Islanders were properly engaged
Twice in the last few months I read, in The Guardian, articles which stated Islanders rejected electoral reform by 63 per cent in a plebiscite 10 years ago. I am partly curious about how that statement be said.
Yesterday ( July 10) in Dave Stewarts’s article about the upcoming plebiscite, there is a paragraph that reads, "However, many say that part of the problem then was Islanders simply weren't properly engaged and many didn't understand choices they were given." Hogwash.
I was there. You were there. Remember the long voting lines and the hours waiting in those lines? Does that not smack of properly engaged?
We Islanders went out fully educated, very aware and informed. We rejected a bad proposal by 63.5 per cent with the hope of another plebiscite on the matter. Those of us who voted were almost 100 per cent in favour of electoral reform. It wasn't 63.5 per cent who voted against electoral reform, rather, it was those who stayed home.
And just to be fair to those in favour of the status quo, first past the post is still a reasonable system and it served us sort of OK while we worked on the issue.
But I wonder, in the upcoming vote there is a choice of three options this time... how will the successful option be chosen? First past the post? That could be a problem if the majority of islanders would rather stay the course if the other two options weren’t acceptable. We could still end up with one of those options. That would be sort of OK. Justin O'Brien, Winsloe