Mixed Member Proportional representation

[Denny]

What do you think of the referendum this fall on the future provincial elections in Ontario?

I am dead set against the proportional representation approach for two big reaons:

1 - It leads to indecison within parliament.

2- It would establish two "classes" of MLA's - the "regualr"ones who represent constitutents in a geographic riding and the others who would only represent theiur party position and therefore not have to deal with the problems of the man or woman on the street.

I really like the Australian method better, in which one ranks candidates, and so one's vote is not wasted if one votes for a fringe candidate. If your first choice falls to the bottom ranks of the voting count, then your second voting choice is used. Much like the way parties select leaders. The result is that ultimately, one candidate actually has a majority of the voters in their corner, even if ins some cases its the voters second choice. Unlike our current system in which its possible, and frequently happens, for the NDP to get 18% of the vote, the Liberals to get 40% and the Conservative to get 42%, with the Conservative winning even though likely the Liberal could have picked up most of the 18% of the voters who went to the NDP.

Edited September 26, 2007 by Denny

[jennie]

What do you think of the referendum this fall on the future provicnial elections in Ontario?

I a dead set asgainst th proportional represetnation apporach fotr two big reaons:

1 - It leads to indecison within parliament.

2- It would establish two "classes" of MLA's - the "regualr"ones who represent constitutents in a geographic riding and thepothers who would only represent theiur party position and therefore not have to deal with the problems of the man or woman on the street.

I really like the Australian method better, in which one ranks candidates, and so one's vote is not wasted if one votes for a fringe candidate. If your first choice falls to the bottom ranks of the voting count, then your second voting choice isused. Much like the way parties select leaders. The reuslt is that ultimately, one candidate actually has a majority of the voters in their corner, even if ins some cases its the voters second choice. Unlike our current systme in which its possible, and frequently happens, for the NDP to get 18% of the vote, the Liberals to get 40% and the Conservative to get 42%, with the Conservative winning even though likely the Liberal could have picked up most of the 18% of the voters who went to the NDP.

All of the consideration of different possibilities was done by a Citizens Assembly. At this point our choice in the referendum is ... status quo or MMP, which includes status quo as well.

I agree about the extra MPP's not representing constituents, just the party: That concerns me.

However, it will accomplish its purpose of putting the people's votes in the House more fairly: 30% of the vote is 30% of the seats. I do like that a lot.

[M.Dancer]

PR is a system that will allow the most outrageous wingnuts to get a voice. Not that they don't have a voice now, but now you can choose not to listen to them.

If Doug Henning was still alive I would support PR. The possibility of a member levitating in Parliament while doing card tricks would be worth the risk of him giving a speech about creating an impenatrable defense shield of mystic yogic flyers....

Edited September 6, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Keepitsimple]

However, it will accomplish its purpose of putting the people's votes in the House more fairly: 30% of the vote is 30% of the seats. I do like that a lot.

That amounts to straight Representation by Population (Rep by Pop). The problem with that, as our founding fathers knew, is that it puts too much power in the hands of the cities - where most people live. For example, 50% of Ontario's population is in the GTA. If you include Hamilton and Ottawa, that figure rises to two-thirds. Finally, 94% of the population lives in Southern Ontario. It makes sense that if you elect a large majority of representatives from cities - they will more often than not do what's best for the cities, to the possible/probable exclusion of Ontario's other regions. In other words, you would be marginalizing the influence of vast swaths of Ontario. That's why we have ridings - to balance the competing interests and to ensure that all Ontarians have a voice.

Some Stats can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario#Popul...ario_since_1851

[capricorn]

As I said elsewhere, my major concern with MMP is that the numbers of ridings would be reduced. As a result, MPPs would have larger constituencies to serve. I just can't see the advantage to this. Also, I don't like the idea that unelected representatives would have a voice in the provincial legislature. How is that democratic?

[jbg]

PR is a system that will allow the most outrageous wingnuts to get a voice. Not that they don't have a voice now, but now you can choose not to listen to them.

It also allows the rulers to blame their "coalition partners" for inaction, by saying, in effect, "how many times do you want to go to the polls?"

[Evan]

PR is a system that will allow the most outrageous wingnuts to get a voice. Not that they don't have a voice now, but now you can choose not to listen to them.

You won't lose that choice. Every party would list the potential MMP's and the order that they would be chosen to fill the seats. So... if you really don't like the people on the list don't vote for them. But it's a more generic vote for the team rather than for the person. Either way, the team still has to appeal to the people, and the people will know who that team is.

[daniel]

How is the current system better? Without first-past-the-post:

1) we wouldn't have the FTA as majority of Canadians voted against it;

2) we would still have the National Daycare program as majority of Canadians voted for it;

3) we would still have the Kelowna Accord as majority of Canadians voted for it;

4) the Liberals' coalition with the NDP would have lasted through to 1995 as Ontarions remember the two years after the 40year PC dynasty were the best of governments;

5) Mike Harris would have been prevented from implementing the Common Sense Revolution as majority of Ontarions voted against it;

6) Canada might also not be in Afghanistan.

