Ban big money

I am very pleased and like the subsidy too. not sure about partial expense reimbousement. This letter by me was published in the TC yesterday Dear Sir, I am very pleased to see meaningful campaign finance reform and in particular the per vote subsidy. Yes, it requires taxpayers to pay for something they do not want ( kind of like the union dues check-off, maybe?) , but the per vote subsidy serves to partly offset the pernicious effect of the first-past-the- post electoral system. One's vote is no longer wasted, as one’s previously wasted vote would at least earn a dollar or two for one’s chosen party. Since I believe that we will never ever have proportional representation in Canada, this subsidy takes on extra importance. In fact we could offer the potential abolition of the subsidy in a referendum on proportional representation. Some of those opposed to proportional representation might possibly be swayed by the abolition of the voting subsidy. Kudos to British Columbia’s new government for making the system a bit fairer for all. Yours truly, David Pearce

Official response from submitted

We appreciate your support David! Thank you for writing to the Times Colonist :) 


How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Kelsey Reid
    responded with submitted 2017-10-05 13:33:49 -0700
  • David Pearce
    published this page in Ban big money bill 2017-09-21 16:00:09 -0700
Donate Get Involved