As a long time B.C. Liberal voter, I am embarrassed and upset by that party's stance on proportional representation. The near hysterical Trump-like fearmongering untruths and irresponsible justification for their position is troublesome.
Contrary to many Liberal spokespeople, there is nothing that would indicate a switch to a PR system would result in a loss of our current rural/urban representation mix. Nothing. They make the statement but don't back it with any facts.
Their attempts to characterize PR as some new, wonky concept dreamt up by some radicals to give them a voice is also extremely far from the truth.
PR has been utilized by many countries for many decades. In the last 20 or 30 years, it has been adopted as an improvement on first past the post by over 80 democracies. Stable, prosperous democracies such as Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan have seen that this concept is fairer and has definite advantages over First Past The Post and now have a PR system. Many of those countries gave their electorate the opportunity to vote again on the switch after it has been in effect for a few years. They all stayed with PR.
The Liberals argument, other than their irresponsible untruths, is that what we have works. OK, so leave it alone. To me, that is no reason to not consider what appears to be for many in the world a better, fairer system.
Diane Watts, a Liberal leadership candidate, has repeatedly stated that she sees as her top priority as leader of the BC Liberals the defeat of proportional representation. Not the economy, not child poverty, not a big long list of problems that need to be faced. She has PR in her sights. What is she afraid of? The current system does potentially give a majority government an advantage. PR will just ensure that the percentage of votes a party gets would more accurately reflect in the number of seats they get.
Is that somehow to be feared? I don't think so. I think the Liberal Party needs to refocus.
John Warner, Prince George
