Proportional representation a better system

Brett Blaikie’s letter in the March 8 edition of The Citizen bemoans the fact that opposition parties have some say in politics. That’s called democracy.

He, and many others, have become accustomed to one party having 100 per cent of the power and everyone else has none. For far too long in B.C. the party that forms government, even though most often they have considerably less than a majority of the votes, get a majority of the seats.

That gives us the 40-60-100 rule where a party gets 40 per cent of the vote which gives them 60 per cent of the seats and that gives them 100 per cent of the power.

That is what we are currently living with. In three of the last four elections in B.C., the B.C. Liberals won a majority government with considerably less than 50 per cent of the vote.

Should 40 per cent or 45 per cent of the electorate be able to have 100 per cent of the say over the other 55 per cent or 60 per cent of the electorate? That doesn’t sound like democracy to me. All that is being asked by the supporters of a proportional representation system is that the government that is governing us has the support of at least 50 per cent of the electorate. A reasonable concept in a democratic society, I think.

Brett is concerned that the opposition may bring down the government. Proportional representation governments are governing in nearly 100 countries and have been for many generations. Of the 35 countries in the respected Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 32 have a PR form of government.

These are all stable, well run, prosperous democracies and by far the majority of their governments run the full term they were elected for.

Contrary to Brett’s comment, these countries are not overspending their budgets. A few examples: Debt/GDP in Canada is 66 per cent, while Sweden is 41 per cent, Denmark 37 per cent, Norway 29 per cent, Finland 63 per cent. Yes there are probably some basket cases in PR countries as there are in first past the post countries.

But generally they function well, get a far higher turnout at the polls and government is far more transparent.

Yes, Brett, there probably will be more parties. But the numbers show that by having more parties the electorate feel they have something they can vote for and therefore more people vote. Canada gets somewhere in the 55 per cent to 60 per cent of the electorate out to vote. The U.S., another first past the post country, gets less than we do. Norway gets 78 per cent, Denmark 85 per cent, Australia 92 per cent, Netherlands 75 per cent and New Zealand 75 pert cent. If people in B.C. aren’t happy with the B.C. Liberals or the NDP what are their options?

Green or stay home. Would a PR system open us up to radical government as Brett Blaikie predicts? We live in a democracy. It is up to us, the electorate, to ensure no radical, off the wall people take over the country.

The best way to do that is to get people involved which means getting them out to vote. A proportional representation system gets more people out to vote. The U.S. has discovered that a first past the post system doesn’t guarantee a moderate government.

Brett talks about a fair system. Having a few smaller parties with some leverage helps keep government honest and transparent. Under our current system if a party makes promises during the election and then decides to ignore them after winning majority power everyone is powerless to bring them to task. If the winning party needs to align themselves with another party or parties in order to get the required majority they need to lead, then the smaller parties have the leverage to hold their feet to the fire to live up to their election promises. Fewer governments will be elected based on promises they have no intention of keeping.

Brett’s letter, like so many anti-PR letters, makes broad, unsubstantiated, fearmongering statements. The country just south of us elected a president who used the same method but I think British Columbians will listen to facts rather than scare tactics.

John Warner Prince George