Letters to the editor...Reader rebuts MPP's reform column

Dear editor, I'd like to respond to Ted Chudleigh's column,"Electoral reform a tricky issue" of Sept. 6. Yes, I agree "this is serious stuff". And it's overdue there is an outcry that majority governments in Ontario can be formed with minority votes. That the British Columbia referendum was narrowly rejected, was NOT due to the desire of the public-- 58 per cent wanted the reform-- but it was due to the unfair threshold of 60 per cent "super majority" votes set by the B.C. government. Mr. Chudleigh's statement that "most successful jurisdictions in the world subscribe to our current system" needs some substantiating. Since the Canadian system is quite unlike any other system I know, give some examples please. Mr. Chudleigh states further, "Coalitions are required to govern. These alliances between parties are bought and paid for with taxpayers' money." How are they being bought, may I ask? He should explain what he's alluding to. At least with a coalition, a single party cannot squander money like has been demonstrated in the recent past. When he says, "We should change the way the business of parliament in Ontario is conducted...", I wish he would please explain what he's alluding to? It seems to be dependent on the governing party how `business' is conducted. "Cynicism and distrust of the political process" has always been and will always remain. What is asked for, is to be fairly heard as a voter. If I share an opinion with 58 per cent of the public, how can it be that I'm not heard? "How (does) the system function once they are elected", you ask? Once elected, politicians should stand behind their promises! With a coalition government, internal party politics are less prominent and thus politicians can deviate from the party's stance, if it warrants a politician's electors' opinion. "Requiring a second approval through referendum is prudent." Since a referendum can be called any time, I see no need to jump the gun and require one up front. You're not requiring a bill, once made into law, to go through parliament again are you? Then why would you request it for a reform? "Those campaigning for office are reluctant to take a position on proportional representation for fear of alienating voters." Could it be, they are reluctant due to party politics? It's only fair to know a representative's view, like for any other issue. If I vote for someone, I want to know his stand on all issues of importance to me. I concur with his final remark: "It will be interesting to see what the citizens' panel recommends. Then the real debate will begin." For more information readers are encouraged to visit the following sites: www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca www.fairvote.ca Chris Klomp, Georgetown