Voters have three options to review

Dear Editor:

This letter is in response to an editorial in The Courier of July 21, and a letter in the Aug. 4 edition.

The proportional representation electoral systems on the referendum are hardly untested, as the editor implied. Ninety-four countries use PR systems, which vary somewhat. Wikipedia classifies PR into three basic and six mixed systems. B.C. voters will choose among three: the mixed member PR system used by seven countries, including New Zealand, Germany and Wales. Voters vote for the candidate and then for a party. The party tops up MLAs from a list depending on its proportion of the vote.

The second system is the Single Transferable Vote recommended by the B.C. Citizens Assembly, 2004. Ireland and Malta, four Australian territories and Scotland (for local elections) use STV. Candidates are ranked and the when a candidate receives a winning number of votes, the waste votes are transferred to other candidates. The system has been tweaked to represent large rural B.C. constituencies (proposed by Canada’s former Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley); the stet areas will keep FPTP.

In the dual system, voters elect two MLAs in each constituency. The primary candidate represents the constituency. The secondary seats are awarded depending on proportionality. It is used in state and city elections in Germany and Switzerland. For information on PR, go to Wikipedia or fairvote.ca.

Unfairness of the FPTP system has been on the minds of B.C. voters for some time. It was Liberals who began the referendum process after the 2001 election reduced the opposition to two MLAs (the Liberal received 57.6 per cent of the popular vote; the NDP, 21.6 per cent; other parties, 20.4 per cent). Hardly a democratic result.

It’s too bad partisanship has entered in the decision to change the electoral system. PR will introduce a different dynamic to the B.C. elections, but it will not necessarily favour any present party, left or right. In New Zealand, after eight elections, MMR system has produced four right-of-centre and four left-of-centre governments. PR systems tend to produce centralist governments.

As for electoral boundaries, Canadians have had the good sense to place these decisions in the hands of independent boundary committees. Boundaries change, depending on population size and distribution. In selecting the PR systems ample consideration has been given to representation in large rural ridings. The boundary issue is a red herring devised by PR opponents to detract from the central issues of this referendum.

In the letter of Aug. 4, the author references Machiavelli who wrote the handbook for autocrats. Voters should be wary of autocratic rule, especially in these uncertain times when autocrats are on the rise.

When the author says, “FPTP streamlines decision making”, it usually means ramming legislation through parliament. Compromise is characteristic of PR, and rather than fragmenting decision-making, the result is more acceptable legislation that is not struck down by the next government.

Countries with FPTP electoral systems lurch between passing legislation and revoking it. However, I agree with this author both FPTP and PR offer stable government.

Harvey Quamme Penticton