Re: Electoral change doesn't mean better government, Eric
Allen, Nov. 1.
Where to start when refuting Allen's innuendo, half truths and faulty reasoning?
How about here: "Those who want to change the system are self-interested political parties, as opposed to the everyday average citizen of this country."
The B.C. Liberals are scared to death that they will never again be able to use the stacked deck that is FPTP, to win election after election.
Allen goes on and on about tax rates, comparing the higher rates of some PR countries with Canada's, as if that is a fair comparison. Did he give any thought to the possibility that the citizens of those countries like what they get for their taxes?
Allen tries to downplay the example of the unfairness of FPTP, by using completely faulty logic in the case where the Greens got only three per cent of the seats yet 17 per cent of the vote. He assumes they deserve only that many seats because the rest of the voters voted against them.
What would happen if he used that logic when his Liberal party only got 40 per cent of the votes yet got 100 per cent of the power.
Didn't 60 per cent of voters vote against them?
Allen ignores an important message his parents and teachers gave him. He asks why, when electoral change was defeated twice before are we doing it again. What did his parents and teachers say? "If at first you don't succeed..."
Where would we be if the suffragettes had quietly gone home after a couple of attempts to gain the vote?
Allen says that we wouldn't get better representation under a PR system. He needs to go back and read the voters' guide. Under FPTP he would only get one MLA and it might not be from the party he voted for. That MLA would not represent Allen's views if they were contrary to party policy. Under PR, however, he would have a choice of more than one MLA to represent his views, one from the governing party and one from an opposition party.
If you want your vote to not only be counted, but to count, choose PR.
Daryl Sturdy, Vancouver