Lots of people are ranting about the supposed "dangers" of the proposed runoffs. But what is wrong with requiring a candidate to win a majority of the votes in order to represent a constituency? Why should we settle for minority parties that depend on divide and rule tactics to win elections? Why remain wedded to the Westminster system which has brought so much frustration to voters in the past?
My colleagues have suggested a variant of the runoff system–the Instant Runoff Method (IRM). In the IRM the voters rank candidates and this information is used as follows: the candidate with the least number of first votes is eliminated and the ballots adjusted (ie if the candidate was first on a ballot, the second ranked is now placed first). This process is continued until a winner is determined.
However, I think that having a fresh runoff election is a better alternative. After the first election there is a chance for losing parties to form alliances and support one or other of the leading two parties. Then voters can decide which of the new groupings they will support.If the proposed legislation is not passed I want the Prime Minister to put the runoff question to a referendum. It is time for real democracy in this country.
Charles de Matas,
Trincity