More clarification needed on PR systems

Proportional electoral systems are widespread, but with varying results. Italian instability, dangerous coalitions such as in Israel, and Sweden’s and Germany’s problems in forming a government are byproducts of PR systems.

PR systems with thresholds of five per cent or higher will limit proliferation of parties, but there are other considerations, the main being that in proportional systems, you are voting for a party, not an individual, as in first-past-the-post. Who gets a seat will be up to the party.

In the dual system, a party is still choosing half the members. The mixed urban-rural model still has the party choosing members.

With the process advocated by the government, I object to the unknowns. We are asked to make incredibly important decisions as to how to elect a democratic government without knowing the specific mechanisms that will be in play. These details will be developed by the government after the basic referendum.

So if 50 per cent plus one of ballots say we need a proportional system, the selection of alternatives means less than half of those actually mailing in their ballots can select the voting system for the future. This process will possibly be legally challenged, based upon the Supreme Court’s decision on Quebec separation, where it was found that a clear question with a clear majority was required.

I am happy to have a mixed system with specific limitations, but first can we have a clear proposal, either the current system or a single specific alternative with all of the details? T.C. Heath Victoria

DARREN STONE, TIMES COLONIST Ballots for B.C.’s electoral-reform referendum have been mailed to households throughout the province, to determine how MLAs will be elected.