First past the post a flawed system

Re: Todd Whitcombe’s Dec. 12 column.

Todd Whitcombe’s article disputes the idea that, under the current First Past The Post system, a vote for a losing party is a lost vote.

Historically in B.C., the winning party, left or right, gets about 40 per cent of the popular vote and that, under this flawed system, translates into about 60 per cent of the seats.

With 60 per cent of the seats, the winning party has 100 per cent of the power.

To me, that means 60 per cent of the electorate are left underrepresented. Sounds wonky to me.

Forty per cent of the popular vote should translate to approximately 40 per cent of the seats.

I agree with Todd that most of our MLAs work hard. Ours in Prince George certainly do.

But they are beholden to their party line and with our hard right or hard left system, if one doesn’t agree with the winner’s party line, good luck with having your voice heard.

Interesting that Todd should hold the U.S. up as a flawed system when it too is a first past the post concept and clearly shows the dangers of a major party being taken over by an extremist group.

PR would provide some protection from that.

In, for example, Norway, Sweden or Denmark, who are only three of the nearly 100 countries that have moved to a proportional representative government, debate, consultation, and yes, even compromise takes place all the time in their government and things are working very nicely for them.

Their governments have all of the things Todd states a good system should have: stable, efficient, coherent coalitions, and strong parties.

I suggest to Todd that his last three requirements – representation, transparency and inclusiveness – are far better met in a PR system than what we have now.

He suggests that compromise leads to no one being happy. I suggest it leads to far more than 40 per cent being happy.

In our present top-down system, most decisions are made in the premier’s office and the rest of the cabinet and backbenchers fall into line and the opposition is toothless. Very little of substance is debated meaningfully in the legislature.

I think Todd, and those opposing PR, should take the time to look at some of the success stories under PR. John Warner Prince George for her suggested changes and improvements to the proposal for the possible use of the former Connaught Motor Inn.

Her concept of using the motel for disabled and others is indeed a great idea, one that should be implemented.

As she pointed out, there are presently facilities for the homeless in Prince George but little for the working poor, students saddled with huge debt, seniors, the disabled and no doubt others who would benefit from low income housing.

While I am not certain how the criteria for residents would be determined, no doubt B.C. Housing could evolve some standards for residents.

Too often, it seems, we concentrate on the visible human problems and not those that lie out of sight.

This might make an interesting pilot project supported financially by all levels of government.

Some years ago, a former motel in Courtenay-Comox was renovated as a much needed assisted living facility; a similar conversion was done in Salmon Arm.

When the Connaught was built, Prince George needed a motel. In the years that have passed, we have added many hotels and motels to service visitors and the Connaught would have a hard time competing.

The use suggested by Ms. Sarrazin deserves further study. Willow Arune Prince George