The Vancouver Sun editorial of Saturday, October 27, “Vote no on electoral reform” made me sit up and take notice, for all the wrong reasons. I actually had to laugh when I got to the last two paragraphs.
According to this ardent “no” campaigner, the most shocking cause for the proportional representation (pro-rep) alarm is this. “…there is the low threshold the NDP has set to change how we vote, allowing 50 per cent plus one…with no requirement over how many ballots must be cast to legitimize the referendum.”
I see some obvious parallels with the basic requirements of first past the post (FPTP) election procedures. All you need is one uncontested vote to win.
The next statement is even more lamentable: “That means a small percentage of the population could change our voting system.”
Hello? A small percentage of the population? Isn’t that how we elect our politicians under first past the post? Currently, voters are not obligated to vote. There is no minimum vote count required and, the first candidate to stumble across the finish line with the most votes…wins.
That questionable triumph does not even require the most votes overall, only the most votes against any other individual candidate. As we all know this can happen with as little as 40 per cent of the cast votes.
The suggestion that the referendum be denied because more rigorous voting standards than FPTP seems extremely hypocritical.
Pro rep means each vote counts. We have greater individual representation. We can get beyond one size fits all.
Dianne Bersea, Kaleden