No taxation without representation — yes to PR
Who, exactly, is represented under our present FPTP electoral system, when the winner (often receiving less than 40 per cent of the vote) has 100 per cent of the power to decide how our taxes are spent? Why is it that the opposition’s only recourse for legislative amendment is after-the-fact…if and when the subsequent election gives THEM 100 per cent of the power. What a waste of taxpayer dollars these left-right lurches are!
A move to a proportional representation (PR) would ease this dilemma by giving all voting taxpayers a bigger voice. Both winners and losers would have a portion of the legislative power that reflects their proportion of the final vote count. The great strength of this system is that because it makes it harder to form a majority government, parties are forced to collaborate when deciding how tax dollars are spent. The consequent reduction of policy lurch reduces the waste of our public resources and encourages investment. Research shows that nine out of 10 of the top economic performers in the OCED use PR systems.
In addition to the positive effect of PR on public expenditure, constituents would also feel happier about the effectiveness of their democracy. When parties know in advance that they must court the support of other parties to govern, their strategists are much less likely to wage constant campaigns, vilifying their opponents and exaggerating differences in the battle for large donations.
Americans, in the 1700s, fought a revolution to gain a bigger voice in how their taxes are spent. All B.C. citizens have to do is to vote for PR in a mail-in referendum. Please do it! If we don’t like the result better than what we have now, we will be able to go back to first-past-the-post after two electoral cycles.
Who would not want this, if not swayed by the fear-mongering of parties with a vested interest in preserving the status quo?
Suzanne Wilkinson
Duncan
