Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Mixed Member Proportional - The Cure Is Worse Than The Disease

Proponents of the mixed member proportional (MMP) system take issue with the fact that a Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) can be elected with less than 50% of the vote. Rather than deal with that issue head on, which many alternative electoral systems could solve, they decide to add additional MPPs that will be selected by the parties. So they do not like that some MPPs do not have the support of the majority of their residents and their solution is to have MPPs added to the legislature that will be selected by politicians? They have not solved the problem by doing this, they have made the problem worse.


Anonymous said...

The Citizens' Assembly proposed that parties nominate lists of candidates and that voters elect list MPPs with their new party vote.

Now if party bosses and insiders want to nominate all their cronies and buddies from Bay Street, do you think the voters will like that and support them? Do you think their members will get enthused?

Or are you willing to give up because you can't even bother trying. Declare defeat and leave the party bosses in full control - as if they don't already parachute candidates into ridings over the wishes of their members.

Anonymous said...

Of course they are going to appoint their cronie. You admit they already do it with the current system. And the MMP gives them even greater opportunity to do this which means it will get even worse.

Wilf Day said...

The Citizens' Assembly reports:

"In MMP jurisdictions, parties nominate candidates to their lists in a variety of ways. In New Zealand, the Labour Party and the National Party determine their lists at regional conventions. The
lists are then assembled by a special national committee of each party. The New Zealand Green Party creates its list by a vote
of all party members."

"The more common practice in MMP systems is for list candidates to run locally as well. In the 2002 German election, over 90% of the elected list members also ran locally. In the 2002 New Zealand election, 84% of list members ran locally. This gives these candidates more visibility and strong connections to particular areas or regions.

Permitting dual candidacy recognizes that there can be only one winner in local ridings under a Single Member Plurality system. Candidates who have strong public support can lose local races. For example, in the 2003 Ontario election, the winning candidate in one district received 35.87% of the vote. In another district, a losing candidate received 45.16% of the vote. As this example shows, candidates who lose can actually have more support than other candidates who win."'%20Assembly's%20MMP%20System.pdf

Party members nominate local candidates (one at a time), and party members will nominate list candidates (several at a time). When several candidates are nominated at a time, you normally get a more diverse slate.

Anonymous said...

All I can say is would this not be a better method if politicians could be trusted, which is not my opinion.

I see them adding hacks to the list that they know could never be elected. Somehow there has to be checks and balances on the selected 'few'


At times when people are surrounded by any emergency requirement of money at that time they can take help of Sunday Payday Lenders.Individual can take its help to get money which not only provide a support in the hectic situation but also makes them stress free in these situation. sunday payday loans,sunday payday loans uk,sunday payday loans now,sunday payday loans direct lenders,payday loans on a sunday.