main talking points are just scare tactics, and in some cases actually highlights the benefits of PR when analyzed carefully. Let’s try a PR system where every vote counts and voting is never a waste of time. The government can revisit the issue if there are any unforeseen problems.
Since the current FPTP system has resulted in low voter turnout and dictatorships based on 40 per cent support, it’s hard to see PR doing worse.
S.I. Petersen, Nanaimo
The views and opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the writer and do not reflect the views of Black Press or the Nanaimo News Bulletin. If you have a different view, we encourage you to write to us or contribute to the discussion below.
