Re: "Proportional vote won't solve problems," Sept.15.
Direct democracy to me implies ongoing referendums on every issue to be considered. I wonder how many of us have the time or interest to study each issue and make an informed choice.
A worse problem is that the referendum could be worded in a misleading fashion. Interestingly, this is how the former cities of Port Arthur and Fort William came to be called Thunder Bay around 1970. Surveys had suggested that most of the voters wanted "Lakehead," or something similar, as the name of the amalgamated city. However, the insiders, who framed the question, wanted "Thunder Bay."
Instead of direct democracy, I think we should consider a system of pure proportional representation. Under such a system, each party would submit a list of candidates. The voters would peruse each party's platform and then vote accordingly. If a party obtained 30 per cent of the votes, it would get 30 per cent of the seats. If we wished to eliminate fringe groups, some threshold, say five per cent, could be imposed.
A frequent objection to pure proportional representation is that power would lie with party insiders. What do we think happens now?
Pure proportional representation is straightforward and transparent. It would allow new ideas and parties to spring forth, instead of being stifled as they are now. Every vote would matter. The results would be easily interpreted and would clearly reflect the preferences of the electorate.
David Pearce
Victoria
