Editor:
The most principled argument for proportional representation is the unfairness of first past the post. FPTP was designed for a two-party system, as (political columnist) Andrew Coyne incisively argues in Common Ground. Its antiquated winner-take-all method typically disregards 50-65 per cent of votes in individual ridings. Only once (2001) since 1950 has a B.C. “majority” government been elected by a majority of voters. FPTP leaves people who are effectively disenfranchised, particularly younger people, alienated from political participation.
Other arguments are particularly relevant to B.C. FPTP distorts the popular vote not only provincially but regionally. It artificially exaggerates contrasts between interior B.C. (where the NDP has many votes but few MLAs) and southwestern urban B.C. (where thousands of Liberals have few MLAs).
FPTP enables leaders like Stephen Harper or Doug Ford to play exclusively to their base, disregarding the majority of voters divided between several different opposition parties. That’s not good governance. FPTP thus compels many people to vote strategically for the perceived lesser evil rather than their real first choice, heightening polarization between two dominant parties.
Contrary to the scare tactics of elites who benefit from FPTP, the three models on tap are not a radical change. Many MLAs would still be elected from individual districts, and indeed by FPTP. A threshold of five per cent of the popular vote for proportional seats minimizes fringe parties. Electoral reform is a reversible policy – unlike say, building a mega-dam. As per the legislation, we can try it for two elections and revert to FPTP if we want.
Any of the prorep options would modernize and democratize our system. But your ballot still counts if you opt for prorep in Question 1 and leave 2 blank. The key: get it in on time.
Bob Hackett, Burnaby
