Yes, this is my column and don't worry the coffee will dry up.

Specifically the NDP motion reads: That this House call upon the government to hold a referendum within one year to determine whether Canadians wish to replace the current electoral system with a system of proportional representation and, if so, to appoint a commission to consult Canadians on the preferred model of proportional representation and the process of implementation, with an implementation date no later than July 1, 2006.

During debate yesterday, government House Leader Don Boudria - whose Liberal party has benefited immensely from the distortions of our first-past-the-post (FPTP) electoral system where a simple plurality of votes wins - was at his blustery best in trying to shoot holes in Mr. Nystrom's motion, sadly he was firing partisan blanks.

Here are the facts: Only Canada and the United States still use the 19th century pure FPTP system to elect MPs and governments. Even the mother of all democracies, the UK, is moving away from this archaic and dare I write it, yes I will, anti-democratic system.

Think about it for a moment. In five provincial elections this year (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Quebec and PEO) - and for sure Ontario tomorrow - the winning party has won between 36% and 54% of the popular vote but has routinely won 48% to 85% of the seats in the legislature. And then these parties exercise power - sometimes in the most arrogant fashion imaginable - relatively unchecked for four or five years.

At the federal level, the Chrétien Liberals have consistently won 40% of the vote which has translated into 60% or more of the seats with 100% power. It is a tyranny of the minority when a majority of Canadians vote against the governing party yet their votes are essentially wasted.

Other than North America, every other industrialized democracy has adopted some form of proportional representation (PR) where the percentage of votes cast for a party more or less relates to the percentage of the seats that party earns in the legislature. It can be mixed with constituency representation and other elements unique to our Canadian system.

Of course Mr. Boudria and his colleagues threw up the usual straw men of Italy and Israel as reason to avoid any sort of PR or change to our current electoral system. The instability of these political environments is a function of the political history in Italy and Israel, not the voting system. This ignores the other 80 plus countries that effectively employ some degree of PR including every emerging democracy that has risen from the ashes of the old Soviet Union and communist bloc.

The other bogus arguments trotted out against the NDP motion yesterday included the spectre of instability as smaller parties could wield more power in a multi-party parliament. Even if there is an iota of substance to this argument, after twenty years of arrogant majority rule by Liberal and PC governments, a little uncertainty might not be a bad thing.

Voting reform is also an ideal solution for our friends in the PC and Canadian Alliance parties. Let's face it, we'll probably find life on other planets before these two parties can even agree on their disagreements.

But alas my 600 words are up which yields just one question for Mr. Boudria and his anti-voting reform friends. Why is it okay for the Prime Minister to wield power with less than 50% of the vote, but to win the leadership of his own party - or any party for that matter - the bare minimum acceptable is 50% plus one. For more information of voting reform readers should visit www.fairvotecanada.org.