May I submit to Mr. Ibbitson that changing the way a province chooses its MPP's is not the same as proposing to break up a country.
May I also suggest to Mr. Ibbitson that voting in a "majority" government with 40% of the vote can have more serious repercussions for a province than instituting PR. All one has to do is look at the consequences to Ontario of electing "majority" Conservative governments between 1995 to 2003 for proof of that theory. When you allow a group of radicals take over the levers of power in a province, to grant them near dictatorial power, without the benefit of having earned the votes of a majority of the population of a province, you are in for trouble. You get a government that doesn't care about anyone but its core block of voters and knows if it keeps that block happy, it can safely ignore everyone else (imagine what Stephen Harper would do with 40% of the vote and 60% of the seats in Parliament) -- even if everyone else constitutes the majority of the population.
Mr. Ibbitson never addresses this little problem. Why should he? He is a partisan of a party that benefits, from time to time, in the status quo. The promise of unhindered power for a minority "majority" is just too great a temptation for a weak minded fellow like John Ibbitson. The man writes about a "consensus", but what he really is protecting is unlimited power for the few over the many. That's why we need PR, to cut such people off from total power.
Recommend this Post