I want to provide my support for the existing system. My support stems from a couple of bullets I want to highlight.
>To call the existing system "first past the post", is a poor descriptor, and a targeted mischaracterization by its opponents. I prefer to call it the "got the most votes" system. I think that in the context of the better name, the reasons to support the system are self-explanatory. The candidate who gets the most votes wins.
>Proportional Representation (PR) leads to mandates that make it difficult for any party to advance its platform. No one can move forward on their agenda until after the election, and they can determine if they can create a coalition to advance some part of their platform.
>PR creates broad coalitions that its proponents claim are beneficial, however I submit that they create deadlock. I'm sure YCA ER has studied many examples, such as Japan's last 19 Prime Ministers lasting an average of less than 1 year and 10 months or the coalitions that rise and fall in PR adhering governments.
>One of the benefits of the Westminster system, using the "got the most votes" system, is that when we have a majority government, we effectively elect a dictatorship for four years, allowing a government time to implement a platform and drive progress. I think that benefit is underappreciated when the prospect of PR is discussed.
>I could support a trial of weighted preferential ballots (heavily weighted to the highest vote getter), or a system of rounds of voting (i.e. top two candidates face off in a second round), when we lack a majority winner,
Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in.
Murray Arsenault
********** File Upload (if any) will appear below *********************