Con­fu­sion will en­sure sta­tus quo

The Guardian (Charlottetown) - - EDITORIAL -

I read the white pa­per on Elec­toral re­form on line. My first re­ac­tion is that this doc­u­ment will not en­gage the com­mon elec­torate.

I my­self am a bit con­fused on what is pro­posed and I am con­cerned that the op­tion pre­sented is a done deal. This process will fail again and the elec­torate will have no choice but to stick to the sta­tus quo.

The doc­u­ment has some lofty lan­guage on im­prov­ing fe­male par­tic­i­pa­tion in the Leg­isla­tive Assem­bly. I don’t see any con­crete sug­ges­tions.

The doc­u­ment does not seem to fa­cil­i­tate par­tic­i­pa­tion of third par­ties in the Leg­isla­tive Assem­bly.

I am in fa­vor of elec­toral re­form. I was in fa­vor of elec­toral re­form ten years ago but voted against what was pro­posed.

The Leg­isla­tive Com­mit­tee will have a tough job en­gag­ing the vot­ing public.

For what it’s worth I think there is a sim­ple way to im­prove gen­der bal­ance in the Leg­is­la­ture and get third party par­tic­i­pa­tion.

Iron­i­cally it is sim­i­lar to the pro­posal in the white pa­per.

In­stead of four dis­tricts based on the fed­eral rid­ing bound­aries, I sug­gest that 3 seats be al­lot­ted to the mi­nor­ity par­ties and keep the 27 seat Assem­bly.

The white pa­per sug­gests 24 dis­tricts. My sug­ges­tion would be to have 12 dis­tricts. Each party would have to nom­i­nate one male and one fe­male can­di­date. The elec­torate would vote for one male and one fe­male can­di­date. This en­sures gen­der bal­ance in the Leg­isla­tive Assem­bly. John te Raa, Cove­head Road

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.