Dear Editor
Re: “Next generation of voters challenges electoral system,” Letters, Jan. 13.
Proportional representation (“PR”) is like the participation medals that absolutely everyone gets in elementary school. Everybody feels good, but no one wins.
PR advocates suggest that it is democratic to elect someone who came second, or worse, with as little as 15 per cent of the vote.
First, however, let’s step back and ask, “what is the purpose of electing a Member of Parliament?”
Are we trying to elect someone who can govern the whole country or are we trying to elect one-issue advocates?
Canada is a diverse country. Political parties have to build consensus, and make accommodations, across broad issues, interests and regions, to get elected and form a government, or potential government.
PR is a narrower, limited interest, model. By appealing to smaller constituencies, under PR, parties can win a few seats, which they can barter in order to get greater influence.
PR also means larger, multi-member ridings, where it would be difficult for elected members to even know, let alone represent, their constituencies.
I know the “first past the post” model has its flaws.
I prefer a model akin to run-off votes, where the last standing candidate has at least 50 per cent support. Without using run-off elections, that could be achieved through ranked ballots, a process known as “Alternative Vote.”
So, if we want to elect limited appeal issue advocates, with reduced accountability to the local voters, then PR is the way to go. But that is not for me.
Ian C. MacLeod
Richmond
