Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
...............................................................................................................................
Next up in B.C.?
Those who prefer proportional representation, with its almost guaranteed minority governments, should take a good look at the recent B.C. election.
If the final result, after all the votes are counted between now and Wednesday, remains the same, the first- and second-place finishers together will have won about 85 per cent of the vote, with very little separating them.
But the distant third-place party, with about 15 per cent of the popular vote, is the party with the power to decide any contentious issue. Doesn't that make a mockery of "making your vote count?"
Florence Barton, Penticton, B.C.
.........................................
B.C. Premier Christy Clark says voters want "us to work collaboratively, and across partisan lines." Ms. Clark should have realized this truth long ago, not just because she is facing a minority situation. Voters have always wanted politicians to work together. And that's why we need a new way of voting – such as proportional representation – whose results would force politicians like Ms. Clark to co-operate with politicians who were elected in parties other than her own and who represent Canadian voters who might not share her views.
Geoff Rytell, Toronto
.........................................
I voted in favour of PR in the B.C. referendums of 2005 and 2009, but I have since changed my mind. The splintering of the political landscape and the emergence of populist leaders in many jurisdictions has made the adoption of PR far too risky.
Changing the system to one in which a radical group could win power by exploiting the grievances of a segment of the population would be a major mistake. But it behooves leaders to address those grievances, which the Trudeau government has failed to do.
James A. Duthie, Nanaimo, B.C.
.........................................
The PEI plebiscite on electoral reform last year was not rejected by voters. In fact, voters selected the mixed-member proportional system with 52 per cent of the final votes. However, Premier Wade MacLauchlan refused to commit to change because of low voter turnout. Ironically, low voter turnout is one of the problems that proportional representation helps to address.
First-past-the-post does not ensure regional representation in government. The system shuts out minority voters in many regions, including non-Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada and non-Conservative voters in the Prairies. In contrast, PR systems ensure that most of the voters in each region are fairly represented.
Jason McLaren, president, Fair Vote Vancouver
.........................................
Name-change perils
"A rose by any other name …"
I cannot help but observe that this sentiment resulted in the death of both Romeo and Juliet (Alberta PC, Wildrose To Vote On Merger, May 19).
In Alberta, as in the rest of Canada, the politics of the right struggle with two separate agendas, which by themselves are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they necessarily mutually shared.
They are of course social conservatism and fiscal conservatism.
The attempt to bring these two concepts together to win elections has generated an interesting history of names. Including in no particular order: Conservative, Unionist, Progressive, Progressive Conservative, United Farmers, Social Credit, Creditist, Reform, Alliance, Wildrose, and my favourite – for the two days the name existed – the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party (CCRAP). And let's not forget that John A. Macdonald was the leader of the Liberal-Conservative Party.
I have a suggestion that will tell it like it is in Alberta's right-of-centre politics: Anybody But the NDP Party.
Good luck with the name change.
Stuart McRae, Toronto
.........................................
Connections, money
Re Axing OMB Boosts Cities' Power – For Better Or For Worse (May 18): Alex Bozikovic writes that "local planning is shaped by boomers with connections and money."
If he is referring to the wealthy developers, then he is correct. If he is referring to the local residents, then I sharply disagree.
The cost to local residents, if they attempt to challenge large-scale construction in their areas, is in the vicinity of $100,000 (for lawyers/planners/traffic studies etc.). This cost is prohibitive to almost all communities. This, in view of the strong preference of the Ontario Municipal Board to rule in favour of the developers makes the effort almost futile.
Should local residents not have a say in alterations to their communities? Should the province make and enforce decisions without adequate community input?
The "car oriented suburbs" are partly that way due to decades of neglect of proper (rapid) public transit. Uncontrolled "intensification" with no provision of adequate infrastructure/transit is irresponsible and will increase the stress of increasing commute times for everyone.
Tom Weinberger, president, York Mills Leslie Residents Association, Toronto
.........................................
'Trump' spoken here
Surely it is time to bring back the rarely used noun, trumpery. According to the Oxford English Dictionary: practices or beliefs that are superficially or visually appealing but have little real value or worth. A very appropriate word for the next four years, or less – maybe much less?
William Emigh, Victoria
.........................................
I first came across the word "pusillanimous" when, many years ago, I read John Osborne's landmark 1956 play Look Back in Anger. It's used by the abusive protagonist Jimmy Porter to describe his wife. A powerful word, but until recently I haven't often had occasion to use it.
Now it comes to mind frequently, as time and again Republican politicians meekly capitulate to Donald Trump's bullying and autocratic behaviour. Have they no pride? Have they no shame?
Pusillanimity personified!
Leonard Conolly, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.
.........................................
Civil, not military
Re In Harm's Way (editorial, May 19): In redefining peacekeeping, why the obsession with linking it to military education and training, thereby continuing to view the world through the lens of DND mandate and missions?
If the government is genuinely interested in modernizing peacekeeping, it must focus on building our prevention, mediation and reconciliation capacities as part of its policy tool kit for prudent use at home and abroad. We sadly lack these PMR capabilities. That will require building a civil, not military, peace service.
Bill Bhaneja, Ottawa
.........................................
Tuck in
Re A World Of Breakfast Beckons (Facts & Arguments, May 16): Have you ever tried a parantha stuffed with boiled potatoes, cut onions, finely chopped green chiles, leaves of coriander and grated ginger, cooked tandoori-style and served with fresh curd and white, fresh unsalted butter, mango pickle – and lassi to drink on the side? If not, just try it once. It's a most favoured breakfast for millions of Punjabis the world over.
G.S. Dhiman, Brampton, Ont.