I strongly support a form of proportional representation for this
Province, preferably the Mixed Member format [MMP]. It is, I
realize, not perfect, nor is any other form of proportional
representation that I have read about, but it is undoubtedly a
great deal closer to real democracy than our current 'first past
the post' format, which is alienating voters and eroding
democracy.
I would like to congratulate the members on the work they have
done so far. You took on an extremely onerous task; you have worked
hard at it for all our sakes and you deserve our wholehearted
thanks.
However, I am greatly disturbed to learn of the prominence being
given to a form of STV - 'preferential plus' and in particular to
the method of implementation being suggested. That is to say, that
the current system should be retained in rural areas and a separate
STV-type system operate in the urban areas of the province. This
strikes me as an unwieldy and cumbersome political system,
especially as it retains all that most of us want to change in one
area and introduces another system elsewhere, which has caused
great problems in countries where it has been tried.
Furthermore, if I may say so, the nine applicants chosen to make
final presentations are not at all representative of the
submissions the Assembly has received. If in fact 80% have been in
favour of proportional representation and 12% of STV then 3 out of
the nine hardly represents the 80% mentioned above. Since, as I
understand it, not merely two or three but possibly four of the
nine favour STV, then the 'representation' is totally incorrect.
Even 2 of the 9 for STV would be a false representation.
I have hoped that the Assembly would be completely unbiased - as
it has appeared to be up to now - but this does not seem to be the
case given the scenario I have outlined above. I trust I am
incorrect.
In all this my husband concurs completely.
|