The Editor,
Re. “Having a say on PR vs. FPTP systems” (Letters, The Tri-City News, Nov. 21).
There are less than two weeks before the referendum ends.
To have a democratic political system is the bedrock of our free society and changing how we vote is no small thing.
While both systems first past the post (FPTP) and proportional representation (PR) have been talked about in a classic pros/cons analysis in a theoretical sense, there seems to be a lack of presentation of empirical evidence by the government on its recommendation that PR is better (e.g., in countries where a PR systems are in use, do voters feel they are better represented?) and how PR is actually implemented.
In the past hundred years, many new political theories have been analyzed theoretically that were thought to be good for society but their effects were disastrous when implemented in the real world.
The devil is in the details. Voters need concrete information to make an informed choice. We are not simply voting on whether an idea is good. We are voting for the system, infrastructure and consequences (intended and unintended) of how a democratic government is formed for years to come.
I am not against PR as an idea — who doesn’t want to be better represented? — but I cannot vote for such a major change for me and my children based on essentially a list of bullet points presented by the government.
So in the absence of concrete evidence that PR is overall beneficial when implemented, I will accept the current FPTP system, imperfect though it may be.
H.M. Leung, Coquitlam
