Regarding your editorial of Wednesday, June 14, "Elections Must Change," this is the plaintive cry that you hear after nearly every election in our country. While proportional representation sounds attractive, in practise it would be a disaster. Only Elizabeth May would benefit. No doubt there can be improvements made to our current "first-past-the-post," but strict proportional representation would not be the answer. Consider the political situations of France, Italy, and Israel. These countries have a myriad of political parties, so much so that it is nearly impossible to receive a working majority.. Consequently, a government must be often composed of coalitions. Sometimes these coalitions function, but usually there is much in-fighting, resulting in frequent elections (something Canadians will complain about too). These governments can barely function and are often paralyzed. The larger political parties must resort to partnering with rump parties, which often have radical agendas. In Israel, for example, the small ultra-Orthodox party exercises inordinate control over the country's policies – a case of the "tail wagging the dog". (no offence intended). Our political system works quite well, all things considered. There can be times of frustration, sure, but overall the Canadian governments function relatively smoothly. Look around the world. Canada works! And if a particular government doesn't, it gets voted out (a la Kathleen Wynne in Ontario). Elected members of the government can have their say when their caucus meets, although the prime minister or premiers and their cabinets determine overall policy. Otherwise the elected member can sit as an independent. Caucus or the cabinet can oust the leader, as with John Diefenbaker or Alison Redford. There are many safeguards in the Canadian system. Things get hashed out, and then the country moves forward. The editorial states, we are "... comprised of a diversity of people with an infinite number of needs and all of us deserve to be represented by our government." Does that mean we need an infinite number of political parties, or thousands of people in our governments, all pulling in different directions? That would be anarchy! Justin Trudeau campaigned on such an idea (proportional representation), but when elected, he quickly dropped the idea, much to the disappointment of Ms.May. Justin probably realized how disastrous it would be for Canada. There should be no reason to think your voice is not heard in Ottawa or Edmonton. In this day of mass communications, we have a free press, we can write letters to the editor, we can write to our representative in government, we have email, we can freely talk in public,on the radio or TV, and we have the right to assemble for protest meetings or marches, and we can talk face-to-face with our politicians if need be. All sides and all opinions can be shouted from the rooftops. We live in a free country and it works well. Dear editor, be careful what you wish for. R. Patterson
