I attended the STV forum and noticed how the No campaign is focused on pointing out the shortfalls of the STV system - yet I hear no arguments on why our current FPTP system is superior or how keeping it would be beneficial ["STV or no STV?" The Chief, May 1].
Anita Hagen's notion of how she is not voting in favour of FPTP, but rather against the recommended STV system is irrational. Her reasoning is based on the hope that we might have another opportunity for reform in the (distant) future.
But by voting for FPTP you are in fact choosing to keep our current bankrupt electoral system. This would be irresponsible given the urgency in resolving our environmental, economic and social health problems, which are best addressed through policy.
Hagen went on saying that the current ballot would be too complex because of the greater choice of candidates. The insinuation that the citizens of B.C. can't handle having greater candidate choice was displeasing to hear. I see greater choice only as a positive for voters.
She also spent much of her time arguing that MMP was a better system. This is irrelevant as the referendum set forward is for BC-STV. This ongoing debate whether STV is the ideal system seems to be losing sight that the Citizen's Assembly recommended BC-STV as an upgrade to our current FPTP system, in most part because it produces better representation.
BC-STV may not be perfect, there is no such electoral system, but it's no reason to walk away from improvement.
Melanie Richards
Garibaldi Highlands
