Example doesn’t reflect proportional representation

Re: “Holland took 225 days to form cabinet,” letter, Jan. 4. The writer takes this extreme example of proportional representation to sell first past the post as a better voting system.

However, this could easily be rectified by raising the threshold to qualify for a seat from two per cent to five per cent or even more. This would cut the number of fringe parties considerably.

We should remember that in the past two federal elections, a majority government was formed, first by the Conservatives and then by the Liberals, without a majority of votes. Hardly democratic. In the last B.C. election, the Green Party garnered 14.64 per cent of the votes, but only 3.45 per cent of the seats. Hardly democratic again.

Yes, PR does sometimes require time to form consensus, though very seldom as long as 225 days. FPTP tends to foster antagonism and inefficiency, as when a party is defeated and another elected, the new government tends to alter many things the previous party did, on principle. When they in turn are defeated, everything is reversed again.

PR does tend to foster consensus and co-operation rather than conflict, and does reflect how the public actually voted. For an example of the uselessness of political conflict and the excessive power of money and partisanship in politics, just look at the shambles to the south of us. Charles Simpson Victoria