With marijuana day and civic elections behind us, electoral reform is next and proponents of first-past-the-post will argue that:
A). An advantage of the present system is that people can vote for the individual they would like to represent them in the legislature. Historically those representatives cannot do all that much for their constituents unless their representative belongs to the party in power.
One hopes though that, even with all the present media hype, electors will still vote for the principles they believe in and consequently the party which comes closest to embracing those ideals. Who the individual is, in spite how personable they may be, does not make much difference because free votes in the legislature are rare, hence representatives almost always tow the party line.
and
B). The danger of proportional representation lies in the possible emergence of additional, fringe or splinter, parties which (in their opinion) would interfere with effective governance.
What they are in effect saying here then is that they would deny individuals who march to a different drummer the right to express their personal political beliefs by voting for the party of their choice. Hardly a democratic position methinks.
Remember: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Beatrice Hall/Voltaire)
Hans Rysdyk
Qualicum Beach