Winners can’t ‘take all’ with modern pro-rep
Dear editor: My ballot has been mailed in and I voted for rural-urban proportional.
During the last referendum, we were given only one option and after deliberating on it for a long time I finally voted no because I could see that the system that was proposed (STV or single transferable vote) would not work in the rural areas.
The next referendum (both under Liberal governments, the ones who are squawking loudest against it now) gave us the same option, as if they expected us to have suddenly come to our senses.
The rural-urban proportional system has recognized that flaw and will use the STV system for the urban areas and MMP (mixed member proportional) for the country.
In our current system, first past the post, or winner take all, 68 per cent of seats are considered safe and majority governments are won with less than half of the votes cast.
Of all the OECD countries, Canada, the U.K., and the U.S. have stuck with the old system that was designed decades ago for a two-party system.
Now, with five, six or more parties, it makes no sense. None of the countries that changed to a proportional system have opted to go back to the old FPTP system.
The naysayers are terrified they will no longer get a majority government, and rightfully so, because they won’t.
They will no longer be able to make decisions on their party stance rather than on what’s good for the province. If it takes a little longer to reach a consensus, isn’t it better than making decisions that will be overturned if another party gets in?
Or that possibly over half the province disagrees with?
Take a look at Ontario where Doug Ford got all the power, even to use the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution, with only 40 per cent of the vote.
Think it over. Do we want to stay with the horse, buggy and blinkers, or do we want to catch up with the other countries? I say, let’s catch up and maybe inspire a few more people to vote in the next election. It will be a lot more interesting than what we have now. Donna Stocker, Cawston
I really want to applaud the letter from Chuck Liebrock, “Charity should begin at home,” (Nov. 2).
I couldn’t have said it better. It is sad when so much money is spent on politics and the basics are not met. I still can’t believe in our rich country they could spend $500 million on a 150-year celebration and yet be without quality drinking water or a place to sleep at night. Steve MacNaull found it important to report that Loyal Wooldridge is our first openly gay council member and I would argue we do not need to consider a person’s sexual orientation. Simply, he is the only new face on council.
Today I had to smile. Brian Henry is sad about the billboards blocking the view of the lake for the Indigenous Tourism Conference. Maybe he can talk to the people who own the land they are on and suggest it is a poor way to make money. Erika Podewils,