It is not possible to represent multiple points of view in the legislature when only one MLA represents the diverse opinions present in any constituency.
In contrast, an electoral system such as Proportional Representation would result in slightly larger ridings that are served by two or more MLAs. That is a necessary condition that must be met for proportionality. Those trying to maintain the First-Past-the-Post voting system suggest that Proportional Representation will erode accountability of our MLAs that are elected to the Legislature.
I beg to differ.
Many people, myself included, have felt compelled to phone or write our MLA occasionally to express our views in the hope that our concerns may be given some thought and discussion in Victoria. Let me illustrate how Proportion Representation might work for us as typical voters.
My particular example occurred in Vernon a couple of years ago when I suggested that the levels of support provided to handicapped individuals were insufficient and it resigned them to a very low standard of living in the Okanagan; I’m sure the situation would be worse in the Lower Mainland. My phone call was politely received by a receptionist who said my concerns would be relayed to our local MLA. That is where my story ends.
With two or more MLAs serving our constituency, as would happen under Proportional Representation, my story may have had a different ending. I could have indicated that I intended to bring the same concern to all the MLAs serving my region and would look forward to their response within a reasonable period. I could indicate that my future support for them would be affected by their response.
The MLAs would know that I had a real choice available to me that would likely influence my future voting preferences.
Proportional Representation, unlike the current First-Past-the-Post system, puts more power back in the hands of the voter.
I will cast my ballot for Proportional Representation.
Richard Pearen