Artificial consensus makes poor laws

Re: “Consensus is harder than PR fans suggest,” column, Dec. 29. In his column, Lawrie McFarlane worries that genius would be overly constrained by the implementation of proportional representation, yet fails to recognize the imposition on genius already presented by the watering down — the necessary electoral compromises inherent to first past the post (read: pandering to the masses) — which provides the very foundation of his argument.

How might any manner of genius survive the overpowering debilitation imposed by the uniformity of thought required by an electoral system, the primary concern of which is the formation of a majority government?

To paraphrase Shaw (and Newton), change comes from the outside, not from those forces conjoined to the governing mass.

And to build on Edward Coke’s assertion that artificial consensus is not a breeding ground for good lawmaking — as we should not accept an electoral system that imposes any manner of likeness upon those whom it would oblige us to elect, we should also not accept a similar likeness of thought arising by party whips.

Nor that the dysfunctionality of government in Canada can be attributed to a single problem.

Electoral reform, although an important and necessary change, is not a panacea for what ails Canada. But that reality must never be allowed as an excuse to discredit the need to abandon FPTP. David S. Dunaway South Wellington