Thanks for sending me your preliminary statement. It
seems your assembly is doing good & earnest work. I
commend you for it.
It is clear ‘winner-takes-all’ is a
system that is unfair in translating votes into seats.
Our present assembly is a crass example. So, I hope
your assembly will decide that an alternative model ought to be
adopted.
I find I do not agree with your assessment of the current BC
Electoral system on p. 3 where you state: “We have a
flourishing democracy in which voters hold politicians &
governments accountable.” This statement is
too complacent about the present set-up in BC. Members
of the governing party broke promise after promise after they were
elected and violated agreements and shredded contracts.
People of course protested, but it cannot be argued or shown that
the party in power has been held accountable.
If you meant that, in general sense, they are held accountable
by maybe losing in the next election. That may be so
but where does it get us if the next governing party is no
better? Though they may change some of the
benefactors.
Look at the recent polarized history in BC. Many
people felt the NDP was not good government and voted it
out. Now people feel the Liberals are not good
government and they may be thrown out--for another polar group.
I think one of the benefits of a proportional system is that it
may break this polarized system. Another benefit, and
one you may be proud of, is you set a good example for other
legislatures & parliament to follow.
I hope the Federal Government will follow your lead.
But it will be difficult there. The two governing
parties of our country are essentially funded & influenced by
business interests. Both these parties & their
backers would be reluctant to lose their power and their access to
taxpayers’ money.
To cite an example: Canadians defeated Mulroney in
’93 because they didn’t like his
policies. I don’t think they liked him
either. Remember his nicknames? Mulphony, Myron
Baloney, etc.
The Liberals were voted in & in spite of promises, promptly
delivered trade, social, & environmental policies that locked
Mulroney’s ideas in place. Where money
influence is powerful we get Tweedledum or dee.
Under first-past-the-post the winning party take all and then
shares it with their corporate friends. That was a
crack by Jack Layton whose NDP gets seats but has never governed
federally, and is an advocate of a proportional system.
I also support it. I see it as a countervailing
force against Tweedledum & dee that would engender a larger
forum for those voices that are not amplified by money & media
power, and would create Assemblies & Parliaments with more
accountability from more real oppositions.
The difficult question now before you is what best system to put
forward. I think your research and thoughtfulness on
the subject is likely to make you better informed than
I. But my view is for a system where top votes get the
seat, but other seats are allocated according to the overall
proportion of votes given to parties.
I thank you for your valuable work.
[Entered online from a scanned document]
levelCMS