Hi, fellow Greens

Dear editor:
What are the advantages of the two different election systems?
1. The first-past-the-post system has the advantage of quick response to the parties as to not vote for them again and give then a smarting hit.
Those of us old enough will remember how far the PC party fell from 151 seats to just two, although they lost “only” half of their votes.
This was too bad for the woman’s cause, being Kim Campbell was the country’s first female prime minister. With me, there are many convinced it wasn’t her fault but much more the voters being still mad at Brian Mulroney.
Obviously they had more support than that, but just didn’t win more ridings as first choice of the voters.
So if a party can lose seats fast, they are more likely to act on the short-term more responsible.
The disadvantage, of course, is the sometimes huge difference between how many seats a party won and how much percentage of the vote they actually got.
A simplified example:
Let’s say there are 100 ridings and only two parties, the ‘A’ party and the ‘B’ party. In all 100 ridings, the A’s get 51 percent of the vote and subsequently 100 percent of the seats.
The B’s got 49 percent of the vote—but not one single seat.
One fear with this system that I have is let’s imagine a very charistimatic, let’s say religious, or better, guru-type person, appears on the scene. This person is so good that he fools almost all the people for a short time, being exactly election time.
His or her party easily will collect enough votes to garner the absolute majority and within four years or so could ruin everything we love. Not possible? That is how Hitler did it!
2. Proportional system has the advantage of the parties getting exactly as many seat as the percentage of the vote.
One disadvantage is that if a MP is not supported by the majority of his riding, he or she has nothing to fear as long as they are among the top names on the “list.”
That way, they will get into parliament even though they “ticked off” their electorate. That takes a little out of the direct response in their riding.
On the other hand, that guru mentioned above probably will win a lot of ridings, but the core party voters that always vote for their party will give their party enough votes to get seats over the “list”—even if it is, say, only 20 percent.
Those members, with the other non-guru parties, will have a fighting chance in parliament to avoid disaster.
Another disadvantage is that this system is very sluggish for change. What I mean is that new ideas, new parties, and new movements have a very hard time overcoming the established encrusted paths of the old “boys and girls,” who, over the list and thanks to their traditional voters, will become MPs again.
Many fear with the proportional system that there will be just too many parties in parliament for it to work properly or at all. One way to avoid that, of course, would be a set minimum percentage a party needs to qualify (for instance, three or five percent).
Still, it would be hard for one party to get a majority, which is true, but just like the PCs right now have to make backroom deals to keep governing, the party with the most MPs will have to join up with another party and both will have to make compromises, then again a percentage of a whole is better than 100 percent of nothing.
Which system do I favour?
The proportional system will give the Green Party at least a 10x boost in their ability to make changes for a better Canada.
(Signed),
Mike Kemper