2007 Ontario Election: MMP Referendum

[salvius]

Sure, parties can team up any different way; there's just no guarantee about how they may do so, or to what ends. That means no guarantee to you, the voter. So your concern that the NDP will never see status as a government may be offset by them teaming with Greens, or cobbling together smaller parties with some limited set of platforms that match their own. You might not be getting the whole NDP platform, and the Greens may identified as king-makers who are more worthy of respect because they were given respect through forming a coalition. In other words, changing the voting system could easily alter the party landscape simply because fringe or protest parties would then have a chance of acquiring a seat and being courted by vote-hungry coalitions.

With a political cap, we don't get a ton of protest parties, even with a 3% cap. One just needs to look at Germany--which uses MMP--and what do we see? Five parties; not terribly different from 3+1 we have now (or 4+1 federally). So any coalitions would be between parties already well established. And, of course, I'd much prefer a coalition, which encourages compromise, than the current absurdly anti-democratic winner take all system.

Any system which awards absolute majority to a party without majority vote has something very deeply wrong with it.

 

[Hydrogen]

Anti-democratic? There'll be 17 fewer local ridings. There will be 39 MPP's chosen by other MPP's in place of direct vote. I don't see huge leaps and bounds in terms of improving democracy. Also, it does absolutely nothing with respect to improving voter participation. Declining participation in elections is also a problem for countries using MMP.

And as absurd as you may think the present system is, it has functioned here and in many other democracies around the world.

And parties with two or three seats can hold the balance of power in an MMP.

 

[salvius]

Anti-democratic? There'll be 17 fewer local ridings. There will be 39 MPP's chosen by other MPP's in place of direct vote. I don't see huge leaps and bounds in terms of improving democracy. Also, it does absolutely nothing with respect to improving voter participation. Declining participation in elections is also a problem for countries using MMP.

And as absurd as you may think the present system is, it has functioned here and in many other democracies around the world.

And parties with two or three seats can hold the balance of power in an MMP.

I personally think the idea of ridings as a 'good' thing is incredibly over-romanticised. Parties vote as blocs on every major issue, so local representation is a myth more than anything. We know this, but we justify this obvious problem by claiming that our MPs and MPPs function as ombudspersons. But why do we need to elect anyone in particular for such a function?

The point is largely moot since MPP actually strikes a perfectly sensible compromise by still having ridings, but balancing them with the idea that popular vote matters too. No vote should be thrown away.

Plurality voting causes the, yes, absurd possibilities in which 39% vote can get a party over 50% of seats. I have no idea how a system which throws away as much as 49% of the vote per riding can honestly be considered preferable to MPP. I would therefore call it an obviously less democratic system.

The 2-3 seat argument is generally plausible in limited cap, prop. representation only systems (Israel, etc.). It can, of course, theoretically happen in MPP, just as it can happen that independents control the balance of power in a plurality system. I don't see a point there.

And yes, the system we have works so well that 4 developed countries use it. True, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Yemen, Kenya, Ethiopia, and tons of other democratic trailblazers absolutely love it.

 

[Hydrogen]

I personally think the idea of ridings as a 'good' thing is incredibly over-romanticised. Parties vote as blocs on every major issue, so local representation is a myth more than anything.

So you think ridings are romanticised, and that's a good reason to reduce their directly elected numbers?

MMP in essence increases partisanship over individual representation. So you do reduce the effectiveness of individual ridings, and do increase the emphasis of the political parties.

And yes, the system we have works so well that 4 developed countries use it. True, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Yemen, Kenya, Ethiopia, and tons of other democratic trailblazers absolutely love it.

Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, India and Canada. I guess all are democratic slouches in your opinion?

 

[lordmandeep]

screw it, if you can't get the seats to win, you don't deserve to win.

Yep i am on elitist SOB on this issue. I will vote no!


I will damned before we start having Christian parties or Communists sitting in the House of Parliament or Queens Park.

 

[JasonParis]

I will damned before we start having Christian parties or Communists sitting in the House of Parliament or Queens Park.

Highly unlikely, but even if they did muster the numbers fair and square you'd be against them attaining representation?

 

[lordmandeep]

yes....

 

[salvius]

So you think ridings are romanticised, and that's a good reason to reduce their directly elected numbers?

MMP in essence increases partisanship over individual representation. So you do reduce the effectiveness of individual ridings, and do increase the emphasis of the political parties.

Well, if individual representation actually happened, then we might have something to debate. But how often do MPs and MPPs break ranks in Canada to effectively represent their ridings? I'll dig up the stat if you ask me to (I have the book somewhere), but it's basically every leap year. Hence, the idea that someone is representing us 'directly' has little merit. The emphasis has always been on political parties, MMP or no.

Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, India and Canada. I guess all are democratic slouches in your opinion?

