Re: "Hogwash to proportional representation, two-stage balloting the way to go," (The Hill Times, May 16, p. 9). The "party list" is this week’s hot PR (proportional representation) myth. However, the two-ballot runoff is somewhat unique. Ms. Copps' dismissal of electoral reform as irrelevant to voters explains the irrelevance of much of the content. Ms. Copps prefers real majorities—which we rarely see in Canada under FPTP. She would conjure some up with another winner-take-all voting system—two ballot run-offs—requiring two elections instead of one. Winner-take-all voting systems are pretty much all their same—very poor in converting voters’ intentions into seats, as the number of seats gained by any party is disproportionate to its popular vote share. Wide regional disparities result in Canada. Notwithstanding that a party list proportional voting system has never been recommended for Canada, and that, the proposed PR systems are all open list, (meaning that all candidates face the voters), Copps assumes that all proportional voting systems are more party-centric than winner-take-all systems. Most Canadians would find it hard to imagine any system where political parties exert more control over their MPs than under the present winner-take-all FPTP system. Rightly so. Parliament has become largely irrelevant as decision-making is done behind closed doors, except as a bit of theatre where the government rolls out its plans. Majority governments under proportional voting systems are usually a coalition of two or more parties. PR candidates are nominated by ridings associations or party conventions, just as they are now. Kindly explain how parties operating within a coalition, in full public view, could possibly exert more control over their MPs than a winner-take-all government with 100 per cent control. Sounds like hogwash to me. P.E. McGrail Brampton, Ont.