Proportional representation more fair

British democracy did not look similar to present day democracy until after women’s suffrage – approx. 1919

In reference to letter 7 August, “Our voting system has a history of success,” it is too bad Mr. Schalm’s idea of parliamentary success is based on a history lesson that he missed.

British democracy did not look similar to present day democracy until after women’s suffrage – approx. 1919.  So, to say Britain was a bastion of democracy in the time of Henry VIII is stretching it a bit. At the turn of the 20th Century both in  Canada and Britain, only male land owners could vote, or about one in seven people.

It appears with Mr. Schalm’s ideology, he would prefer that period in history, when the bullying minority subjugated the majority to its will. Quite frankly, much as it is to this day with the Harper government. We haven’t progressed past this medieval form of parliament.

Due to human nature, the party that wins (sometimes with as low as 35 per cent of the common vote), never wants to lose power; hence, no change.  This system is open to moral corruption as in the Conservatives’ so-called ‘Fair Elections Act,’ that is only fair to Conservatives.

It is up to us the electorate, to push for proportional representation, which hastens co-operation between adversaries rather than contempt.

It is obvious Mr. Schalm is deceiving the public with his misinformation and Conservative agenda.

Jim Hauser