Ranked ballots are not the way to go

Re Ranked ballots give clearer mandates, Keenan, Oct. 29 After London’s election showed that a ranked ballot made no difference in any of the 15 races where it was used, you are now trying to suggest that treating people’s second, third, fourth or lower choices as equal to their first somehow constitutes a mandate. If you want each councillor to be elected with a clear mandate, then you need to begin by counting everyone’s vote rather than cobbling together a phony mandate that ignores most voter’s first choices. That requires proportional representation — the way most city councils are elected around the world. Had Toronto’s recent election been held using proportional representation, over 80 per cent of the voters would have been represented by their first choice of candidate. Gary Dale, West Hill I’ve enjoyed reading the Star’s analysis of what happened in last week’s municipal election. But as usual, there was criticism regarding our first-past-the-post electoral system. Our system is the most efficient way to select local representation for the most obvious reason: it’s simple. The person with the most votes wins. What could be better? Yes, if there are more than two candidates, it is unlikely the winner will have a plurality, but that should not negate their legitimacy. The “ranked” ballot proposal will only lead to political stagnation — it is designed to elect “compromise” candidates, eschewing any left or right-wing voices, and virtually guaranteeing Liberal governments year-after-year. It’s like designing a system to deliberately disenfranchise nearly two-thirds of the electorate. Paul Graham, Mississauga