I am responding to PR - the devil is in the details, by Claire Hoy, published in Orangeville Citizen on November 6, 2008.

In reference to the recent election, Claire Hoy says that the supporters of electoral change had a selfish ax to grind—they didn't deserve to gain any more power.

I disagree. These people felt that the new Parliament should reflect how people actually voted across the country. Surely, Tories should not be excluded from the GTA, and Liberals from Calgary. The Greens, with nearly a million votes, deserve an appropriate representation.

Hoy is contemptuous of small parties, claiming that under PR they are bound to multiply and, with their narrow focus, would play a negative role. However, this fear has little to do with the reality in the vast majority of PR countries.

I fully agree with University of Toronto emeritus professor David Beatty that "On every criterion PR makes for better democracy." What are Hoy's academic qualifications to challenge this?

Hoy's main argument against PR is that the system features politicians who are not elected directly by the people. In fact, it is our current FPTP system that boils down to voting for parties, rather than for these parties' candidates, who are nominated by a process that is not in the least transparent, a process over which the electorate has absolutely no control. How can one call this direct election by the people? The people had absolutely no voice in the selection of these candidates. All their vote does is to confirm these partisan appointments.

Yes, indeed other countries with the FPTP system may have better turnouts than we do. Do these countries happen to have five parties, with the result that a huge number of votes are wasted and/or poorly distributed?

Israel with its multitude of religious parties is a very poor example of PR. Why flog this "dead horse"? The 70 or so PR democracies are doing quite well—why not discuss their achievements? By zeroing on Israel, the opponents of PR give themselves away; they have poor understanding of how PR really works.

So it took Germany a month to form a coalition. I see nothing undemocratic about this. On the contrary, haste makes waste, so the time taken in this case obviously resulted in an optimal coalition government.

Mr. Hoy is represented by Maria Minna, a Liberal MP. She may be of some help on strictly non-partisan issues. But does she agree with Hoy on various contentious matters? Hardly, as she has to toe her party line.

This writer is a former Progressive Conservative and is currently represented by Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative MP. I have had extensive correspondence with him on numerous issues, including the federal animal cruelty bill, and not once has he provided me with a satisfactory answer or made an attempt to understand my point of view.

That's not a democracy. It's nothing but a caricature of democracy.

K. Jean Cottam, PhD

Ottawa

- - o- -

Once again, Claire Hoy takes up the sword against proponents of proportional representation. As he has done before, he excoriates the "handwringers" who- he claimswish to " slant the system so that they can exercise more power than the electorate wants them to have."

On the contrary, supporters of change simply want Parliament to reflect the ways people actually voted across the country. They want Tories in the GTA, and Liberals in Calgary. They want the Green's almost one million votes, representing almost one million Canadian voters, to mean something. This is not some thuggish attempt to take over Ottawa and Hoy knows it. It's clear that Hoy disdains small parties. To him they are a nuisance and gum up the works. He falsely claims that under PR they would multiply like rabbits and "blackmail the governing party into catering to their narrow focus."

These inflammatory scenarios are speculative and do not reflect what happens in the vast majority of countries- Israel excepted- around the world that have PR. One more thing: Hoy claims that under a changed system, some MPs would be appointed, not elected, to office. This canard was tossed about in last year's referendum.

It was not true then and it is not true now.
Geoff. Rytell
Toronto

Re: "Vandals desecrate new Cenotaph"

What stupidity and lack of valour, respect and remembrance.

To "egg" our newly renovated Cenotaph is like spitting on someone's grave! Not only did the vandals, on October 31st, desecrate, but they never considered the sacrifices of parents, grandparents and more, let alone thousands of dollars and labour to renovate our memorial to the memory of those who fought for OUR FREEDOM.

We hope that "those who know" will step forward.

Perhaps it is time for cameras.
R. Elsdon
Past Commander
Royal Canadian Legion