Sometimes opponents claim that proportional representation is “bad for rural voters. Cities will have too much power, they claim. Or rural seats will “disappear”.

These misleading attempts to pit rural voters against urban ones appears to be a strategy of opponents of fair voting.

Let’s set the record straight: proportional representation is good for all voters, rural and urban.

No matter where you live, or who you vote for, you deserve to help elect an MP who shares your values. That’s the basic principle of proportional representation. All models of proportional representation for Canada maintain strong local representation as a top priority.

a

Problems with winner-take-all voting for for rural and urban voters

a

First-past-the-post shuts voters out. Safe seats make voting feel futile.



In Alberta, Bow River has been a safe Conservative seat since 1958. Who represents those who didn’t vote Conservative?



Vancouver-Kingsway has been held by the NDP in every election except one since 1956. If you vote Liberal, Conservative or Green in Vancouver-Kingsway, who represents you?

As many people have observed, first-past-the-post can create a sense of futility for many voters. For many voters in safe seats, their votes are physically counted, but they never actually count.

Contrast this with the 95% of voters in Sweden and New Zealand who were able to cast votes that helped elect representatives to their legislatures. Proportional representation will give every BC voter – rural and urban – a voice.