Along with three others, Gibb argues that the "winner takes all" system violates the Charter guarantees of freedom of expression and equality. "The current voting system discriminates against smaller parties and minorities," he says. "If you cast your vote for a smaller party, you are essentially throwing your vote away. This severely limits freedom of expression."

Gibb also believes that the system is especially slanted against anglophone minorities, who tend to live in highly concentrated areas. Noting that as a result of these "linguistic ghettoes," fewer anglophones are voting, he says, "In the referendum, when every vote counted, the anglophone and allophone votes kept Quebec in Canada. If we don't use a skewed system for a referendum, why would we use one for a general election?"

Under the current system, because of vote-splitting between the various parties, a majority of the electorate could vote against the eventual winner. Gibb points out that this could have serious implications: "In the next election, the Parti Quebecois could be elected to govern with less than 50% of the vote, and then they could call another referendum." ---Some form of proportional representation

Although he notes that he and the other plaintiffs are not requesting any specific change to the electoral system, Gibb prefers some form of proportional representation, where smaller parties who receive a threshold level of votes are represented accordingly in the national assembly. For example, a party that receives 25% of the vote would have 25% of the seats in the assembly.

If the court ultimately rules that the system is unconstitutional, the province would have one year to remedy it. Gibb notes that this case could affect the next provincial election, as the current administration has until March, 2008, to call an election. He also points out that it could affect the entire country. "Quebec uses the same voting system as the rest of Canada. If it is found unconstitutional, the other provinces may need to examine making changes."

The provincial government has set up a commission to explore changing the electoral system. According to Gibb, however, this commission is the latest in a succession of commissions that "table a report but never do anything." This victory, however, "ups the ante considerably. Now that the court has agreed that there may be something to our argument, the commission has to take their job seriously." ---Briefs requested, but not from Aylmer citizens

The commission has called for the public to submit briefs on the matter by December 20. However, Gibb believes that once again, anglophones face an uphill battle. He notes that the Quebec government placed an ad requesting public briefs in a rural English-language newspaper of the Outaouais, but the ad was only in French. Quebec refused to place it in the Bulletin d'Aylmer in either language, preferring to advertise in an Ottawa weekly.