Letter: Referendum wording muddy

Sure, the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence.

Letter: Referendum wording muddy

Sure, the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence.

I strongly believe that the New Democratic Party has not properly done its job when it comes to researching, evaluating and providing clear alternatives when it comes to redefining how we elect a party, or group of like-minded individuals, to govern us. I have tried to read and comprehend the report presented by the Attorney-General to Premier Horgan. It is long and can be very unclear.

I want a simple explanation of what happens if a PR example is chosen over FPTP. As noted in the report Electoral Rules and Fiscal Policy Outcomes “Reforming the way Canadians elect their political representatives is a serious matter, and all costs and benefits must be weighed. Any analysis of potential electoral reform in Canada should note how public policies will be affected. The tendency of PR electoral systems to elect coalition governments drives up government spending and deficits — not because voters necessarily want such policies, but because the power structure of the parliament has been realigned by changing the way politicians are elected.”

I shall always remember what my Mom told me when I was a youngster: “Too many cooks spoil the broth.”

The referendum question asks are you in favour of the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) or are you in favour of proportional representation (PR) and three different methods of PR are given as choices. How am I to indicate to the government that I am in favour of FPTP, but wish them to continue looking into PR. Will a mark in any of the three PR options be taken as an indicator of a desire for more information, or that FPTP be given the boot? Does the NDP wish to inform and support the electorate, or appease a vocal minority, emphasis on minor?

John Raikes