Hey, Battling Bloggers: MMP — Mixed-Member Proportional representation — is one of the most important issues voters will have to consider in this election, and the one they know the least about. A referendum is asking Ontarians if they want to abandon our first-past-the-post system, in favour of a system that will take the popular vote into consideration in the allotment of seats in the legislature.
So our question to you is, who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose if Mixed-Member Proportional representation goes forward?
Discuss...
Jacqueline Alderton of the Liberals: MMP — Letting Ontarians Decide
Who has the most to gain? Single issue parties that have broader appeal. Who has the most to lose? Potentially, the majority or a sizeable minority of people who are on the other side of that issue. Two or three people could hold up important legislation that many more people want. On the other hand, two or three people could help give voice to important concerns, important constituencies, and be the catalysts for needed change. I think it’s great that the McGuinty government created a Citizens’ Assembly to study different ways to renew our democracy. I think it’s even better that people are thinking about MMP and our democracy. At the end of the day, the referendum question is giving us all good reason to take another look at our democracy, and we’re either going to vote to reform it or we’re going to validate the system we have. Either way, it's about our voices being heard, and our vote shaping our political process. We all gain when there's greater citizen engagement.
Joan Tintor of the Progressive Conservatives: Citizens Likely to Lose While Back Roomers Gain under MMP
In narrow political terms, “fringe” parties would gain from MMP. In a larger way, however, voters would lose, while unelected advisors and party power brokers would gain.
The most-cited objection to MMP is that the “List” Members would be chosen from lists put forward by the parties. Parties would decide how those candidates are selected, but must disclose what the process is. Some have raised fears that the parties will choose hacks, fundraisers, defeated candidates, or others who are owed a payoff of some kind.
The introduction of the List Members would result in two tiers of MPPs: those who are accountable to a constituency, and those who are not. The List Members will have no constituents to serve, no local events to attend, no calls to make to unresponsive bureaucracies. Sounds like, well, the Senate. Of course, List Members would be free to do worthwhile policy work, as the Senate does, but they would equally be free to do politics full time on the taxpayers’ dime.
The motive of marginal parties in supporting MMP is that the bar for entry to the Legislature is high. The bar should be high.
When the ADQ was leading in the seat count the night of the Québec election, I wondered what ADQ leader Mario Dumont was thinking. Something along the lines of “Holy @#$%! I may have to implement my promises and run the government!” I should think. That is precisely the fear that should govern the words and actions of every party leader, every day, not just during campaigns. This helps protect voters against outlandish promises, though it is admittedly not foolproof.
Speaking of Dalton McGuinty, despite having initiated this proposal – that has cost $11 million thus far – he remains strangely reticent about it.
Last month, John Tory announced his ideas to restore Ontarians’ confidence in elected politicians. These include having more free votes, improving freedom of information, and more family-friendly Legislature hours.
Fortunately, Tory already has some credibility on this issue, having allowed PC MPPs to vote freely approximately 25% of the time since becoming leader. He and the PC caucus have also succeeded in improving the decorum in the Legislative chamber. Tory’s initial attempts to do so were ridiculed by veteran Liberal foghorns Dwight Duncan and George Smitherman. But he and the PC caucus persevered and succeeded, a fact for which most Liberal MPPs are probably thankful.
Jordan Berger of the NDP: Electoral Reform Now!
The principal losers from MMP would be the two mainstream parties which explains, in large part, their explicit and implicit opposition.
Neither the Liberals nor Conservatives can hope to attract a majority of votes cast and thus First Past the Post (FRTP) is their only chance at winning a clear mandate to govern.
Both parties are also electoral machines that contain diverse constituencies under a single banner. A form of Proportional Representation would greatly increase their vulnerability to splintering, but this is especially true of the Liberals. One suspects that an end to FPTP would challenge their only raison d'etre — to win.
The NDP may well face the same sort of internal pressures and a future schism. However, since the main pressure we have faced in recent elections comes from dishonest Liberal appeals to vote "strategically", a move to Proportional Representation would increase our voice and influence.
But there's a much more important reason to support the referendum: to boost the effectiveness and legitimacy of the electoral system itself. As many have suggested, perhaps the biggest threat to Canadian democracy is voter apathy. Many citizens do not vote because of the paucity of choice and outcomes that do not reflect their wishes. Proportional Representation addresses this fundamental problem in our system. What true democrat would oppose giving voters more choices and an effective voice at the ballot box?
