In a recent column (Gazette, Nov. 23) Ken Allred wrote an opinion piece about the absolute necessity of holding a referendum before meaningful electoral reform can take place. He argued that the current federal government does not have a mandate to make any changes to our first-past-the-post system. I don't recall him criticizing the Harper Government for making changes to its so-called Fair Elections Act a couple years ago.
He says that “Electoral has to be a slow process.” but offers no reason for such a necessity. After all it has been debated in Ontario, British Columbia and most recently in P.E.I. But going slow is always the argument put forward by those who do not want change.
There were no referenda when voting became a secret ballot rather than a public declaration, when property qualification was replaced by universal male suffrage, when the franchise was extended to women and then to aboriginals and when the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18.
Our elected representatives made those changes. I doubt they ran on such changes but if they did the nay-sayers could always argue as Mr. Allred does they had a “fuzzy mandate."
One wonders whether these past enhancements to our democracy would have been approved if the decision would have been left to a referendum and whether Mr. Allred would have been in favour of those changes or would he have counselled going slow.
Personally I favour a preferential ballot where a majority of the electorate would need to be obtained before an MP is declared elected thus eliminating Mr. Allred's great fear of “a system of minority coalitions.” Of course such a system of voting would force parties to develop policies which have a broad appeal rather than relying on their base and a few well chosen wedge issues to give them the 35 per cent margin needed to win government in the first-past-the-post system.
Bryan Corbett, St. Albert
