Well, it's an improvement. I guess that's the main thing. I'm saying that we've had chances before. People seem hesitant about this big change, and I'm just saying that the ranked ballot is easy to implement and it does make an improvement. There will be varying opinions as to the degree of improvement. It's not proportional, clearly not, but it's definitely not first past the post anymore.
Take Ms. May and the Green Party; you could try voting for them, knowing that your second preference will still take effect.
Arend Lijphart from San Diego talked to you. He was interviewed by the CBC, and he said that the ranked ballot would be better than first past the post and it wouldn't squeeze out, he thought, smaller parties, which is one of the things you hear and that I don't quite get. If first past the post hasn't squeezed out small parties, then why would a ranked ballot? With a ranked ballot, you can at least take chance on a party, knowing that your second preference will still count. I agree with him; I don't think it will squeeze out small parties.
My point is that I just don't want to lose another chance to improve the system. I'm not against maybe moving to some form of proportional representation, but maybe that's step number two at some point. I don't like it that there's no representation except Liberals in Atlantic Canada, for example. I don't think that's good. There's a lot of blue representation in Saskatchewan and Alberta, for example. The Green Party is under-represented, for example. I don't like that, but let's not walk away with no improvement. I believe the ranked ballot is an improvement over what we have.