Editor:

From commentary on the pro-STV website, it is obvious that the STV proponents are trying to ensure that minor parties elect a number of MLAs roughly equal to their percentage share of the popular vote, as in “a party that gets nine to 10 per cent of the vote will win close to the equivalent number of seats.”

Further, the process is seen as “being about giving as many people as possible an MLA they voted for” and leading to an “inclusive, consensus-building” government.

However, the reason minor parties fail to elect MLAs under the current “first-past-the-post” system (‘FPTP’) has nothing to do with any shortcoming of FPTP and everything to do with their platforms and philosophies…they are simply too far out in Dreamland for them to gain traction with any significant number of the voting population.

Should these parties elect MLAs via the STV, the “inclusive, consensus-building” process then poses a strong probability of their gaining powers far exceeding their slim numbers, as in holding the balance of power in a minority or coalition government.

I would far rather be subjected to the decisions of government with a mandate of only 40 per cent of the popular vote under FPTP, than the less mainstream views held and imposed by 10 per cent of the voting population.

Does anyone need reminding of how giddily ecstatic Jack Layton was last December, at the prospect of his Few Democrats playing a king-making role in a Federal coalition that was soundly rejected at the time by public opinion polls?

Politics is fundamentally about exercising power.

I urge all electors to examine what is driving the push for STV…a thinly-disguised attempt to change the system to gain power that couldn’t be attained with FPTP; and reject the attempt by voting a resounding NO on May 12.

Ken Murray,
Osoyoos