Mr. Whitcombe's take on proportional representation (Dec. 12) is
interesting, albeit confused. An example is his allegation that most MLAs
and MPs he knows "are very conscientious people who work hard for their
constituents, regardless of their political stripes. Indeed, some even
actively engage with proponents of a different view to gain perspective."
That being said, Mr. Whitcombe then proceeds to systematically pulverize
the very idea of compromise solutions. What is a compromise in Mr.
Whitcombe's world? What emerges from an MP's or an MLA's active engagement
with proponents of a different view? If that politician gains a
perspective from that engagement, is that not a compromise? If not, what
then is a compromise?
The only other outcome is that the MP or MLA adopts a different view, or
that the citizen adopts the MP's or MLA's view on whatever issue they may
have differed. In other words, in Mr. Whitcombe's world, to every question
there can be only two answers, either yes or no, either right or wrong.
Proportional representation opens the door for "active engagement with
proponents of a different view to gain perspective" to occur in the open,
in Parliament or the Legislature, rather than in an ad-hoc fashion, at the
sole discretion of whoever was elected under first-past-the-post, be that
with more or less than 50 per cent of the popular vote?
Andr Carrel
Terrace
