LETTER: First-past-the-post system has served B.C. well

LETTER: First-past-the-post system has served B.C. well

Another appropriate letter regarding PR from the pen of Mike Pankhurst. All those letters supporting PR and suggesting only vested interests oppose changing the electoral process are spouting so much political nonsense. The only group who have a vested interest in PR is the Green Party, and those who would support various fringe parties. Under PR even the NDP would lose a substantial number seats in the B.C. Legislature, mainly to the Greens, but perhaps to other fringe parties.

Andrew Weaver is playing softball with the NDP government right now since he knows full well that the referendum regarding PR will only favour he and his party. He violently opposed both the Site C dam and LNG but rather than bring the NDP government down on a matter of prime Green Party principles, allows it to govern on, rather than put the PR referendum on the back burner.

The suggestion by supporters of PR that all voters will have an elected representative of their choice is ridiculous. The NDP have put forth two choices for PR out of three which have not been tried in any country in the world. And they have not even published an electoral map to let voters know how they will fare in a radically changed electoral process.

The only confused, contradictory and unfounded statements are coming from those writers who support PR. To suggest that fringe parties, by way of example, will not control government in a PR system, is totally false and not based on facts in other countries vexed with PR.

The discussion about electing governments under PR, which will include input from sometime different points of view, is absolutely paramount and the comment about broad based policies and legislation is absurd. Radical and extreme left wing would be more appropriate.

The B.C. economy, under FPTP over many years, has been in the superlative spectrum. And B.C.s unemployment rate has for many years consistently led the country.

Do the proponents of PR suggest a probable dysfunctional PR legislative assembly would do any better?

One should review the political chaos going on in countries such as Germany, Australia, Austria, Spain and in many others too numerous to name, who are exposed to PR and the challenges of fringe parties being elected.

A prime example of the folly of PR occurred in the province of Ontario, once know as the prime engine of Canada, in their last election. Over 15 years a Liberal government, ably supported by a spend thrift NDP opposition, brought the province to a near state of bankruptcy. Some $350 billion in debt costing the treasury over $1 billion per month just to support interest payments. If PR had been in force in Ontario in their recent election, a coalition of NDP and Liberals would have gained power since the Progressive Conservatives garnered 42 per cent of the election day votes.

So the spending mayhem would have continued unabated.

The proponents of PR have absolutely no idea what a PR electoral system would bring to B.C.. Probably a bit of chaos, with the Greens in control. The majority of those PR proponents who produce op eds in local media are no doubt well orchestrated by the Greens, both federally and provincially. They probably do not vote Liberal, Conservative nor, in most cases, NDP.

FPTP has served B.C. well for over 100 years. I would strongly recommend we continue the current electoral process, and leave dysfunctional governments resulting from PR to other countries.

H.J. Rice