Assertion PR will cost more unsupported
Suzanne Anderson writes that electoral reform will be too costly, as if one can put a price on a government in which one is actually represented.
Her assertion that proportional representation would result in more MLAs and support staff, with ensuing costs, is unsupported and in my opinion worth the cost of improving the way our government represents us.
Any cost would be an improvement over the tyranny of a majority government elected by less than 40 per cent of the actual voters, which has happened time and time again. Minority governments, like the one we have now, have to earn their majority every day and must be sensitive to public sentiment even in non election years. Ms. Anderson seems to think this is a drawback, but we shall have to agree to disagree there.
The biggest advantage of the proposal is that it would create viable alternatives for the unaligned voter who is determined to vote against the incumbent government. Right now, if we want to get rid of the Liberals we must vote New Democrat and vice versa, even though we may find both parties objectionable. A legislature with a conservative and/or progressive alternative better serves the public.
I suspect that is why the Liberals oppose proportional representation. They know that it will reduce the likelihood of a future Liberal majority. The New Democrats must be equally aware that their party will likely splinter, so kudos to them for bringing this issue forward. Obviously I disagree with Ms. Anderson’s assessment and hope that my fellow citizens vote with me to improve our current system.
This will not happen if we do not vote. Thank you.