Benefits of MMP
There are many divergent views in
Benefits of Current System
With the current system if a party wishes to form a majority government they need to appeal to moderate voters. This creates an incentive for parties to moderate their views and appeal to a larger number of voters.
Negatives of MMP
Under MMP, 30% of the legislature will be appointed by the political parties rather than elected directly by voters. These Members are more likely to strictly abide by the ‘party line’. Also, fringe or radical parties will elect seats to the legislature. A party with only 5% of the vote could hold the balance of power. MMP systems have demonstrated ‘grand coalitions’ are possible, two major parties forming a majority coalition, but they have also demonstrated one major party will form an alliance with one or more fringe parties to form a majority coalition.
Negatives of Current System
Under the current system, one party will typically form a majority government with less than 50% support. Indeed, there have been cases in
16 comments:
I dispute several points in this.
Under MMP, parties would have to appeal to moderate voters just as much as they do now. I don't see extremist parties in Germany or New Zealand, for example.
Secondly, you are repeating the falsehood (perpetuated by John Tory among others) that these List Candidates will be "appointed". That is simply not true. The Citizens Assembly did not specify to parties how to pick their List members - and that includes appointments.
If precedent is followed as in other countries, it will be regional nomination meetings held by the parties to elect candidates. This is something the NDP and the Greens have already promised to do. It is absolutely no different then how parties nominate candidates for the local ridings now.
It's true that a party COULD choose to appoint - though they would face the voters and have to justify why they chose that method - but for you to flat out state that "MMP means parties WILL appoint List members" is nothing but a very large assumption on your part, and simply not true at this point.
One other thing: I again take issue with you that "radical or fringe parties WILL elect seats to the legislature". Again, you are stating this as absolute fact when you have no proof of it. You can say they COULD elect radical or fringe groups. but I find your assertions disputable.
The Greens, the most well known of the "fringe' groups, wouldn't have even gotten a list seat last time with 2.8% of the vote. The Family Coalition were even worse - They had under 1% of the vote. The Communists? 0.05% of the vote.
It's a bit of a stretch to suggest hundreds of thousands of Ontario voters are suddenly going to rush to these other minor parties (other then the Greens perhaps, and I dont consider them fringe) just because MMP is brought in.
And if by some chance one of these parties like the Greens do make the
3% threshold, then as far as I'm concerned they've earned the right to sit in the legislature.
So again, your use of language in stating this WILL happen I find questionable.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that there are lies, damned lies, statistics, and what anti-MMP folks say about MMP.
It's really frustrating.
All a party needs to elect a member under MMP is 3% of the vote. Having only 3% of the vote is the very definition of fringe.
"These Members are more likely to strictly abide by the ‘party line’."
Then under Benefits" you should list "When 70% of MPPs are elected by a separate vote from the party vote, voters get two kinds of accountability."
"Having only 3% of the vote is the very definition of fringe." No, electing two MPs for a brand-new "Animal Rights" party that got only 1.5% of the vote (last fall in the Netherlands) is a fringe party.
In 2003 the Greens got 2.8%. They'll get over 3%, but they are no longer a fringe party. Those 103 Citizens spent quite some time discussing whether the threshold should be 3%, 4% or 5%. The Communist Party is already preparing its Charter challenge to the 3% threshold as an unjustified limit, and they have been successful with such challenges in the recent past. A 3% threshold that survives a challenge, as having been set by independent citizens after mature deliberation, is better than a 5% threshold with loopholes. New Zealand's has a loophole for any party that elects one local MP. That means a major party can prop up its small ally by letting its leader win his local seat, a tactic already used. Ontario's citizens avoided that.
Of course Wilf, having 37% of the vote is the very definition of "minority". Doesn't always work out that way in first-past-the-post though, does it?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how do regional nomination meetings work? (either for the FPTP or MMP) Is that just party members, or can the public be involved too? More specifically for MMP, how does the 'regional' come into play in these meetings?
I'm certainly interested in MMP, just trying to understand some of the mechanics a bit better (beyond what was written in the Citizen's Assembly Report). It seems too good to be true. Why hasn't this question been asked sooner? What are the downsides? Obviously I've read most of the articles on this site, but each one that explores the 'con' side is met with fervent rebuttal from a few people (eg. ct, Lord Kitchener, Wilf Day) so it's to them that I'm asking the latter question. I'd like to hear what a pro-MMP advocate views as its weaknesses.
How will regional nomination meetings work? I can only speculate, but I think I'm pretty close.
New Zealand Labour uses six regions, with 4 million people. Ontario has three times as many people. Do we have 18 regions? I don't see them. Nine, maybe. The Ontario PC Party has nine regional Vice-Presidents. If the North has 9 new local ridings, and Toronto has 19, and the rest of southern Ontario has 62, that's nine local ridings in each of the other seven regions (well, eight in one of them), which looks good.