Chris Tindal of the Green Party: Exciting Opportunity to Make Democracy Better
For me, the most important thing to remember about the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) recommendation is that it was designed by people, not just politicians. 103 randomly-selected Ontarians worked for eight months on our behalf studying, consulting, and deliberating on which voting system is best for Ontario. They were not beholden to any political party or special interest — they were just everyday Ontarians trying to make the best decision they could. And in the end, by an overwhelming vote of 94-8, they decided that it's time for change.
It's also interesting to note that MMP is supported across the political spectrum, by Conservatives like Hugh Segal, Liberals like Carolyn Bennett, and New Democrats like Ed Broadbent. Therefore, we must conclude that the people most likely to benefit from this new system are voters themselves.
Here's what I mean by that. Under MMP, we would each get two votes: one for a local candidate, and one for a party. So, we could decide to vote for a good candidate but not their party, or vice versa. In this way, MMP gives voters more choice. Then, the percentage of the vote each party wins determines how many seats they get, so that 10% of the vote would mean approximately 10% of the seats (unlike our current system). In this way, MMP produces fairer results. Finally, voters would be able to hold every party accountable or go to any party's "list MPPs" with a request, since the fact that every vote counts forces parties to work hard for every vote in every region of the province. In this way, MMP provides for stronger representation.
Of course, no system is perfect. Opponents of MMP are quick to point out its flaws, conveniently ignoring all of the flaws with our current system (most notably that a party can, with less than 40% of the vote, get 60% of the seats and 100% of the power). They also ignore the fact that no group of people is more familiar with the advantages and flaws of both our current system and MMP than the Citizens' Assembly that recommended the change.
What's worse, some opponents of MMP resort to fear tactics and distortions, making claims about MMP that are not substantiated by any examples from countries that use the system (New Zealand, Germany, Scotland, and Wales). They do this because they know, as we learned from the Citizens' Assembly process, that when Ontarians learn all of the facts about MMP, they overwhelmingly favour it to the status quo. October 10 is an exciting opportunity to make democracy better.
Well, my first reaction to the foregoing is to reiterate my comment that the bar for party entry to the Legislature should be high.
But seriously, stribe37 (if that's your REAL name -- sorry, couldn't resist) says: "if they follow precedent from other countries who use MMP [they] would also draw up some regional ridings." But I have read the description of how MMP would work on the Referendum Ontario website and "regional ridings" are not part of the proposal that will be before voters Oct. 10. And if it were, then we would have "Super List Members" who could claim to speak for regions already represented by directly-elected Local Members. It sounds like the pro-MMP set has a lot of secret ideas and plans that would unfold like a pop-up book in the event this gets the go-ahead. Sounds like the last four years under Dalton McGuinty.
The gist of stribe37's arguments seems to be that MMP would be great, if the big parties would just play along and cover up for all its obvious shortcomings. This reminds me of the people who said communism would work, if only the masses really wanted it to.
Finally, I am puzzled by stribe37's assertion that McGuinty is smart for keeping his mouth shut about a process he himself set in motion. It seems the concept of leadership in Ontario has become so degraded that leaders are attacked for taking positions, but thought clever for figuring out when to skate, bob, weave, flip flop, or just clam up.
posted by Joan Tintor
on 17 September 2007 at 7:40 PM
Sorry, I don't like to have such a big foot print in the comments, but Frank de Jong and MMP have just jumped the shark in de Jong's interview with Steve Paikin on TVO. De Jong said words to the effect of: if people could vote for the Green Party and felt that their votes would count, then Greenpeace demonstrators wouldn't tie themselves to ship propellers and risk their lives to bring environmental issues to public attention. Say goodnight, Fonzie. Replay at 11.
posted by Joan Tintor
on 17 September 2007 at 8:31 PM
Believe it or not, elections are not about winners and losers.
They are about choosing our representatives, and ALL of us are entitled to representation, including the "losers".
With MMP, every voter will get a party vote that actually helps to elect someody, every time.
Every vote counts, no matter where you vote or how you vote.
Every party will elect MPPs in every region. Every voter will have access to MPPs from every party.
Everybody wins. Nobody loses.
