RE: Yukonomist: Improving the Yukon election system - Keith Halliday
I agree with Mr. Halliday about the shortcomings of the present electoral system, first past the post, and disagree with some of his recommendations for a better system.
If Mr. Halliday wants more people to come out to vote, he doesn't need to fine voters. Adopting a proportional electoral system, where the percentage of seats is aligned with the percentage of votes a party gets, encourages people to vote because every vote has the same electoral power. With proportional representation, very few votes are wasted. More than 95 per cent of votes go towards electing a candidate. Compare this with first past the post where about 50 per cent of votes cast are wasted, where we end up with a government that was often chosen by fewer than 50 per cent of voters.
Which system would you choose, if you lived in a safe riding, that is, one in which the other party always won; one in which your party had no chance of winning?
Would you choose a system in which you had no chance of your vote making a difference, a wasted vote, or one in which you knew your vote would go towards electing someone in the party you preferred, even if the candidate in your riding didn't win.
Mr. Halliday engages in some fearmongering when he talks about the danger of extremist parties winning seats and gaining power. First of all, extremist groups are already there, in the big tent parties. It's just that they are, in large part, invisible. With proportional representation they are in the open for all to see.
Secondly, most of the modern democracies use some form of proportional representation. And in many measures of wellbeing, are ahead of Canada, the UK and Britain, who are the outliers, still holding on to first past the post.
These modern democracies, such as the Scandinavian countries, chose proportional representation. Canada was given first past the post. It was imposed when Canada became a nation in 1867.
One last concern about Mr. Halliday's proposal for reform, a referendum. A referendum, especially one that is complicated, is almost guaranteed to fail. People lead busy lives and to expect them to put in the time to understand a complicated question is not reasonable.
The history of referenda on electoral reform in Canada has shown that they are too easy for the NO side to defeat using obfuscation and disinformation.
Daryl Sturdy
Vancouver, British Columbia
