To the editor:

I害羞草研究所檝e just read Rosalie Chalmers害羞草研究所� letter regarding her favouring a vote for FPTP. After re-reading it, it occurred to me that what she has to say has absolutely nothing to do with voting systems, contrary to what the headline reads.

She provides some background on Allan Mullen and how the speaker suggested that he be hired, but was refused by all party leaders. She also refers to the suspension of the sergeant-at-arms and the legislative clerk and all the secrecy surrounding that turn of events. I too, am concerned about how these events came about.

However, I fail to see how these events have anything to do with the voting system or whatever party happens to be in power. These events could have happened under any political party or voting system. To use them as an excuse to vote 害羞草研究所淣o害羞草研究所� on the PR question is to be out of touch and uninformed, and maybe even a touch of fearmongering?

To use her argument, one could say vote 害羞草研究所渘o害羞草研究所� on FPTP because the previous Liberal governments were involved in numerous scandals, selling of BC assets, raiding ICBC and BC Hydro profits, falsifying provincial budgets, destroying the BC education system, underfunding provincial health, and the list goes on害羞草研究所� Liberal governments elected by FPTP. Based on that same argument, I will vote 害羞草研究所測es害羞草研究所� on Proportional Representation.

So again, what害羞草研究所檚 the connection between the events that took place in the legislature, and what method people will use to vote? I don害羞草研究所檛 see it.

Jack Fonseca

Kelowna