Ontario Referendum Proportional Representation

[scribblet]

Ontario will be having a vote in October re Proportional rep. similar to that of the mixed MPP member prop. voting system used New Zealand, Germany, Scotland and Wales. This system will allow each voter to cast two votes: one for a preferred local candidate and one for a preferred party.

Sounds pretty good but I wonder how much is being done to educate the voter on this new system; I was out yesterday with some folks and none of them were aware of it or had a clue what it was about. I'm not all that clear on it either.

Does anyone have any stats to show what the Ontario leg. would look like had we had that system during the last election?

[Big Blue Machine]

I'm against it.

Some of the reasons for this include:

1. Mixed member proportional will create endless minority governments (gridlock).

2. Mixed member proportional will reward extremist and single-issue parties, to the detriment of parties that need to garner support across all regions and socio-economic-ethnic groups.

3. There will be less representation, as a certain number of MPPs will only represent backroom partisan interests, and not have a geographical constituency

[M.Dancer]

Does anyone have any stats to show what the Ontario leg. would look like had we had that system during the last election?

25 % Asshat

12% Nutbar

18% Douchebag

24% Tard

12% Criminal

9% mentally ill

[Leafless]

I'm against it.

Some of the reasons for this include:

1. Mixed member proportional will create endless minority governments (gridlock).

2. Mixed member proportional will reward extremist and single-issue parties, to the detriment of parties that need to garner support across all regions and socio-economic-ethnic groups.

3. There will be less representation, as a certain number of MPPs will only represent backroom partisan interests, and not have a geographical constituency

Sounds like you don't like democratic reform or the way democracy is designed to work.

Your third reason is laughable.

[geoffrey]

Your third reason is laughable.

Not at all, his third reason is my first reason. When parties pick people to fill elected spots at will, who knows what you get? I'd rather know who's getting that specific chair, then have some name from a list or however it would be done.

[scribblet]

I'm not 100% sure on this. I'm wondering if we wouldn't be better to keep the current system for the house but adopt the prop. system for an elected Senate. Actually, after reading this I'm not sure I would vote for it, sounds like chaos. http://www.thestar.com/News/article/215600

I found a link here for a pr simulator

http://www.wayneon.ca/democracy/PRSimulator/simulator.html

[Figleaf]

The party list element of all these variations is one of the most objectionable things. In effect it builds a kind of senate into the legislatures. The List Members are not accountable to anyone except their parties, and as long as they are powerbrokers in their party, they will have a guaranteed seat for their lifetimes.

[Remiel]

I think it is a step in the right direction. If it turns out to be really horrible, I bet you could count on the Liberals and Conservatives to get together to change it back.

Maybe if we do change the system, I will say I despise the party list, but for now, I would rather just be able to vote for who I want and have my vote count.

[M.Dancer]

If PR was good enough for the Weimar Republic it's good enough for Ontario.......

[capricorn]

I think it is a step in the right direction. If it turns out to be really horrible, I bet you could count on the Liberals and Conservatives to get together to change it back.

Governments in Canada have been known to walk into a quagmire and not know how to get out of it.

I predict that in October, Ontario voters will turn PR down big time. I will vote against it simply because I don't want parties to have the power of naming MPPs. Give them additional powers and there will be abuses. I also don't agree because it will result in a reduction in the number of ridings.

[Mad_Michael]

Proportional representation has a tendency to substantially increase the nunber of very small parties in parliament. Europe provides numerous examples of the phenomena. The result is government by coalition. This means back-room brokering by leaders of tiny parties (with only a few seats and single digit public support) calling the shots for the nation's policy. This has the ultimate effect of locking in policy. No major public policy can ever really be substantively changed/reduced or canceled under coalition governments as there is always one tiny part of the coalition that will refuse to go along.

Single-member constituencies are the only form of parliamentary responsibility and democratic representation. I don't want to see anything introduced that could water this down with 'lists' of appointed MP's who have no direct constituents to which they are directly responsible.

