I agree with Todd Whitcombe in his opposition to the highly vocal promoters of reforming our longstanding electoral system and the lamentations over what they call "first past the post" --that's that weird idea that in a race that the winner is, well, the winner.
As this advocacy rises to a fevered pitch despite Trudeau and, here in B.C., because of Horgan and Weaver, I have been pondering what is so very wrong with a system we've had since Confederation, one outcome of which is a country whose citizens love to think theirs is the best in the world.
More to the point, I have been trying to grasp the overwhelming benefits that, presumably, those in nations that have proportionate representation, now enjoy.
I see in the list of such nations ones that are indeed, often held up as quality of life exemplars - Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and New Zealand to name several.
Alas, there are also a lot of other electorally enlightened countries less likely to be so envied, given internal, often violent, political strife and shaky economies: Brazil, South Africa, Turkey, Iraq, Slovakia and Guatemala to name but a few. In Israel, with its proportionate voting system, tiny extreme-right religious parties have held disproportionate sway over critical policies; one can reasonably argue that the result has been more regional tension and the elusiveness of peace.
Now back to Canada, which is still recognized as a world leader in solid and stable economics (including through the 2008 recession) and, except for the Harper interlude, a leading peacemaker and keeper, as well as a much sought after refuge for immigrants. Domestic strife here very rarely ends up with violence and killing. Somehow we got to this position using our clunky electoral system for the last 150 years. Perhaps, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, our Canadian democracy is the worst form of government - except for all those others.
Norman Dale
Prince George
