Vancouver - I fail to see how the 58-per-cent vote in favour of STV (single transferable vote) in B.C. in 2005 shows "uncertainty and confusion" on the electorate's part (Mixed PR Is Best - editorial, April 21). It seems quite definitive to me. Perhaps the MMP (mixed member proportional) system is the one that gives rise to uncertainty, as it was soundly rejected by the voters of Ontario.
After 11 months of study, public consultation and debate, 95 per cent of the members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform recommended STV over first-past-the-post because it best meets the needs of the citizens of British Columbia.
To suggest that we have a referendum on the Assembly's second choice (as redesigned by The Globe editorial board) is ridiculous.
Jill Reilly, Member, B.C. Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
Seems like British Columbians, smart as they are, take exception to idiots at "Canada's national newspaper" who have such trouble with the concept of a system which combines proportionality, local representation and voter choice.
Why should we accept the Globe editorial board's conception of what an electoral system should be, rather than the recommendation of 160 fellow citizens who intensively studied electoral systems for a year, held 50 public meetings and poured over 1640 written presentations submitted by people from across our province?
Recommend this post
