Preferential ballot should be on the list
While all election systems have their faults, the decision to only offer three forms of proportional representation as alternatives to the current system reeks of political manoeuvring.
Both the NDP and the Greens apparently see these election methods as a means to extend their influence on government and hold onto power. For the voter, it replaces selecting an individual to represent them in the legislature with voting for a political party that will do the selecting for them. Not a change I relish.
If, after centuries of service, first-past-the-post must go, then the most equitable alternative is clearly the preferential ballot, where voters list their choices of the candidates in order of preference. On each ballot count, the candidate with the least votes drops out. If he or she was your first choice, then your second choice cuts in, and so on until one candidate gains at least 50 per cent of the votes plus one.
The advantage of this method is that the voter, not the political party brass, selects their representative and the elected candidate always has the support (albeit not necessarily firstchoice support) of at least half the voters, and an individual voter’s other choices continue to influence the election even after their first and perhaps subsequent choices have dropped out of the running.
Why, given its advantages, was the preferential ballot dismissed and only three forms of proportional representation offered?
This blatant manoeuvring should be accorded the rejection it deserves. Better the devil we know. Terry Milne Victoria