The Daily Courier

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada