Skip to content

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers argue for electoral reform

Three letters to the editor make case for proportional representation
14367600_web1_181113-NBU-letters-electoral-reform_1
BLACK PRESS FILE PHOTO British Columbia is voting on whether to retain the first-past-the-post voting system or move to proportional representation.

To the editor,

Re: Rural B.C. gets a raw deal with proportional rep, Opinion, Nov. 1.

Like many others, I have been advocating for proportional representation for many years.

Fletcher’s article is of interest to read, however the bottom line is to encourage folks to not vote for proportional representation and keep the current system that helped keep centre-right governments in power in B.C.

I have researched results of all elections and the political parties who ran candidates since we joined Canada in 1871. In that 147 years, the centre-right held power with first past the post, for 135 years, or 90 per cent of the time. The centre-left opposition has only been government for 14 years, for 10 per cent of the time.

Currently one vote in the Atlin riding in northern B.C. is worth about 15 votes in Richmond. For most of these years the centre-right governments have held power with less than 50 per cent of the vote. So in more modern times we have elected majority governments with as little as 40 per cent of the vote, yet with 100 per cent of the power.

The current proposals offer options to ensure that the rural areas have greater representation than they have now.

Clearly Fletcher wants us to continue that system. The Liberal opposition wants to continue with the system. Why not, it has worked well for them for 90 per cent of our history.

Now it’s time to move into the modern era where all votes count and all voices are heard.

Nelson Allen, Nanaimo

Guest column: Proportional representation systems are untried

To the editor,

Re: Proportional representation systems are untried, Opinion, Oct. 30.

I read with interest MLA Michelle Stilwell’s critique of proportional representation. How disappointing that it contained so many factual errors and the usual fear-mongering from the No side that we’ve seen in this referendum campaign.

Stilwell complains that we don’t have the details of how the different electoral systems work. Yes, we do: if you go to the Elections B.C. website, you’ll find that information and more.

Second, she complains that we won’t know what will happen to existing riding boundaries before the vote. Well, of course not – how can you do that before we know the outcome? It’s like asking a building contractor to give you a detailed house design before you’ve decided whether you want a bungalow or a townhouse.

Then she drags out the tired argument that it will be the parties, not the people, that choose the candidates for MLA. Guess what? All candidates, whether provincial or federal, are chosen by political parties – party riding executives, party leaders, or party members.

And of course she brings in the fringe party argument. Here’s the reality in B.C.: if you took all the votes for the 15 fringe parties who ran candidates in 2017, plus the 31 independents and the two unaffiliated candidates, you get the grand total of 2.5 per cent. The threshold for any single party to get elected under the three PR systems is five per cent.

Finally, Stilwell trots out the instability argument. A study of elections in OECD countries from 1945 to 1998 showed that countries using first past the post averaged 16.7 elections each, while countries using proportional representation averaged 16.

If first past the post is such a great system of voting, why is Stilwell relying so heavily on falsehoods and fear-mongering to persuade us to vote against PR?

Just give us the facts, ma’am.

Kathryn-Jane Hazel, Nanaimo

Editorial: Electoral reform would retain some of what works

To the editor,

Who, exactly, is represented under our present FPTP electoral system, when the winner (often receiving less than 40 per cent of the vote) has 100 per cent of the power to decide how our taxes are spent? Why is it that the opposition’s only recourse for legislative amendment is after the fact – if and when the subsequent election gives them 100 per cent of the power. What a waste of taxpayer dollars these left-right lurches are!

A move to a proportional representation would ease this dilemma by giving all voting taxpayers a bigger voice. Both winners and losers would have a portion of the legislative power that reflects their proportion of the final vote count. The great strength of this system is that because it makes it harder to form a majority government, parties are forced to collaborate when deciding how tax dollars are spent. The consequent reduction of policy lurch reduces the waste of our public resources and encourages investment. Research shows that nine out of 10 of the top economic performers in the OECD use PR systems.

When parties know in advance that they must court the support of other parties to govern, their strategists are much less likely to wage constant campaigns, vilifying their opponents and exaggerating differences in the battle for large donations.

Americans, in the 1700s fought a revolution to gain a bigger voice in how their taxes are spent. All B.C. citizens have to do is to vote for PR in a mail-in referendum.

Suzanne Wilkinson, Duncan


The views and opinions expressed in this letter to the editor are those of the writer and do not reflect the views of Black Press or the Nanaimo News Bulletin. If you have a different view, we encourage you to write to us or contribute to the discussion below.