Re: 鈥淧roportional representation breeds instability,鈥� comment, Sept.聽20.
Time and again, under our first-past-the-post voting system, one political party wins total power with 40 per cent of a 60 per cent voter turnout, or 24 per cent of eligible voters.
With less than one-quarter of the eligible voters, too many autocratic party leaders in our past, with support from the party whip, offer at best a 鈥渟table鈥� oligarchy for the next four years. Under this system, a majority of votes count for nothing. This is not democracy.
Under a proportional-representation system, these problems are erased, but can lead to instability in some, but not all, instances. Choosing a few extreme cases from a single election in Belgium, Germany and Northern Ireland to support the Fraser Institute鈥檚 argument is an excellent example of the false-generalization fallacy.
No voting system is perfect. In the current voting climate, a false majority/plurality system benefits one party. A proportional system would benefit another.
Any system will work if every elected representative displays loyalty to sa国际传媒 and all Canadians, instead of just their particular party. This is called integrity.
A climate of negotiation and compromise will solve far more problems than the partisan atmosphere prevalent in most legislatures and the House of Commons.
Perhaps a good first step toward true democracy would be to allow only those who receive a majority of votes, on a ranked ballot if required, to be truly elected representatives. They must then not be constrained by the party whip.
J. Graeme Gardiner
Sidney
