Beg to differ with Fletcher on PR
In response to Tom Fletcher, Oct. 28.
Tom Fletcher presents a highly subjective narrative where a first-past-the-post electoral process is the only way that British Columbia in its rural or urban entities can survive. I beg to differ as one who has lived in the northeast, central interior, southern interior and in Victoria and outlying areas.
In two of the three options I see good potential for a robust regional voice where constituents will enjoy a close relationship with their elected representatives, especially as they will be able to work with someone who shares their view of how British Columbia can best function.
Where regions will be slightly larger than present electoral districts, in an electronic age and where time and weather will allow most months of the year, communication will actually improve in both quality and as needs require in quantity.
In jaded remarks about the engagement of university and college students he seems to suggest that interest coupled with education is manipulative politics instead of what I see as excitement around participation in policy making at a level not previously experienced on B.C. campuses and in B.C. communities. I wonder if the phrase “contempt prior to examination” is appropriate here.
Finally, in suggesting that the BC Greens and leader Andrew Weaver have manipulated the legislature to suit their own needs he is somewhat correct. They have negotiated, as circumstances will allow and require. Where I live and work this is called collaboration, a key advantage of proportional representation.
In Mr. Fletcher’s complaint I see nothing to unsettle my own choice, to vote YES for proportional representation for the benefit of not only myself, but a huge swath of British Columbians of all social positions.
Ken Gray
Kamloops