To the editor,
Re: Readers argue for electoral reform, Letters, Nov. 8.
The main problem with the 2018 referendum on election reform is that we are asked to choose between something real (first past the post) and three ideas with more questions than answers. Many argue that a party should not become a government unless they have over 50 per cent of the popular vote. This is almost impossible to get when you have more than two choices. With proportional voting the chances of 50 per cent majority is even less. The only way to get over 50 per cent is by combining of two or more parties that had opposing views on the day the election took place. The same people that will have opposing views when the next election is called.
I read where some think you can not expect the government to have a real plan until we vote for proportional voting and then they make a plan. They will then decide if we have 87 ridings or 95 ridings or a number between. Will that number change with each election? But who cares, each extra riding only cost a couple million tax dollars per year. Which ridings will be represented by the party? Or is it the person with the most votes? Or will we be represented by the party or person with the fewest votes but over five per cent?
The way the proportional voting has been presented by this government is like us asking for transportation and giving a person a blank cheque to supply it. Then left wondering if that person will return with jogging shoes, bicycle, SUV or a bus.
Terrence Wagstaff, Nanaimo
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Proportional rep won’t allow for change when it’s needed
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers argue for electoral reform
To the editor,
Last week’s much-vaunted and highly anticipated leaders’ debate on proportional representation was touted as a way to bring the electorate up to speed on three options being offered by the B.C. NDP government in the PR referendum. Sadly, it turned out to be the exact opposite, as despite the B.C. Liberal leader asking over and over and over for the NDP leader to explain those options, none were forthcoming. In fact, the NDP leader muddied the waters even more, by resorting to what is possibly millennial-speak when he said at one point: “If you were woke you would know that pro rep is lit.” There are many voters who wouldn’t understand this use of modern slang language, but later on when he admonished his opponent to embrace electoral reform and “be hip,” some older viewers probably realized he wasn’t talking about a hip replacement.
Anyone expecting some transparency was obviously left wanting, as history repeated itself with the NDP leader sounding like former U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld trying to avoid answering questions in 2003. When quizzed about Iraq, he infamously said: “There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things we know that we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we don’t know we don’t know.” Rumsfeld’s ramblings perfectly summed up what the NDP leader had to say about PR, which probably stands for pathetic rhetoric.
Bernie Smith, Parksville
<hr width=”75%”>
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.