7) Kyoto would have been implemented and current round of APEC would be a significant 2nd step.

[geoffrey]

1) we wouldn't have the FTA as majority of Canadians voted against it;

Being a third world country is a good thing?

2) we would still have the National Daycare program as majority of Canadians voted for it;

Warehousing children at taxpayers expense so parents can buy nicer cars and bigger houses is sooooooo good, right?

3) we would still have the Kelowna Accord as majority of Canadians voted for it;

Billions in a cheque to unaccountable bodies with a proven track record of corruption. Great again!

6) Canada might also not be in Afghanistan.

The Liberals and Conservatives have always held the balance of power.

7) Kyoto would have been implemented and current round of APEC would be a significant 2nd step.

Kyoto was implemented. Ask Dion about his significant results. I mean, 24% increase from 1990 was the plan, right?

[Leafless]

What do you think of the referendum this fall on the future provicnial elections in Ontario?

I don't really know how this can be a subject for debate when Dalton Mc.Guinty and his provincial Liberals are making sure this will never happen.

They are requiring that any proposed change get the support of 60% of the voters as well as more than 50% support in at least 60% of all provincial ridings.

[daniel]

...

Never mind your personal ideologies. Those would have been the results of the majority of the population - and no stalemate in Parliament

Edited September 9, 2007 by daniel

[jbg]

Never mind your personal ideologies. Those would have been the results of the majority of the population - and no stalemate in Parliament

Actually, the MP's would be chosen from a faceless list compiled by the parties, and the lead party would use excuses to avoid complying with promises. Also, those grandiose promises, such as daycare and Kelowna, have to be funded somehow.

With whose money?

[daniel]

..With whose money?

Sounds like some people are trying to protect their turf. Like critics of First-Past-the-Post have always observed, those who won elections by the old method would least likely give it up.

Better the taxpayers money goes to the interest of its citizens than to the interest of political and corporate lobbyists.

[Denny]

Firsdt past the post is not the greatest, but at least it compels politicians to develop platforms with wide appeal and use some compromise. Countries which have used proportional voting system seem to result in indecisive governments and overly frequent elections due to impasses.

I still say the Australian method is the best as it provides that window of opportunity for new paties and even independent candidates, while giving those voters the full use of their ballot to select their second and third level preferences if their condiate is dropped in succesive rounds of the result tabulations.

[kengs333]

Firsdt past the post is not the greatest, but at least it compels politicians to develop platforms with wide appeal and use some compromise. Countries which have used proportional voting system seem to result in indecisive governments and overly frequent elections due to impasses.

This is a misrepresentation of the MMP system that is being proposed because the countries that are always used as exampes of how PR results in "indecisive governments and overly frequent elections" don't use MMP. I think the thing that frieghtens me most about the referendum is that it will likely result in a no vote because most people just plain ignorant.

[Argus]

Proportional Rep does not really represent the will of the people any better than the present system. In fact, it allows for gross distortion of the people's will by small, single-issue parties, esp those who can get their supporters out to the polls.

For example, the anti-abortion crowd. Pulling numbers out of my ass for illustrative purposes, let's say the hard core make up 10% of the electorate. However, they are well-organized and well-motivated. These people really care about their issue. You can expect pretty much 100% of them to get out and vote for an anti-abortion party that had a real chance of success. And by success I don't mean becoming the government.

Now since about half of the rest of the population don't bother to vote, what we wind up with is 10% votes for them, while the rest of the 45% of actual voters split themselves among various other parties. Instead of an anti-abortion party being a minor, barely noticed entity on a list of defeated candidates, they're suddenly one of the most important power brokers in the country, with maybe 10% of the seats in parliament. And when the Liberals or Tories are scrambling to make up a coallition, guess what their demands will be?

What the Prop Rep system has done is elevated their single-issue, and the importance of their beliefs to one of major national importance out of all relevance to what most people care about. Multiply this by eight or ten other single-issue parties and you get an idea what a parliament will be like.

[Michael Hardner]

The healthcare system suffers from inefficiency because of 'two many chiefs'...

Can we imagine how much worse it would be in Ontario, if we had to get backroom approval for every move from all the parties supporting a minority government ?

Edited September 23, 2007 by Michael Hardner

[Higgly]

The anti-abortion example cited by Argus really gives me pause. It is not hard to envision a scenario where these folks get themselves on the ballot and then swing enough votes to get seats in the legislature. Because the number of party seats is reduced, I could see a single issue party like this swinging the balance of power and start playing hardball to get their one bill passed.

Before this, I thought of this only in terms of issues I wanted to be tabled and which I didn't think were being sufficienlty aired - the environment, for example. But I didn't see the other side. Thank you Argus.

Now I would be much more interested in looking into an electoral system that completely dispensed with party politics altogether

[jbg]

This is a misrepresentation of the MMP system that is being proposed because the countries that are always used as exampes of how PR results in "indecisive governments and overly frequent elections" don't use MMP. I think the thing that frieghtens me most about the referendum is that it will likely result in a no vote because most people just plain ignorant.

