Skip to content

LETTERS: Fearmongering over electoral reform is all wrong

Re: Is it time for the rise of the far right?, column by Keith Baldrey, Burnaby NOW , Nov. 29. Mr. Baldrey is being either naive or disingenuous on so many fronts it’s impossible in this limited space to deal with all of them.

Re: Is it time for the rise of the far right?, column by Keith Baldrey, Burnaby NOW, Nov. 29.

Mr. Baldrey is being either naive or disingenuous on so many fronts it’s impossible in this limited space to deal with all of them.

He seems intent on using shady arguments to undermine electoral reform and to sow doubt in the minds of his readers and in supporters of electoral reform.

Bill Tieleman and group used the same fear mongering strategy to undermine the two previous referendums, supposedly for the good of the NDP’s future prospects..

Mr. Baldrey talks about the “glory days” under premiers Dave Barrett, Mike Harcourt and Glen Clark and the progressive policies they were able to pursue (with less than 50 per cent voter support). He seems to think that future NDP governments won’t be able, under proportional representation, to pursue such aggressive policies because, with a coalition with another party they’ll be restricted.

Well, perhaps that’s not a bad idea: balanced legislation, reflecting the wishes of 60 per cent of the voters, rather than what we have now, with 40 per cent of the tail wagging the dog.

It seems it’s all about procuring power, whether by the old-line NDP represented by Tieleman or the B.C. Liberals represented by all the leadership candidates.

They may have to wait for 16 years, as the NDP did, or four or eight-plus years in the case of the Liberals, but power is intoxicating, and these people will wait rather than share power in a more fair, equitable, democratic way.

Fearmongering really comes to the fore when Mr. Baldrey brings in the spectre of “the fringe right.”

Scary stuff if you buy into a repeat of the injustices of the past. Scary stuff until you look at the votes garnered by the several fringe parties and candidates. A pittance. And is our democracy so fragile that it can’t stand up to some people’s different views? When we insist that voters with views different from those of the mainstream parties must all live in one or two ridings in order to elect someone to represent those views, we are being unfair. We are showing we haven’t learned from the not-too-distant past when women, First Nations, Japanese, Chinese etc. had to struggle to get the right to vote.

Is it fair that the Green party, hardly “fringe right,” should only get three per cent of the seats with 17 per cent of the popular vote?

It seems that Baldrey and Tieleman think so.

Daryl Sturdy, Vancouver