I see NOTHING in the proposal that is likely to increase or improve government or democratic representation in Ontario. I see only things that will make Queen's Park even more remote, more stagnant, less efficient and less functional.

The present system is not perfect, but proportional representation (or hybrid mixtures) are a dog's breakfast. I don't like back-room political deals to hold the government. Our present form (de facto) requires that these 'back-room' deals be front and centre where they can be seen by the voters. With larger coalitions of a dozen parties, the deals are always hidden and secret.

[Remiel]

No major public policy can ever really be substantively changed/reduced or canceled under coalition governments as there is always one tiny part of the coalition that will refuse to go along.

How is that any different than major policy being changed in a way most voters dont want because a " majority " government has all of the power?

[Figleaf]

I'm against it.

Some of the reasons for this include:

1. Mixed member proportional will create endless minority governments (gridlock).

2. Mixed member proportional will reward extremist and single-issue parties, to the detriment of parties that need to garner support across all regions and socio-economic-ethnic groups.

3. There will be less representation, as a certain number of MPPs will only represent backroom partisan interests, and not have a geographical constituency

Concisely put. I agree completely. Particularly #3 -- Party list members will represent no-one but their party interests. Blind party loyalty is already an unfortunate hallmark of our legislators and List Members can only exacerbate that.

[Peter F]

I'm against it.

Some of the reasons for this include:

1. Mixed member proportional will create endless minority governments (gridlock).

2. Mixed member proportional will reward extremist and single-issue parties, to the detriment of parties that need to garner support across all regions and socio-economic-ethnic groups.

3. There will be less representation, as a certain number of MPPs will only represent backroom partisan interests, and not have a geographical constituency

Nr 3 is the killer for me also. Just what we need - more political appointees. Are there not enough party hacks as it is?

[August1991]

I think the evidence has largely been obtained on this question. Changing voting systems won't change much in the end result of who governs us. (The rules of parliament probably matter more than how we select out parliamentary representatives.)

Let's be honest. Your single ballot will change nothing and if you don't vote, the result will be no different. Be coldly analytical in answering the following two questions: If you hadn't voted in the last federal election, who would be your MP? Who would be PM?

Now under the various voting schemes proposed, would your answer to those two questions be different?

IOW, voting is a matter of perception and the only way a different voting scheme might matter is if it changes people's perceptions.

[Remiel]

Let's be honest. Your single ballot will change nothing and if you don't vote, the result will be no different. Be coldly analytical in answering the following two questions: If you hadn't voted in the last federal election, who would be your MP? Who would be PM?

That's exactly the point, August. Why have a system in which more than half of all ballots cast count for NOTHING, when you can have a system where all ballots cast accumulate to actually count for something. I am sick to DEATH of having to vote to keep a certain party out rather than voting to put the party I want in.

Think of it of being like cognitive dissonance.

[August1991]

That's exactly the point, August. Why have a system in which more than half of all ballots cast count for NOTHING, when you can have a system where all ballots cast accumulate to actually count for something. I am sick to DEATH of having to vote to keep a certain party out rather than voting to put the party I want in.

But under any scheme that I have seen proposed (for example PR), your single ballot will change nothing either. The end result will be the same whether you cast your ballot or not.

[Mad_Michael]

No major public policy can ever really be substantively changed/reduced or canceled under coalition governments as there is always one tiny part of the coalition that will refuse to go along.

How is that any different than major policy being changed in a way most voters dont want because a " majority " government has all of the power?

Very simple, the majority of the voters may vote out that majority party - quite easily in the next election. THere is a direct link between policy responsibility and the political party.

No such link or line of responsibility is available with a variety of obscure little parties holding the balance of power in a coalition (where the deal is secret).

Bottom line is that proportional representation (or hybrid systems) have the effect of reducing the electoral responsibility of the politican to the voter. In our present system, that line of responsibility is clear cut and obvious all the time. Anything that interferes with this is anti-democratic in reducing political responsibility to the voters.

