In response to the letters to the editor on Friday, Aug. 10 I would like to make a couple of comments.
Hopefully, my comments will contribute to a sincere discussion on the pros and cons of changing our voting system to a proportional system in the upcoming referendum.
I want to understand the issues as I am sure most others want to do as well. I realize however that it is important for all of us to remain focused on the central issue: how will our electoral system be made fairer by changing from a First Past the Post system? Is any form of proportional representation fairer than the present First Past the Post system?
Carefully consider that more than 90 countries including Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and New Zealand have a form of proportional representation. Why have so many democracies chosen a proportional representation system over First Past the Post? Canada, Great Britain and the USA remain the only western democracies that continue with a First Past the Post electoral system.
I was disappointed in reading the letters to the editor from John Trainor and Janet Green. Both have blatantly given incorrect information. Mr. Trainor’s letter, even though it is printed under the heading “Informed Debate Needed,” has made a completely false statement saying “proportional representation has been a disaster wherever it has been tried.”
Ms. Green added to the disinformation by her comment that “proportional representation tends to result in fragile coalition governments where fringe parties play the role of kingmaker.” Unfortunately for those of us interested in informed debate, false information is easy to spread.
To seek more information on the pros and cons go to: