I declare my conflict of interest; I am one of Randall J. Rohl's geriatrics [“Electoral reform fundamentally alters democracy,” June 8].
Proportional representation causes more problems than it purports to solve. I lived in Australia for 22 years and continue to follow its politics closely.
Australia has proportional representation and it has led to all sorts of political manipulation and gaming the system using all sorts of obscure minority parties. In one case, a fringe candidate who got only 1 per cent of the initial vote got elected by clever gaming of the preferences.
Former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd, in his own electorate (riding), lost the primary (popular) vote to a Dr. Glasson, 40 per cent to 42 per cent. No worries mate! Rudd got in on the redistribution of preferences. Rudd's electorate didn't get their choice.
The lack of clear majority governments has stymied any attempts at major changes. Also, there are other, larger philosophical questions that loom over any voting system.
One concern is the imbalance between city and country populations. This is a disproportionate imbalance that proportional representation does not address.
David Baxter, a demographer of Urban Futures in Vancouver, said, "Vancouver is like a giant feedlot fed by the hinterland."
From this insight, and with a gross generalization I believe, most voters are urban and living off the avails of the rural areas that are sparsely populated.
As a rural, I question the ability of the urban sophisticates, who are inexperienced in our affairs, to adjudicate and represent our best interests.
Ted Cooper
Massett Court
