Editor,
Just as we had predicted, the ‘no’ side in the upcoming referendum on proportional representation are throwing out all the rules, especially when it comes to third-party spending. Going over-budget and paying fines is just another way of doing business for the multi-millionaire represented ‘no side’.
This outrage is the very reason we need electoral reform. Even though the new provincial government has placed new strict limits on campaign spending, third advertising parties can overspend and simply pay the fines, as a cost of doing business. With proportional representation (PR) all that third-party spending becomes moot because it will be a proportionality of the government that passes bills, not false majorities.
Who are these extremist single member plurality (SMP)/ first past the post (FPTP) advocates? First of all, there’s well known Liberal adviser Jim Shepard, who’s been placing and paying for full page ads in every daily and weekly newspaper in the province. Surely, he’s already spent the ‘no’ side’s $500,000, allotted to both sides of the referendum.
Next, we have American lobbyist and Republican Dimitri Pantazopoulos, a Harper aid who also worked on Doug Ford’s campaign. Not to mention, Nick Kouvalis who was Doug Ford and Kelly Leitch’s campaign’s manager.
Then there’s the ‘no’ side’s point man, Bill Tielman. Bill continues to translate false information such as: rural areas won’t be represented — false. Fringe parties will control the government — false.
But the best one is he doesn’t think that you, the constituent, is smart enough to make a wise choice. The reality is, that’s what he’s hoping. Because we know that informed voters are wise voters and PR only makes sense. Because every vote is represented and through collaboration and consultation the best policies are born, like the Canada Health Act and Canada Pension. These are only two of a myriad of policies created when we had a minority government and all parties were forced to collaborate.
So don’t fall prey to the plethora of misinformation being purported by the ‘no’ side. The reality is if the ‘yes’ side wins, the third party proponents of the ‘no’ side lose money, and that’s what it’s all about to them.
Arthur Green