Editor:
It is really easy to understand the principle behind proportional representation (PR) as it is simply the number of seats in the legislature (currently 87) awarded to each party on a proportional basis.
In other words, if you get 50 per cent of the total votes, you get 50 per cent of the seats; 20 per cent of the total votes gets you 20 per cent of the seats.
In order to get a single seat you must have achieved a minimum number of total votes, so extremist parties must have a strong following of voters to get any seats.
Could there be a fairer way to have the electorate completely represented and not simply governed by one or other of the two main parties?
The type of proportional representation gets more complex and it baffles me why the NDP, if they were truly behind this form of voting and not just accommodating the Greens, would not flood the airwaves with simple ads explaining how each version works. After all they have done that with many other issues in the past.
Even more puzzling is to propose a system of PR that has never been used before anywhere. One gets the impression politicians, especially from the bigger parties, fear PR and deliberately set out to confuse and baffle you to maintain the status quo. "I don't understand it, so I'll just say no."
The first question on the ballot, either yes or no to PR, is the most important and is the only one in my opinion that needs to be answered.
According to Wikipedia, 87 of the 195 countries in the world use PR, so why not here?
Gavin Wishart