Wayne Smith
posted by WayneSmith on 18 September 2007 at 2:48 AM
The case for bringing about reform is to find ways for improving our overall democracy in Ontario. The MMP is being proposed as a way to achieve that goal and should be assessed against that goal, not on which party may potentially benefit or lose under the proposed system. By ensuring that the number of MPP's for each party more accurately reflects the aggregate of voter's intentions can only be an improvement. Since we currently do not know as to whether voters just wanted change in the last election or whether they truly wanted a Liberal majority is hard to know. But we do know is that a majority of voters did not vote Liberal but they won a majority of votes.
The MMP proposal is a reasonable compromise between constituency based representation due to our historical development and geography and the need for the overall numbers of MPP's to more accurately the number of votes cast for each party. That is a benefit to our democracy.
There are other benefits that might not be as apparent. For example having a group of MPP's that are not constituency based means that Standing Committees of the Legislature could meet on Fridays or more regularly when the Legislature is not having a regular sitting. That means more people and organizations could provide comments on legislation and proposed policies. Most regular observers of the legislature would agree that generally the legislation that goes to public hearings ends up being the better legislation passed because it recieves far more scrutiny. That is also better for democracy.
One of the largest flaws in this entire process is that the Citizen's Assembly did not recommend two options for change rather than just one. That way we could be assured of some democratic reform occurring rather than potentially delaying any reform until 2020.
Of course, if the referendum fails, then the only democratic reform that Dalton McGuinty would have implemented is a fixed election date. The fixed election date has such a minimal effect on our democracy that it really should not be considered a reform but an administrative change to our election process.
I also believe that Jordan is wrong in assuming MMP will increase voter participation. Voter participation has gone down since we eliminated full enumeration in each election. Until we bring that back, voter turnout will continue to be in the low 60's.
posted by Oxford on 18 September 2007 at 10:58 PM
Actually.. its not my real name.. but we were asked to put in a username, Joan, and thats what I used. However, if you'd like my real name, I'll leave it for you at the end of this piece.
Nowhere did I say in my original piece that Dalton was being smart in being silent on this issue of declaring the use of democratic methods. I'd like him to declare today he wants to pick List MPP's in that manner.. That was just a red herring you were throwing out there (which you're good at, since I've had to read your blog at times) to avoid having to answer for John Tory, who apparently has no intention of supporting democratic methods of picking list MPP's - or he wishes to fear-monger over MMP. He can change that impression by making a public declaration and showing some leadership on the issue.
There's nothing secret about MMP Joan - I just stated that evidence in other countries completely dismisses the scare tactics you and other people who are against electoral reform throw out there. You've yet to justify any of your remarks with factual evidence.
- Scott Tribe, Site Administrator, Progressive Bloggers, and co-founder of Liberals For MMP
(Satisfied Joan? Hopefully the fact you know my name lends to a far better response then your last 2 attempts).
posted by stribe37 on 19 September 2007 at 11:35 AM
The primary beneficiaries of MMP will be the "friends and insiders" of politicial parties. For a little snapshot of what might happen, go ask someone inside the Green Party how all the money they have received federally has been spent.
The nationalization of our federal political parties is actually an excellent case in point. The election financing reforms, which had the net effect of nationalizing our political parties, has pumped literally millions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of an avowed separatist party that doesn't run candidates outside of one province, and has given large sums of taxpayer money to the Greens, who continue to poll in the low single digits. Now we are going to give these niche parties a voice inside Parliament? Yikes.
The political junkies who love MMP forget that for most citizens, politics is more of an annoyance than a hobby. The more confusing you make the voting system, the less likely they are to turn out. This can be seen in California, where the ballot is often crowded by multiple referendums and initiatives. The more crowded the ballot, the lower the turnout.
Political organizers, lobbyists, and ad agencies will love MMP -- anything that creates more elections and more volatility in the system means more work for them. I have yet to hear, however, a middle class taxpayer anywhere say, "You know what? I just don't get the opportunity to vote enough."
posted by DennisP on 19 September 2007 at 1:22 PM
Jacqueline Alderton comments that “we’re either going to vote to reform it or we’re going to validate the system we have.” So that’s why they changed the question away from the normal Yes for change or NO to reject it. Now, I understand. The political community is seeking to validate the system we have.