[Remiel]

But under any scheme that I have seen proposed (for example PR), your single ballot will change nothing either. The end result will be the same whether you cast your ballot or not.

In most ethical and moral arguments, do we not accept that the ends do not justify the means? That the means must be held up to the same standards as the ends? So, two like results obtained in unlike ways are in fact different.

[August1991]

Bottom line is that proportional representation (or hybrid systems) have the effect of reducing the electoral responsibility of the politican to the voter. In our present system, that line of responsibility is clear cut and obvious all the time. Anything that interferes with this is anti-democratic in reducing political responsibility to the voters.

How is there any line of accountability between my ballot and my MP?

Whether I vote or not will make absolutely no difference in the selection of my MP.

I know that the Left likes to vaunt the democratic voting process as somehow more popular than markets but they are seriously in error.

Make no mistake. This is a fundamental question. How do we as individuals arrive at a collective decision?

In most ethical and moral arguments, do we not accept that the ends do not justify the means? That the means must be held up to the same standards as the ends? So, two like results obtained in unlike ways are in fact different.

I am not making a moral or ethical argument. I'm making a practical observation.

Under any voting scheme that I have seen proposed, my single ballot will not change the outcome and hence if I don't vote, the result will be the same.

This basic fact explains declining voter turnout and it will likely decline in the future. We can switch to PR or some hybrid system and it won't halt this tendancy. For example, in most municipal elections, voter turnout is around 20%.

[Mad_Michael]

Bottom line is that proportional representation (or hybrid systems) have the effect of reducing the electoral responsibility of the politican to the voter. In our present system, that line of responsibility is clear cut and obvious all the time. Anything that interferes with this is anti-democratic in reducing political responsibility to the voters.

How is there any line of accountability between my ballot and my MP?

Whether I vote or not will make absolutely no difference in the selection of my MP.

I know that the Left likes to vaunt the democratic voting process as somehow more popular than markets but they are seriously in error.

Make no mistake. This is a fundamental question. How do we as individuals arrive at a collective decision?

At least you are being civil now. Is that because I haven't disagreed with you yet?

I have no intention or interest in replying to your questions. You've shown your colours previously.

[Remiel]

I am not making a moral or ethical argument. I'm making a practical observation.

Under any voting scheme that I have seen proposed, my single ballot will not change the outcome and hence if I don't vote, the result will be the same.

This basic fact explains declining voter turnout and it will likely decline in the future. We can switch to PR or some hybrid system and it won't halt this tendancy. For example, in most municipal elections, voter turnout is around 20%.

What exactly are you looking for? Yes, there are voting systems out there in which your single vote could count for a lot. Generally they are called things like dictatorships or absolute monarchies. Democracy is not about your single vote, it is about the cumulative effect of everyones vote. Yet, our system does an extremely poor job of awarding authority based on will of all of the voters.

Using your logic, if everyone stopped voting because their single ballots couldn't change anything, there would be no election at all. I think you are wrong, August. I think there will be a higher turnout this year if they put a strong message out that we are having a referendum on changing the system.

[Robin]

I started looking into the topic of electoral reform only after we received a flyer in the mail about the referendum in the next election. It has taken a while for me to find out about it. Who came up with this idea? Why do we need it? Seems to me it is only a method of increasing government taxes on all of us! MO%RE representation by population? Why do we find out about this by a flyer? This is a major change in our governance! Who else feels the same as I do?

Robin

[uOttawaMan]

The fact is, people are too ignorant about the issue.

With the turnout of voters being what it will be, the people who care are already affiliated with a major party for the most part, and their lobbying will ensure that a 60% majority will not be reached.

For the big parties, why change what isn't broken?

I think this old idea in Canadian politics that majority governments are the only ones that can get things done is misplaced.. but I digress.

[jennie]

http://markgreenan.blogspot.com/2007/09/gr...ization-as.html

This is a cute video.