Canada is on there twice; my fourth developed would have been South Korea, but apparently they've moved to MMP in 2005. So, indeed, three developed countries--all of which have their roots in the UK medieval system that predates democracy by a good number of centuries.

 

[Hydrogen]

Well, if individual representation actually happened, then we might have something to debate. But how often do MPs and MPPs break ranks in Canada to effectively represent their ridings? I'll dig up the stat if you ask me to (I have the book somewhere), but it's basically every leap year. Hence, the idea that someone is representing us 'directly' has little merit. The emphasis has always been on political parties, MMP or no.

So you disparage the present system because MPP's don't break ranks with their parties enough, but then go on to support a system that would emphasize party politics even more so.

So, indeed, three developed countries--all of which have their roots in the UK medieval system that predates democracy by a good number of centuries.

Has it served us so poorly? That medieval system you put down is actually the basis for representative democracy.

 

[afransen]

I think you worry too much. I doubt there would be a proliferation of single member parties, simply because it would take 10% of the electorate to arrange for three fringe parties to join the house. You may get one or two, but probably not at first, and not on a consistent basis. And then, who are you to say which parties are legitimate or not? By your 7% threshold, there'd be a good chance that even the Greens wouldn't gain a seat, which is a much larger flaw than the marginal chance the Christian Heritage Party would gain a seat now and then.

As far as backroom control, you must be living in denial if you think that isn't already a huge factor in riding nominations.

I definitely see the appeal of MMP, but I just can't support the system as proposed. Getting in to the legislature with 3% of the vote is crazy. I don't think we would benefit from having a big flock of single-member, single-issue parties. Remember, this would mean seats for people like the Christian Heritage and (potentially) Marijuana parties. At something like 7%, it would make much more sense.

I do see the potential in the party list for attracting better candidates. If you can pretty much guarantee someone a seat in the legislature since each party generally has a basic minimum percentage of the popular vote that it receives, you could certainly attract a number of high-quality people who wouldn't take the risk of running in a riding. My problem with the list system is who decides who makes it on, and the order in which people are listed. Will this be yet another opportunity for the backroomers to take control?

 

[salvius]

So you disparage the present system because MPP's don't break ranks with their parties enough, but then go on to support a system that would emphasize party politics even more so.

Yes, where's the problem? There is no 'even more so.' Current parties vote as a bloc. We don't have 'representatives' as it is, we haven't had them in a century, and it's a silly idea anyway.

Parties represent ideas, and that's what most of us generally vote for. And that's of course what we get. I don't see the point of voting for John next door because he's a nice guy; and John doesn't vote based on how his constituency feels, but based on what his party wants.

If that's not what we want, we can scrap the idea of parties--ban them, so that all candidates can only use their good names without affiliating themselves in any way. It'd be a sure fire way to quickly halve (or less) voter participation in our system. Maybe we can have it as a referendum alternative.

And yet, MMP is flexible enough that it still allows most riding representatives to be there, while making sure that we don't get into situations in which 40% vote means 60% majority.

Has it served us so poorly? That medieval system you put down is actually the basis for representative democracy.

I put down the medieval system for its current relevancy--it's outdated, and the point that it predates democracy is actually very important. It can be convincingly argued that the old candidates before the rise of democracy were indeed much more representative: of certain limited interests. The candidate lords could support rich landowners in exchange for political, social, and economic power. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Not exactly relevant today. It's a prime reason while most of the democratic world, much of it which used plurality at first, has moved on some time ago.

Whether the system has served us poorly is missing the point. We could have an enlightened monarchy, which may in some respects serve us very well. The current system is 'efficient', but it sacrifices democracy for the sake of the said efficiency. The government can have a complete, uncontestable mandate with less than 50%+1 vote: that's a rather profound weakness. And that's to say nothing of the fact that candidates don't even have to win 50%+1 in their own ridings...

Penalizing an NDP voter in Calgary or a Tory voter in Toronto so completely that he or she has ZERO chance of making their vote count seems like a steep price to pay for the idea that geographic 'personal' representation is the only kind of representation that matters.

 

[MisterF]

I think that what you are forgetting is that political parties identify themsleves by way of their differences from other political parties. Coalitions can be quite threatening because there is always a risk of losing your party identity when forming such a government. There is always a risk that certain party members would come to view their respective party as a sell-out should it form a coalition with another party of distinct ideology.

Parties may be defined by their differences, but that's exactly what MMP is designed to discourage. There's zero common ground between parties in the current system, but it doesn't have to be that way.

I think the idea of selling out has as much to do with the system as the parties or electorate. In FPP governments, majority governments are expected and parties are expected to stick to their guns and not compromise. It's adversarial, even when two parties agree on an issue. Under MMP, coalitions are expected, decisions are made by compromise, and the idea of selling out is much less prevalent. I'd much prefer the latter.

