Skip to content

Letter: Keep things as they are

I will be voting to keep the current “first past the post” system.
13968650_web1_13566926_web1_180816-LAT-PAN-M-ballot-box-file

While I support the principle of a legislative assembly based on proportional representation, I will be voting to keep the current “first past the post” system in the upcoming province-wide referendum.

Here are the reasons:

Firstly, no general election or referenda in this province should rely on the mail-in ballot. Mail can get lost. The potential of voter fraud with a mail-in ballot increases vis-à-vis the traditional method of voting at a polling centre. Every legitimate vote should count – the method chosen cannot guarantee that every vote will be legitimate, nor can it guarantee every vote will arrive at the location where it will be tabulated.

Secondly, the referendum does not simply ask one question — whether we wish to maintain the status quo or change to proportional representation. The ballot is complicated by further asking what type of proportional representation system we would support. For those who choose to maintain first past the post, they may overlook the second question. I believe this possibility was intended in the design of the ballot questions. In my opinion, a devious, cunning and dishonest bias is inherent in the process.

Lastly, consider basic math and you will discover that in the event a change to proportional representation is desired, the actual method chosen will be an example of minority rule. Suppose that 50% (plus one vote) choose proportional representation. Assume that 80% of those votes choose one of the three methods offered. This equates to 40% of the votes determining the outcome. Doesn’t seem much different than the party with 40% of the vote forming majority government, does it?

So I’m going to vote NO, let’s keep what we have now. Give me a simple yes or no question next time, followed by an extensive and comprehensive consultation to determine the voting system. If we choose to replace first past the post, there must be far greater public engagement regarding the “new” method, than there has been in choosing the options presented on the flawed ballot being offered at this time. There is no method that will satisfy everyone, but at least let’s use a process without inherent bias.

Herb Wong