What I want in an electoral system, is one that distributes
seats according to the percentage of votes each party/candidate
receives. I'm not clear how this is done exactly, and reading
through the analysis of different systems in the ProRep/Free Your
Vote newsletter doesn't entirely explain it. It sounds like the
Mixed Member Proportional system is the best for giving
proportional representation, but I don't understand how that can be
where it states, (under the Which Voting System do You Prefer?
banner): "Vote counting is simple. Local MLAs are elected in
exactly the same way we currently elect our MLAs in BC". Perhaps
this is a misleading statement, but if it means what it says, then
what's the difference between what we have now, and MMP? (Ie. A
gets 110 votes, B gets 95 votes, C gets 85 votes . . . then A gets
the seat for that riding? If not, how will that deliver
proportional representation?)
I like the idea of two votes, one for the electoral district
candidate/representative, and one for the party.
I'm unclear about the implications of larger rural ridings/fewer
constituency seats. I get and approve of the idea that some of the
representatives from a given party would be drawn from the "party
list," and thus the need for fewer constituency seats, but don't
understand why this requires larger rural ridings. (1/3 larger?) I
think this is an area where clearer information is
needed. that is, who would draw up these new
boundaries? On what basis would they be drawn? Population would be
one of the basis, but that can be problematic, with people
perceiving unfair advantages for one party or another depending on
the economic make-up of the riding. For example, some federal
ridings cross what I would call economic boundaries including very
wealthy areas of the city with working class areas of Vancouver.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed, and for all my reading
of your report, I don't see any discussion of it.
I think getting voters to rank the candidates is not a good one,
as generally, the public is not well enough informed/doesn't bother
to find out about the individual candidates. I would prefer to have
each party rank its own party list candidates, given they know them
better and know which are stronger, better able to work together,
represent different skills/areas of expertise, etc.
Public apathy is probably one of the biggest problems with our
system, and that is partly due to the notion that it doesn't make
any difference HOW they vote, since "all politicians are corrupt
anyway." My personal feeling is that whichever way I vote (in our
current system), I'll just be splitting the opposition to the big
gun candidate who will get in because of the split vote between the
smaller parties.
I definitely like the idea of smaller parties having a voice in
our government, and possibly forming a government in coalition with
other small or larger parties. We need more varied interests
represented in our government. Single party, and single interest
groups are detrimental to our economy and environment, and alienate
large segments of the population by ignoring their needs and
concerns. This results in voters not exercising their right to
choose because they feel disenfranchised.