On electoral reform, take nobody’s word for it
Re: “Don’t worry about ballot’s second question,” column, Nov. 14.
Les Leyne’s column hit the nail on the head, or in the coffin, of proportional representation. Those who advocate for a change to our voting system make it out to be “not that complicated,” but it is. What some form of proportional representation would ultimately look like is so ill-defined as to be useless to voters in making an informed decision.
MP Murray Rankin might believe we don’t need all the facts to make a decision, but I do. He might be happy to “let experts and other non-partisan people of good faith figure out what’s best,” but I’m not. Premier John Horgan might want us to “take a leap of faith,” but I won’t.
What blind trust is being asked of us. I’m reminded of the motto of the Royal Society: Nullius in verba. Translation: Take nobody’s word for it. Amen.
Dolores Bell
Victoria
Referendum process is badly tainted
There are good arguments on both sides of the debate over which electoral system will serve B.C. best. This debate is healthy, but there are no good arguments supporting the partisan, self-serving process that has been cooked up to boost the incumbent parties’ chance of success in the next provincial election.
If the NDP/Green coalition is able to gerrymander the current process into electoral victory, their success will be so tainted by the flawed process used to achieve it, that at least half the electorate will not accept the result as legitimate.
The only fair basis for electoral change would be to place a single proportional-representation option against the status quo, objectively explaining the advantages and disadvantages of each option.
Instead, we will be casting our votes in a process that reeks of political partisanship. British Columbians deserve an electoral process they understand and trust to be fair. They have a right to know exactly what they are voting for before they cast their ballots on such an important issue.
The only clearly understood, above-board option for voters in the current referendum is the status quo.
Richard Paquette
Sidney
Under PR system, accountability suffers
In the discussion of changing to a proportional-representation system, I have seen little or no comment about the change in the relationship of candidates and elected members with citizens.
With the PR systems, many members are appointed directly by the party (based on the percentage of votes), or are ranked on the ballot by the party. Others represent broader regions with less connection and accountability to local issues and citizens. Political candidates will learn quickly that the best way to be elected is to be a good party member and serve the party, likely at the expense of serving local areas and citizens.
Thus, it seems that the major beneficiaries of the change to a PR system are the political parties, and it is the accountability to local citizens and issues that will suffer.
Similarly, it seems there is the suggestion that parties forming coalitions or agreements after an election in order to form government somehow makes this a more “legitimate” government. In an example of two parties that received 35 per cent and 25 per cent of the votes forming government, it’s hard to see how when 65 per cent didn’t support one and 75 per cent didn’t support the other, that together they would have more “legitimacy” than would exist with a government under the current system.
Ed Shirley
Ladysmith
