Vested interests defeated electoral reform

Re: “Greens demand big changes,” editorial, May 18.

Your editorial regarding the Green Party’s agenda in light of B.C.’s fascinating election result requires two comments, both concerning electoral reform.

The editorial states that changing the voting system “would make minority governments far off into the future much more likely.” This is very unlikely, as under a proportional system, the political duopoly (centre vs. either right or left, or right vs. left) would evolve into a wider variety of political expressions of what voters value.

Through negotiation, parties would create coalition governments representing a majority consensus. There would no longer be parties with 39 to 40 per cent of the votes (from the 55 per cent who bother to vote) holding 100 per cent of the power.

Secondly, the editorial states that on two occasions, a proportional alternative “didn’t get the required support to pass.” It behooves us to remember, when the U.K. can “Brexit” Europe with 50 per cent plus one, that in 2005, B.C.’s single transferable vote received 58 per cent provincewide support and majority support in 77 of 79 ridings, a massive victory nullified by the excessive 60 per cent threshold required to effect the change.

In 2009, opposed by the B.C. Liberals, NDP and the business community, STV was roundly defeated.

This history of vested interests opposing change is why many now advocate a proportional system without a referendum, and it looks as if all three parties are inching their way to this idea. Hendrik de Pagter Victoria