LETTER – Editorial perpetuates the myth about proportional representation

Re:  U.S. Speaker fiasco gives us a taste of proportional representation

Mel, you are perpetuating myths, which by definition are incorrect.  There is no way in the world that you can truthfully conflate the fiasco south of the border with PR.

PR is not a recipe for small parties or fringe groups to hold the country to ransom.  One has only to look at the vast majority of the G20 nations to see that PR works just fine, and is a fairer and much more democratic system than FPTP.

And, if you look at the record, you’ll find that all of the fringe or small parties (a dozen) in Canada make up less than 2% of the popular vote.

Fringe parties if they do win seats are held in check by the other parties either refusing to work with them, or the electorate voting against them in the next election.

And, in your promotion of FPTP, you are saying that it is OK for a party with 40% of the popular vote to be awarded 100% of the power. This has happened in most of the last several elections. How democratic is that?

And you are telling a very large number of voters that their votes are wasted. In Canada, the per cent is 50%. In the Scandinavian countries, around 95% of votes are not wasted.

FPTP is a rigged system, rigged to give the two major parties a disproportionate share of the seats. Rigged to deny the voices of millions of Canadians. Democracy?

Look at the last Quebec election, where four parties got roughly the same per cent of the vote 12-14% and received a very different share of the seats.  One party received 20 seats while another party received 0 seats.  What sort of democracy allows that to happen?  Is that what we do in Canada?

Mel, you have a lot of influence. Please use it wisely and for the benefit of all Canadians.  How about a pro PR column?

DARYL STURDY
Vancouver