1. I oppose any system in which
electors vote for a party and the party leaders select the members
who will be MLAs. We should be very aware, now, in B.C. and in
Canada, of the dangers of such appointments. Furthermore, not only
is there the problem of paying off past (or future) favours, but,
as shown in the recent elections in Israel, selection committee
members can be bribed to move certain candidates up the party list
so that they will be more likely to be appointed after the party's
entitlement is known. There is also a disengagement between the
MLAs and the citizens. If MLAs are chosen from party lists,
according to party vote percentages, who is MY MLA? Who speaks for
MY riding?
A 'compromise', when some MLAs are directly elected and others are
appointed based on party vote, is not suitable. The elected MLAs
will be more credible than the appointed ones (e.g., House of
Commons vs Senate parliamentarians) and the evils of appointment
continue to exist. Furthermore, unless the Legislature were to be
expanded, which I think is not a good idea, the ridings of the
elected members would have to become much larger.
2. I favour the election of MLAs who have received
a majority of the votes in the consituency. There are two ways this
could be achieved when no candidate receives at least 50.1% of the
vote:
a. The use of preferential transferable votes -
I believe this is the Australian system.
b. Run-off elections between the two top
candidates - I think this system is used in France.
|