 

[Hydrogen]

salvius,

MMP does not automatically translate into voter satisfaction. Voter turnout has been dropping in countries with MMP as well as FPTP. So supporting MMP as a means to greater voter satsifaction can't be held up as the shining argument for it. One must then consider whether this fact reflects disatisfaction with present party politics, or whether there is an evolution in attitude towards government in general.

If voting for party ideas is so central, then MMP puts into a place a situation where the roster of ideas supported by any party will face a degree of dilution. Just because members of political parties will be forced together does not mean they will trade in their ideologies; otherwise how would they define themselves or their purpose in government? This state of affairs could very well mean that the platform of any party - that roster of ideas - would not automatically be translated into policy - not at least without considerable change and reduction in intended aims and effects. To get any policies enacted would then require considerably more back room dealing and politicking than at present. You, the voter, would not get a say in that.

So I don't see any vast improvements with MMP. I don't even see minor improvements so worthwhile that they require overturning the present electoral system. Problems with government and governance go beyond the issue of one person, one vote, or assertions over whether a vote is "wasted" or not. MMP offers a direct route to perpetual minority governments, and I don't that this automatically translates into better or more effective government. But as I stated from the outset, I am satisfied with the devil I know - meaning that I certainly don't find the present system perfect. I just happen to think that problems with government and governance have much less to do with the voting system than with other issues. Voting is, after all, the lowest order of participation in a democracy.

And just one more note, I've been making reference to Ontario referendum in my arguments. Concerning the federal government, reform, in my opinion, should focus on the Senate. I think that keeping FPTP in Parliament is fine; the Senate could very well be the better place for mixed member or other such representative system.

 

[CDL.TO]

Months before the Ontario Citizens' Assembly (OCA) suggested MMP there was an article in the Globe outlining a system that I still think would be preferable. I'm making up numbers as I describe this; of course actual numbers would need to be debated.

Basically, it would be MMP only rather than the list members being selected based upon the province-wide popular vote, the province would be split up into a small number of large regional ridings alongside the small ridings. Each large riding would have 2 MPPs selected based upon bringing the representation as close as possible to the popular vote for that region. Just like with MMP, each person gets 2 votes, one for a person and another for a party.

Here's an example. Let's say 15 Toronto ridings get grouped together in to region, so there will be 15 "local" MPPs representing the area and 2 "regional" MPPs representing the area. Votes are counted, and the Libs win 45% of the vote and 12 seats (80%), the NDP 30% of the vote and 2 seats (13%), and the Cons win 20% of the vote and 1 seat (7%). Considering the result, the NDP would get one of the regional seats and the Cons the other.

It wouldn't be proportional representation, but...
- It would be closer to the popular vote than we have now
- All MPPs would still have a constituency they are expected to represent
- Party lists would be smaller (no more than 2 people per region)
- Most importantly, IMO, people who live in areas with heavy one-party support (Liberal Toronto, Conservative rural Eastern Ontario) would actually have someone to be their representative in the Legislature.

Hope everyone understands what I'm trying to say.

 

[St. Even]

Well go ahead and vote for the referendum if you think multiple Christian Heritage, Marijuana Party, the white supremacist Confederation of Regions and other such MPPs representing a minuscule protest vote is a good thing. I personally think that's crazy.

Tone never comes through well in text so please don't take this as a personal attack. I disagree with this completely, but I'm sure you're a lovely person.

I think this kind of thinking is fundamentally UNdemocratic. We live in a democracy which means majority rules. However, the reality is that we currently give majority status and "power" to a party who receives more votes against it than for it. How is that democratic?

Many people think the NDP represents "a miniscule protest vote", yet they get votes and win seats (albeit few of them) from all the regions. Disagreeing with a political party's viewpoint, doesn't mean they don't have a right to be represented. How is denying representation to a party who garners three per cent of the popular vote more democratic than giving 100 per cent of the power to a party who wins 38 per cent of the vote? I think it actually may temper wild swings in the vote -- Ontario is still recovering from the drastic shift from Rae's NDP to the Common Sense Revolution. I would hope that by being forced into coalitions, the ruling party would have no choice but to be less arrogant and more conciliatory.

I don't think this particular model of MMP is ideal, but I think it's eons ahead of what we have now and I'll be voting for it.

And why are people afraid of minority governments? That's how we got healthcare. The other part of the "majority rules" equation is consideration for the minority. By denying representation to the 2 percent who vote Communist and the 1 percent who vote Natural Law (Doug Henning would have been a truly magical PM) and the 2 percent who vote Christian Heritage......add them all up and we're missing a fair chunk of people. These same people ride the TTC and go to public hospitals just like the rest of us, why shouldn't their vote count?

Maybe the 3 percent cut-off is too high, maybe it's too low. But as it stands now, these people have zero representation.

The adage goes, "voters get what they deserve", ie. we get who we vote for and if we don't like it don't vote for them again. The problem is, under the current system, we're not getting who we vote for.