So each region nominates one candidate for every tenth list position (every fifth from Toronto). How long is the list? As long as you like, but only the top 70 names mean much (remembering that most candidates will be dual candidates). Maybe 90 names? or 105?
I hope my party can afford to hold nine regional conventions each with one-line voting, so every member can either come to the convention or vote from home. You aren't just nominating a list of nine people, you are ranking them. Could take at least half a day, if you vote on nine positions one at a time.
What are the downsides? Okay, an honest answer:
1. If the Greens elect eight MPPs, including one MPP from the whole North, he or she would love to open about seven constituency offices. Not likely going to happen. Conflict and compromise will be inevitable.
2. Will regional nominations be held before or after local nominations? Will candidates try to rig the sequence to maximize their chances? Well, at least there will be more than one way to get elected.
3. Will List MPPs, trying to serve voters in the ridings in their region that their party lost, work a bit harder in the riding they hope to run in next election? Could be.
4. If my riding has an opposition MPP, and my party is in government, and wants to move our maternity ward to the regional hospital, and my party's nearest MPP is from that regional centre, I'm only going to have one MPP to help me fight my government, and it isn't the one I voted for. No worse than today, but no better. Let's hope that's a rare event.
Mr. Day,
Thanks for the candid outlay of some of the downsides you can see to MMP. If any of the other pro-MMP camp are still lurking about, I wouldn't mind hearing their answers as well!
Thanks also for clarifying the regional nomination process a bit.
Question?
Under MMP can a party run with ONLY list candidates and with no candidates in any ridings?
"Under MMP can a party run with ONLY list candidates and with no candidates in any ridings?"
As far as I understand it, yes.
Why We Should Vote “Yes” For MMP
By Jordan Grant
There are really two key questions facing Ontarians in this Wednesday’s referendum: “Do you trust democracy?” and “Should politicians collaborate more and snipe less?” If your answer to both these questions is “yes” then you should vote for MMP.
Under our current “first past the post” system, the outcome of elections is rarely a true reflection of people’s votes. We often have majority governments holding 100% of the power elected by a minority. Most citizens end up with a smaller voice in the legislature than the number of their votes would warrant, and some significant groups, such as Green Party supporters, have no voice at all.
If we believe in democracy, why are we afraid of electing legislators in proportion to the number of votes each party receives?
Some supporters of the status quo say that the party lists could include unqualified “party hacks”. But the lists are to be published in advance - why would any party reduce its attractiveness to the electorate by putting up unqualified or unsavoury people?
There are many accomplished individuals who would make great legislators or cabinet ministers, people with proven leadership talent who the public would welcome on the provincial or national stage. But under our current “first past the post” election system they are not prepared to throw their hat in the ring because they have no aptitude or desire to do the glad handling that it takes to get elected as a local constituency politician.
Under the mixed member proportional representation system, there will be an opportunity for such people to be recognized by the leadership of the various political parties through their inclusion in the party lists. The parties would have every incentive to put on their lists the most respected and qualified talent they can come up with, including more women and representatives of key issue-based (as opposed to geographically-based) constituencies.
The number of such candidates to be elected for each party will be based on its province-wide vote, so that in the end, each party has approximately the same number of legislators as their province-wide popular vote would dictate. Instead of every Member being concerned first and foremost with what’s good for their local constituency, there will be a sizeable contingent whose primary concern will be the bigger picture – what’s good for Ontario society as a whole.
Once elected, under the MMP system, we will almost certainly have minority governments.
Defenders of the status quo say such governments won’t be able to take “bold initiatives” or make “hard choices.” These are code words for making unpopular decisions. If a government is unable to get enough other parties on side to command a majority in the legislature on a particular issue, do we really want to empower them to pass such legislation? The end result of the current system is vast policy swings as we pass between majority governments of different persuasions.
I, for one, have enough faith in citizens choosing their elected representatives, to believe that if we put in place a structure requiring political parties representing a majority of the voters to collaborate; the result will be decisions that are in the best interest of Ontarians.
Some people who acknowledge the current system needs fixing say to vote “no” because there is a better alternative than MMP. But the MMP system was arrived at after eight months of deliberation by a diverse group of randomly appointed citizens from each riding in the province. The Citizens’ Assembly had the benefit of top expert advice, studied electoral systems worldwide and consulted broadly. In the end they voted overwhelmingly to recommend the MMP system.
Our choice on Wednesday is not between MMP and some other unidentified “even better” system. It is between MMP and retaining the status quo, with its adversarial structure and only locally-rooted politicians. For those who believe in democracy and want positive change, voting “yes” for MMP is the obvious choice.
An MMP system will concentrate power in the cities and result in 30% of the MPP's having absolutely zero accountability to the people, only to their own parties. Boo for MMP.
In a way MMP seems to allow some of fringe parties into the light... at the same time, it will also put some of those fringe parties I definite do not want in power into the power...
Decisions, decision...
Post a Comment