Joan Tintor writes that “voters would lose” under MMP and those lists, stating strong concerns that are issues in MMP but not in FPTP’s overly simple and slightly less than fair representation by districts. good for her.
Jordan Berger expects splintering of the big three parties and concludes with the question “What true democrat would oppose giving voters more choices and an effective voice at the ballot box?” I expect that voters will get more chances to choose wrong under MMP. I don’t see how choosing 30% of a parliament by looking at lists of dozens of names, and guessing which ones and how many will actually be elected from each party can be an informed vote on representation. Democracy relies on each citizen doing his or her part. It is simplest for each to send one representative who they trust and respect. I happily join with everybody in my district, and together we vote, and together we decide. Even with a plurality (which is a problem that this MMP will not fix), I can handle the inspection of the few candidates who offer to represent all of us in our district. In a big place like Ontario, I must trust the people of other districts to do the same, and I must respect their decision too. When my district gets floods, my factory closes, my roads need repair … I need representation that feels it too.
Chris Tindal opines that the Assembly was not “beholden to any political party or special interest” … that’s because the special interests were right in there with the Assembly every day, leading it by the nose. And regarding the comment that “the people most likely to benefit from the new system are voters themselves” because a number of politicians support it … what am I to think? If you tell us that it’s good for politicians, I guess it must be good for the rest of us too. Tindal continues to lay it on thick with assertions that MMP produces fairer results for parties and stronger representation of parties in the legislature. And he throws in the red flag comment about a majority getting 100% of the power. There comes a time in democracies when majorities must rule. MMP wants to leave that to the last minute, in the legislature where politicians decide for us. What this MMP refuses to do is let the people in each district decide on their representation with a majority. That’s where democracy must reside, with the people. When we accept plurality, as the politicians insist that we do, then let politicians suffer the same consequences that we do when too many of one kind happen to get in.
As for the comments posted so far, I take exception to Wayne Smith spitting out the Fair Vote Ontario mantra that every party counts and every party wins. Clearly they don't. everybody that lost in FPTP voting will lose the same way in those MMP districts. Voters whose vote for parties that don't make threshold will not count in the way that they hope. Because of the Hare formula, each lost vote actually helps all the parties that make threshold. When many parties lose and 10% of the party votes are lost, a 45% party gets a majority ... that's a lot like what we have had lately. Elections are a time for the people to decide. Each voter makes up his or her mind. They vote and together they make up the district's mind, and then togehter the districts make up the province's mind. It is all about the people winning and losing, but let's have a fair fight.
posted by R Anderson on 19 September 2007 at 1:23 PM
Party insiders already have enormous influence on the outcome of nomination battles, but the machinations are usually kept out of public view. At least with MMP, voters will have the opportunity to reward or punish a Party for the quality of the lists they present and the transparency of the process used to nominate list candidates.
There would also be a strong inclination to nominate candidates who are known throughout the province. And voters can cast their lot with their preferred Party rather than sift through the list candidates on the ballot.
The notion of two-tier representatives needs to be challenged as well. Having extra MPPs without fixed geographical ridings would allow parties to deploy their elected representatives throughout the province as needed. I also like the idea of regional offices for parties and these could be the home-base for list MPPs. In any event, voters would remain empowered to judge the efforts of political parties in addressing their concerns, be they regional, local, or international, but MMP would greatly increase their capacity to effectively reward or punish our political parties.
Today, First Past the Post systematically under-represents regional voting trends. For example, 20% of Torontonians could vote Tory and 20% of Eastern Ontarians could vote NDP. Unless those votes are concentrated in a few ridings, the likely outcome would be no Tory representation in Toronto and no NDP representation in Eastern Ontario. This is hardly fair and does no favour to parties seeking to represent all of Ontario.
Finally, while I do believe MMP would lead to a higher vote turnout, I strongly support Oxford's comments about enumeration. As a door-to-door campaigner the inaccuracy of our voters lists drives me to distraction. And surprise, surprise, it is not the homeowner who tends to be missing but rather the student, the working poor, and the otherwise "disenfranchised" apartment dweller. It is makes a mockery of the mandate of Elections Ontario when they are not given the resources and direction to perform a full enumeration before each election.
posted by Jordan Berger
on 20 September 2007 at 11:16 AM
The supporters of the proposed partial proportional representation system ,"mixed member proportional" (MMP), being proposed in the referendum being held with the provincial election this fall are urging the primacy of Political Parties as the primary vehicle of the citizens' voice. The point being that the political parties would directly appoint from their submitted list of candidates a significant proportion of our representatives in the Provincial Assembly based on each parties' proportion of the vote. Having been involved with party politics for eighteen years with the Liberal Party, I consider such a trust in political parties a breathtaking act of faith. I commend the faith while questioning the object of such faith.
