Skip to content

Letter: Don’t be afraid of changes to electoral system

Re: Letter “ Grits, Tories would never back voting change ,” which appeared in Northern Life Aug. 26.
Re: Letter “Grits, Tories would never back voting change,” which appeared in Northern Life Aug. 26.

The writer of the above letter states that he wants to “set the record straight” and goes on to enlarge on why, in his opinion, proportional representation is not “the answer” to the problem of ever-decreasing voter turnout. He also discusses what he calls “dirty little secrets.” I would call them partial truths.

First is the claim that under proportional representation, there would be “no local MPs.” Second is his claim that someone unspecified — but apparently not the electorate — “gets to choose” who sits in Parliament.

What is not mentioned is that there are many different forms of proportional representation. One such form does indeed involved choosing the party rather than the candidate, then selecting from a list of party nominees according to the percentage of the vote.

However, this style works best in a smaller venue, where the candidates are likely to be recognized by many if not all voters and in which there is not too much variation in issues from one district to another.

Canada is too big and too diverse for that to work well.

A better possibility would be ranked ballots, or a blended system in which there are representatives elected for all ridings, but also “members at large,” again selected but not necessarily limited to one geographic area, to make up their party’s earned percentage of the vote.

No one has claimed that proportional representation is a magic panacea that will resolve all our political issues — including low voter turnout — if we somehow pull it out of a hat.

It is one potential solution which has the merit of being extremely successful in other countries.

However, the author’s main argument is that proportional representation will never happen in Canada because it would require a constitutional amendment, and because the Liberals and Conservatives would never agree to it.

This is a repetition of the rationale that we cannot have chance because it would be too much trouble. History indicates that this rationale is specious. Change may be slow in coming, but come it does — inevitably.

Canada’s current electoral system was appropriate in 1867 — nearly a century and a half ago. Both the country and the work have changed out of all recognition.

It’s time that we allowed ourselves, at the very least, to discuss change. Even if the final decision is for the status quo, the discussion might wake us up.

Chris Crosby
Sudbury