In response to McLean’s response to my response to his letter.

In response to McLean’s response to my response to his letter.

McLean makes the mistake of joining the 2 referendum questions together. If, in question 1, PR gets 50%+1, then the voters of BC have spoken, for change. They don’t want FPTP, period, end of story. He would like to compare the vote total for FPTP with that of each of the 3 options. This is rather disingenuous of him, as I have proven above. It’s not a vote for FPTP and each of the 3 options. It’s a vote for FPTP as opposed to PR.

McLean gets himself into deep water, trying to persuade you that only a very small % of BC voters might want PR. He wants you to take into account all the voters of BC, whether they voted or not. Another disingenuous move on his part. We never disallow a vote because only small number of people vote. Where would our civic elections be if we did that. Those that vote get to decide, not those who don’t vote.

Then there’s gerrymandering. Another attempt at fear mongering. As I said in my previous rebuttal, there is no gerrymandering as there is in some other countries. Electoral boundaries are determined every 10 years by a non-partisan committee. If PR is accepted, they will do that for the new system, with public consultation. Nothing to get your feathers ruffled about.

McLean, I would guess is a Liberal voter, trying to hold on to the stacked deck that has helped the Liberals win most elections since WAC in ‘53. He does not look at the many flaws of FPTP, government by the 40%, strategic voting, policy lurch, appeal only to the 40% base, vulnerability of swing ridings to manipulation, unequal voting power, votes that don’t count.