Six reasons to say ‘No’ to electoral reform, Hepburn, Oct. 31

Regrettably, Bob Hepburn spreads the usual misinformation about the idea of introducing some degree of proportionality to our electoral system.

Either you believe in democracy or you don’t. Any electoral system that gives a political party a representation in parliament that is far higher, or far lower, than it deserves compared to the popular vote, cannot be regarded as truly democratic.

It’s true that a purely proportional system, such as obtains in Israel and Italy, leads to disastrously splintered parliaments. But no one in Canada is recommending such a defective system. Most advocates of reform call for a mixed-member-proportional (MMP) system, such as exists in Scotland, Wales, New Zealand, Germany and many other countries.

In such systems, half or more of the seats represent constituencies, won by first-past-the-post (as in our current system), and the remaining, proportional seats are allocated to give the parties their correct representation in parliament.

New Zealand introduced its MMP system in 1996, amid predictions of disaster. Yet it has worked so well that a national referendum in 2011 handed it a healthy majority in favour of keeping it.

How curious that Hepburn neglected to mention New Zealand — a fellow Commonwealth country — in his column.