Skip to content

LETTER: Reader responds to recent run of letters regarding proportional representation

Dear editor,
12343201_web1_180606-SNM-T-Letters

Dear editor,

I read with interest four responses (May 15) to opinions previously expressed in the Letters to the Editor against one of the options in B.C.’s upcoming electoral systems referendum. Like respondent Erik Taynen (PR is about democratic fairness, not issues) I agree that “proportional representation is a non-partisan issue.” Or, at least, it ought to be, but even he couldn’t resist stating that “Our current system is outdated and distorts the voting process,” which is actually a matter of opinion, not fact, and one with definite partisan affiliation.

The objective of the referendum is for voters to select an electoral system that’s totally non-partisan, unbiased and impartial. Unfortunately the debate has become drenched in partisan—and often misleading—rhetoric, as should be plain when one hears notions that parties that govern with “40 per cent of the vote,” as one of the four respondents put it, are “given 100 per cent of the power,” apparently ignoring that, in a federated state with a constitutionally separate and independent judiciary and limited terms of government, such a thing is simply impossible. Further, this respondent’s idea of power-sharing seems to ignore the fact that money bills, the kind most tabled, can only pass by a majority vote of sitting MLAs, no matter what “share” of power a party with less than 50 per cent of the seats might think it should have. This is no trifling matter since, if a money bill fails to get at least 50 per cent of parliamentary votes, then the government loses confidence of the Assembly and must fall, a constitutional matter that cannot be changed like electoral systems can.

Another respondent takes exception to columnist Tom Fletcher’s opposition to changing the system because, the respondent says, he “fails to take into account one overarching element [that the] public is fed up with the current system,” another opinion substituting for a fact we do not know because we haven’t had the referendum yet.

Finally, Eric Jones also takes Fletcher to task and calls for a balanced approach by stating that an “informed electorate needs informed writing not name calling or blatant untruths.” Of the four responses, this was the only one that didn’t try to pass opinion off as fact. Thank you for printing it.

Geoffrey Donaldson,

Denman Island