Maybe the system is an incomprehensible Rube Goldberg.

[jbg]

The anti-abortion example cited by Argus really gives me pause. It is not hard to envision a scenario where these folks get themselves on the ballot and then swing enough votes to get seats in the legislature. Because the number of party seats is reduced, I could see a single issue party like this swinging the balance of power and start playing hardball to get their one bill passed.

Before this, I thought of this only in terms of issues I wanted to be tabled and which I didn't think were being sufficienlty aired - the environment, for example. But I didn't see the other side. Thank you Argus.

So far, a rare applause from me for one of your posts. The applause stops, however.

Now I would be much more interested in looking into an electoral system that completely dispensed with party politics altogether

Would your model be Chairman Mao? Pol Pot? Josef Stalin? Musharaaf?

[kengs333]

Proportional Rep does not really represent the will of the people any better than the present system. In fact, it allows for gross distortion of the people's will by small, single-issue parties, esp those who can get their supporters out to the polls.

Sorry, but this is completely false. If, for example, 35% of the electorate vote for a party and this eqautes into 60% of the seats at Queen Park, you feel that this better represents the will of the people? Hardly.

Under the proposed system, a party has to receive a minimum of 3% of the vote for it to qualify for the PR seats. As it stands, this may result in the Green Party getting a few seats; otherwise, it should just make the seat count of the three main parties more proportional. That's about it.

If you're going to make falacious arguments about supposed single-issue parties somehow "distorting... the people's will" perhaps you could provide examples of this from countries where MMP is used.

What the Prop Rep system has done is elevated their single-issue, and the importance of their beliefs to one of major national importance out of all relevance to what most people care about. Multiply this by eight or ten other single-issue parties and you get an idea what a parliament will be like.

Where do you get this nonsense from? This is not what is happening in countries where MMP is used. If 10% of the population believes that the platform of a party is the best option, then this should translate into 10% or so of the seats--not 0%. The whole purpose of a democratic parlaiment/legislature is to represent to people of Canada/a province, and any system that doesn't permit this is not truly democratic.

[jbg]

Sorry, but this is completely false. If, for example, 35% of the electorate vote for a party and this eqautes into 60% of the seats at Queen Park, you feel that this better represents the will of the people? Hardly.

*********

Where do you get this nonsense from? This is not what is happening in countries where MMP is used. If 10% of the population believes that the platform of a party is the best option, then this should translate into 10% or so of the seats--not 0%. The whole purpose of a democratic parlaiment/legislature is to represent to people of Canada/a province, and any system that doesn't permit this is not truly democratic.

The problem with any kind of rep-by-prop creates the strong likelihiood of single-issue candidates and wing-nuts getting in. Say I form the "JBG Party" and my sole area of interest is raising the speed limit on the 401 to 120 km/hour. I may very well get 10% of the votes in the province, and would thus be a force that would have to be talked to in order to organize a coalition. On other issues, I represent no one and am a totally free agent. Is this desirable?

Also, is it desirable to have a government that could say, in effect, "we can't keep our promises. You know, those evil coalition partners. And if you want us to bolt the coalition, how many times a year do you want to be at the polls?"

Given Canadians' apparent dislike of frequent elections, the excuse would work well. That's hardly democracy.

[kengs333]

The problem with any kind of rep-by-prop creates the strong likelihiood of single-issue candidates and wing-nuts getting in. Say I form the "JBG Party" and my sole area of interest is raising the speed limit on the 401 to 120 km/hour. I may very well get 10% of the votes in the province, and would thus be a force that would have to be talked to in order to organize a coalition. On other issues, I represent no one and am a totally free agent. Is this desirable?

Also, is it desirable to have a government that could say, in effect, "we can't keep our promises. You know, those evil coalition partners. And if you want us to bolt the coalition, how many times a year do you want to be at the polls?"

Given Canadians' apparent dislike of frequent elections, the excuse would work well. That's hardly democracy.

I'm not sure this would be the case. Needing a minimum of 3% to qualify should bar the "wing-nuts" although a few single-issue candidates may be elected, but so what? They get to voice their opinions and then vote on legislation. The PR aspect would only constitute about 40 seats, meaning that if a "single-issue" party manages 3% they get one seat. Countries where this form of MMP is used tend not to have the problems that people are claiming a switch to PR will cause. I think that's why MMP was chosen.

[jbg]

I'm not sure this would be the case. Needing a minimum of 3% to qualify should bar the "wing-nuts" although a few single-issue candidates may be elected, but so what? They get to voice their opinions and then vote on legislation. The PR aspect would only constitute about 40 seats, meaning that if a "single-issue" party manages 3% they get one seat. Countries where this form of MMP is used tend not to have the problems that people are claiming a switch to PR will cause. I think that's why MMP was chosen.

What countries use MMP?

[kengs333]

What countries use MMP?

Germany

New Zealand

South Korea

Scotland