Letter to the Editor
Editor,
In principal this is a valid argument (September 25 Editorial). Maybe under a more reasonable representative voting system this could be a workable approach.
But… In our present system this is a totally impractical and unreasonable.
The only option that voters have today ( admittedly a terrible one) is strategic voting. Vote for the candidate/party who is most likely able to defeat the candidate/party you like the least.
Why ?
How could a member from any party possibly represent all their constituents if they only win a simple majority of say 40% of the votes, knowing that 60% of the voters ( split over 3 other party candidates) disagree with their party platform and policies. Its illogical for them and the voters, to think they represent the majority of their constituents.
Furthermore, party whips makes it almost impossible for members of parliament to vote their conscience or for their constituents best interests and desires. The party leaders and whips simply threaten their members by refusing to endorse their candidacy at next election if they don’t tow the party line.
However, if we had a more fair and practical representational voting system we could vote for both the most effective candidate AND the party that best represents our values.
Direct Party and Representative Voting (DPR Voting) is an example of a better system than the FPTP Winner take all system we have today. http://www.dprvoting.org
Dave MacDougall, Meaford