I do not know of a succinct nor definitive definition of democracy. No honest person does. I do know that at the core of a functioning and successful democracy is responsibility. I, as a voter and as a citizen, must know who is responsible to me for what and how to enforce that responsibility. Currently in our Parliamentary democracy, this is clear. My Member of Parliament or of Provincial Assembly from my Riding is responsible to me and the other citizens of my community and communities which comprise our Riding. I know who he or she is and where their offices are. I can if I so desire follow their decisions and their efforts they make on my behalf no matter what party they are from or who I voted for. If I am so inclined I can meet with them without travelling to Toronto or to Ottawa . The candidate from our Riding with the most votes wins. Every vote matters. A single vote could, and does, make the difference. The lines of responsibility are clear and visible. The Member is responsible to me and to my fellow citizens of our Riding. Proportional representation supplants a citizen being responsible to their fellow citizens for a faceless and nameless corporate entity, a Political Party. A Member will no longer be responsible to citizens but to the compiler of the 'Party lists' .
Exacerbating this dilution of responsibility, to gain a parliamentary seat from the proportional list will require thousands upon thousands of votes from across the Province thus diminishing the value of each vote. To change the composition of the Assembly, and thus the balance of power, will require tectonic shifts of electoral will instead of subtle shifts. This will make the political system more stagnant and less responsive to our ever evolving economy and society. The politics of stagnation will replace our current dynamic system.
This shift to a stagnant system will diminish the very value of elections as any single election will only marginally shift the composition of the Provincial Assembly. Elections will simply become intermissions in between party negotiations further reducing the accountability of political decision makers to us, voters and citizens. Voters and elections will become almost supernumerary to the obtainment of political power. Political power will depend on negotiations and party deal making, not votes and voters.
In an age when cynicism towards political parties is rife it seems counter intuitive to promote a system which only further entrenches and institutionalizes these political parties as the primary, not to say suffocating, political forum of our society. MMP is a leap away from responsible and open government and a leap away from politics by citizens of citizens for citizens.
As mentioned, I have been involved with the Liberal Party for eighteen years. However off hand, I do not know the name of the current executive director of the Ontario Liberal Party nor of the Conservative Party nor of the New Democratic Party for that matter. If the supporters of MMP have their way, we all better start learning their names!
On October 10th, we need to vote No to MMP, William Spotton.
posted by William Spotton on 20 September 2007 at 12:42 PM
William Spotton's assertion that the decision on who will be on the lists under a MMP system will be decided by the top staff person in each party is clearly wrong and also does not take into account how the current system works for approving candidates.
Firstly, it is important to note that under the current system all the candidates of the major parties still have to be approved by the party apparatus. The parties require their candidates to sign a paper indicating they do not have any serious skeletons in their closets, that they understand and support the party's platform, and that in the end the party has the ultimate say on whether they remain the candidate for violating party rules or something becomes public that is not in the best interests of the party.
Secondly, the reality is that most people cast their vote based on the party leader and policy, not the local candidate. The last information I saw indicated that good candidates can influence the vote by 10 %. Therefore, while the merits of having local representation are valid, most voters consider other criteria and information more relevant in their decision making.
Thirdly, all the parties are going to have to announce who their list of candidates will be for the non-riding seats prior to the election. Pressure from the media, the public and party members will require that. While I suspect all the parties will have different processes, the end result will be to have candidates who represent a broad, cross section of the provinces demographics. The lists will likely have more women, visible minorities, and other areas not represented by the party (i.e. PC's might have more Toronto names because they have only a few seats)
Fourthly, the party and leader that picks only party hacks who do not have other strong credentials will be taking a huge risk in taking the voters for granted and actually losing support.
