Editor:
So Bill Good likes the “first-past-the-post” system, so that every four years we can potentially move between the two extremes we have in this province (“Why I like first past the post,” Oct. 6). Seems wasteful and destabilizing to me for one government to build social programs so the next government can tear them down.
Good states that proportional representation would result in more parties being represented and would open the door to “fringe” parties. He doubts this would result in better government.
The Greens used to be a “fringe” party and now hold the balance of power. In the current first-past-the-post system the Greens received 17 per cent of the popular vote -– just under half of the other two parties – and yet only have three seats in an 87-seat legislature. That doesn’t seem very democratic to me. Shouldn’t the 17 per cent of people who voted Green have close to 17 per cent of the seats? If Mr. Good’s idea of “good” government includes “representative government,” isn’t this more representative of the voters’ wishes?
In the proportional representation system, parties often need to work together, usually resulting in a consensus or at least a compromise.
In the first-past-the-post system, other parties are treated as enemies rather than potential allies. The power is concentrated in fewer hands. Would we have seen the partisan ad spending, the “wild west” fundraising rules or the approval of Site C without the approval of the utilities commission if the governing party required the support of an allied party?
If Mr. Good looked beyond the flips (and mostly flops) of his own province, he would find there are stable democracies throughout the world that are much more responsive to their citizens, thanks to proportional representation voting systems.
Steve Giltrow, Gibsons
