Editor:
I found John Gleeson’s opinion piece “Greener ridings see higher turnout in PR vote” curious. Mr. Gleeson chooses not to mention that the referendum was also a vote to keep the current First Past the Post system.
What if the No side gets the most votes with FPTP, receiving 20 to 25 per cent of eligible B.C. voter support? Would that somehow be more impressive and valid because it supports the status quo?
The fact that people did not respond in droves for this referendum is troubling. However, the seeds of confusion, doubt, fear-mongering and outright “misrepresentation” of the truth by the well-funded No campaign was a big turnoff for a lot of people. That is also why low voter turnout in general is becoming a disturbing trend. Witness the 2008 federal election, where the government that steered the future of our country until 2015 was elected with approximately 25 per cent of eligible voters. Most voters stayed home.
I do agree with Mr. Gleeson that the results of Question 2 would indeed need to be revisited if the referendum succeeds in favour of Proportional Representation, with oversight by Elections BC, an all-party committee and input from voters.
Many people were confused by the voting systems and thought they were too complicated. But, just because something is complicated doesn’t mean it isn’t worthwhile. Why are so many other countries able to use PR successfully? Did you know that First Past the Post was imposed upon us without any referendum in 1991? Before that, B.C. modified its electoral system many times without a referendum. Right now the BC Liberals and the No campaign are advocating to ignore our election results. Unthinkable in our democracy. Now that is something our editor didn’t mention.
Bette Chadwick, Sechelt