Fifth, since these liste members are going to be elected by voters they will be accountable to you. Between 1-800 numbers, e-mail, text messaging and regular mail, all politicians are accountable. (How do two senators represent their entire state in the U.S. Senate) If you don not think they are effective, vote them out next time!
posted by Oxford on 20 September 2007 at 3:17 PM
I'm amazed that William Spotton claims to think that "primacy of Political Parties" is the basis of the Citizens' Two-Vote MMP model. I might charitably assume he has not yet read their report.
"The Assembly believes that Ontario’s current system is limited in the choices it offers voters: The ballot allows us to mark only a single X. Many voters have been faced with the dilemma of wanting to support a local candidate but not his or her party, or wanting to support a party but not its local candidate. A Mixed Member Proportional system allows voters to vote for a local candidate AND for a party."
"The new system provides two kinds of accountability: At election time, voters can hold their local representatives accountable AND hold parties accountable by directly determining the share of seats each party wins."
Today most MPPs are elected because of their party label. But in the last New Zealand election 20% of their locally-elected MPs were of a different party than the party that carried the riding. An independent mandate. And even with the other 80%, the morning after the election everyone can see if they ran ahead of their party: more individual accountability. Less party control.
Sure, the 30% list MPPs will be still elected by the party label, on the party vote side of the ballot, where every vote counts -- fairer results than today. But the 70% locally-elected MPPs will find less party primacy. Get it now?
Also, "political parties would directly appoint from their submitted list of candidates" is not so. Their nominated list cannot be fiddled with after the election. If a party's voters elect 10 list MPPs, Elections Ontario declares elected the top ten on the list (by-passing any who have already won local seats.)
Our present MPPs are elected on a party label. Are they "faceless and nameless?" In every MMP jurisdiction, List MPPs open constituency offices where they live, not just in Toronto or Ottawa. Why? Because, with only 30% of list MPPs, list seats are fragile things: if the party wins more seats next time (resulting from those "tectonic shifts" in seats that follow from subtle shifts in votes, something only William Spotton finds desireable), the tectonic shift will be corrected by the party winning fewer list seats. So good List MPPs, if they boosts their party's fortunes, will have worked themselves out of a job if they don't win locally next time. So they'll be the best shadow local MPP they can be during their term as a List MPP. Far from faceless and nameless. All of which was already well-known to John Gerretsen when he was elected from Kingston in 1995, the only Liberal MPP elected by 137,000 Liberal voters between Toronto and Ottawa, facing across the floor of the House a massive Mike Harris majority -- elected by less than half the voters. No wonder he decided right then that Ontario needs a good dose of proportional representation -- not the pure model of his native Netherlands, but the more stable Germany model he also knew well. I hope Minister Gerretsen gets his wish, and we vote for MMP.
posted by Wilf Day on 21 September 2007 at 3:05 PM
Candidates can win and lose, voters shouldn't.
In the current system, half or more of Ontarions cast votes that didn't elect anyone. So they are represented solely by an MPP they did not vote for. This creates winners and losers in a riding. Someone will say, 'this riding is sooooo Liberal, or soooo Conservative, or NDP,' and when they say it they feel disempowered. They support another party different to what the largest minority does. They skulk around sometimes, not wanting to admit their affiliation. And yet, the riding that is sooooo 'Whatever' - maybe 55% of the people didn't vote 'Whatever'.
Candidates and parties win and lose. Voters are not losers, and every vote should have equal weight. The 3% bar is an exception to that, but it makes sense to make a party work hard enough and get enough broad support to be serious.
MMP gives voters more power. We can turf parties, we can keep their good local representatives at the same time. We can reject bad MPP's, while continuing our support for the party. We can vote together province-wide on the party vote, we don't have to be clumped in arbitrary ridings with our neighbours, god love 'em, who we love but don't have the same politics. We don't have to conform, we don't have mix our loyalties, we don't have to vote for weak candidates to support our party. Every party and candidate will have to work harder for our vote. We'll be forced to pay more attention.
And this is what the NO side is afraid of. They're afraid of US. They don't think we can understand the ballot, they think we'll elect radical parties, they think we'll accept list MPP's that are unaccountable, they think we can't handle representation of who we are. They think we need to be lorded over by false majorities to ensure 'strong government'.
As I read your blogs, I see the problem. Everyone answered in terms of what's better for parties (with an exception or two). This poitical culture we have is in part created by FPTP.
It's time to give power to the people. With MMP, the people win.
posted by arif on 27 September 2007 at 12:40 PM
According to the blogs you vote Yes and you're either an ill-informed do-gooder or inherently devious. If you vote No, you're apathetic or a skeptic or telepathic. This has created intense confusion for me, where like most voters, I look like a deer caught in the headlight and unable to make a decision.
In the end, it's always been up to me to demand accountability whether it concerns a local representative, a party, a party leader, a party line or a civil service entity. Whether I demand accountability shifts from moment to moment and person to person. I mean ... it depends on the issue, my mood, my energy level, and my ability to locate a cordless phone with a charged battery or a free computer that does not have a teenager on MSN or FaceBook.
Like the MMP, the "intention" is there. However, IF it gets used, how it gets used, and what actually results in any given moment is subjective. This may not help anyone make a decision clearly for Yes or No, but it may give other voters permission to stop reading blogs or editorials of the people (you know who you are) who drink too much coffee and spend waaaaay too much time thinking about this.
Instead, take a moment and read the biographies of the Assembly and their journey to this Referendum. I found that helpful.
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca
P.S. The worst things have already happened.
posted by APentland on 05 October 2007 at 10:10 AM
After all the discussion and panel shows, I must confess. I'm still confused. Will I vote for the status quo or the new MMP model? My confusion stems from still not knowing the role of the List MPP. The Citizens' Assembly is quoted in one blog as saying " voters can hold their local representative accountable...by directly determining the share of seats each party wins." Does this mean that a List MPP campaigns just like any candidate? Does it mean that if enough votes are cast for a local candidate, he or she has an office in my riding with a telephone number I can call? Or would the List MPP simply represent his party in the legislature without doing much of anything except spout the party line? Since my tax dollar would help pay his salary I'd really like to know this: What, in essence would a List MPP actually do? I'd appreciate an honest clarification.
posted by Writeful on 08 October 2007 at 10:06 PM
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
Subscribe to all Blogs
The List MPP's WILL represent someone.
It's kind of interesting Joan takes the tack that it wont benefit anyone but small parties, when this well known blogsite shows that The Conservative Party would have benefited and gained seats in 17 of 24 regions of Ontario that were studied
I'd like to point out to Joan that other countries who use this system have the experience of list MPP's opening up regional constituency offices to serve the region. If MMP were to pass, the Ontario Electoral Commission would have to redraw Ontario's boundaries for the 90 local ridings, but they would also if they follow precedent from other countries who use MMP would also draw up some regional ridings. Again,some examples can be found at the same site in another posting here.
So, I see no reason why the experience in other countries would not be the same here. The "list MPP will represent no constituents" is another argument used by people like Joan who try to cast aspersions on how undemocratic this system is, but she has no evidence from the countries using MMP that this will result. It's all fear-mongering as far as I'm concerned.
As for the "party leaders will pick party hacks" argument that she sort of danced around, that also does not appear to have happpened in other countries. Regional nomination meetings are held where the party members democratically vote who to pick - not unlike what we have here in local nomination meetings for MP/MPP's.
IF we really want to remove that fear completely, we can start by having Dalton and John come out and do what the NDP did - which is publicly stating that they would use the regional nomination to pick their list candidates democratically by their party members to present to the public for election.
I particularly focus on Joan's guy, because Mr. Tory came out with the National Post and made all this noise about how party leaders might pick List MPP's who dont do anything but follow directions from those party leaders. Well, since Mr. Tory IS a party leader, and presumably has some influence in his party on that type of a policy, he can nip that fear in the bud by publicly showing some leadership and proclaiming his party will use democratic methods to pick their list MPP's.
That's pretty simple, isnt it Joan? Maybe you should have a talk with your leader. He doesnt even have to be an MMP supporter to declare this. It's just common sense to show the people of Ontario he's going to prevent those backroom party leaders he's so fearful of (and is ironically one of them) and let his party democratically choose that list.
Iff he is unwilling to do so, that shows to me that a) He has no intention of using democratic methods to pick those List MPP's (and he will be judged accordingly by the electorate) and b) He's using this concern to propagate that fear amongst the electorate, but again, a “party leader” spreading concerns about what “party leaders” will do under MMP is a tad rich.
Dalton doesnt get off the hook either; I want to see him make the same declaration, but he's at least not making silly statements like Tory is.
posted by stribe37 on 17 September 2007 at 6:42 PM