khris
Senior Member
I'm stuck. I really can't decide which electoral system I would prefer to have.
|
|
|
2007 Ontario Election: MMP Referendum
- Thread starter Pep'rJack
- Start date
adma
Superstar
Okay, then. Military dictatorship it is...
H
Hydrogen
Guest
With or without goose-stepping soldiers?
The Mississauga Muse
Active Member
Referendum Debate at Mississauga Council 07/09/26
Hope this might be of interest to someone.
Presentation on mixed member representation but especially mayor and councillor debate to see their take on this issue.
Mississauga Council Deputation: ONTARIO Mixed Member Proportional Representation
Hope this might be of interest to someone.
Presentation on mixed member representation but especially mayor and councillor debate to see their take on this issue.
Mississauga Council Deputation: ONTARIO Mixed Member Proportional Representation
Admiral Beez
Superstar
I'm voting against MMP. I don't like this party list proposal. Every representative in the Ontario legislature should be responsible to a geographic riding's population. IIRC, under the list proposal, I will be presented with a list of candidates that are not connected to my riding at all. Then, to whom are these list candidates responsible? If it's to the entire province, how will these candidates represent the population on issues in the ridings? Perhaps these list candidates will just forget local issues entirely?
beaconer
Active Member
I find this editorial to be a pretty good argument for MMP..
(but personally, I am still probably going to vote against it).
http://spacing.ca/wire/?p=2364
Spacing will not endorse any candidate or political party as we head to the polls tomorrow. But we are not shy about our support for the Mixed-Member Proportional system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.
In recent years, urban concerns have not been well represented at Queen’s Park. In a political system that favours rural ridings over urban ones, Toronto and other urban regions have seen their influence marginalized, as they’ve suffered from a mixture of provincial indifference to outright vindictiveness. At a time when cities around the world are assuming more importance than ever, provincial politics have dragged urban regions backwards.
How would MMP affect this problem?
A fairer government means that by nature urban areas would be more represented in the provincial legislature. The thousands of urban votes that currently go to unsuccessful candidates would help to elect the 39 list MPPs. Toronto voters would be electing a large number of these new MPPs, purely by benefit of the city’s population. This means that the value of the Toronto vote to all parties would increase significantly. This extends to urban regions generally, as the decreased importance of ridings and the increased importance of individual voters would favor areas with high population density.
Parties would be obligated to tailor their platforms to urban voters in order to secure votes for list MPPs; “vote rich†areas would be as important as “seat rich†areas. Areas with a high population density will see their value increase, as their votes will be more consequential. The possibility of electing a party with an anti-urban platform would decrease, as urban elected list MPPs from other parties could compensate for any success such a party could have across the province. A party pursuing an anti-urban strategy would be doing so at great risk, given the increased power of the urban vote.
MMP would also allow for alterations to the province’s party makeup, and a Toronto or urban-oriented party could emerge to advocate on behalf of urban issues. This party could operate in a coalition or play “kingmaker,†helping a more successful party form a government and ensure that urban issues — transit, housing, uploading, etc. — are given priority in government. Such a party could have significant power in the legislature, able to work over time to ensure that urban concerns are heard.
Succinctly, urban voters would be less marginalized under MMP. They’ll have a greater say in provincial affairs, and could even elect local issue or pan-urban parties if they so choose. And while MMP isn’t a panacea for the problems of urban regions, it provides a real and improved opportunity for cities to articulate their concerns at Queen’s Park. For these reasons, Spacing supports switching Ontario to a mixed member proportional system. We hope you support this too.
On election day, say yes to MMP.
(but personally, I am still probably going to vote against it).
http://spacing.ca/wire/?p=2364
Spacing will not endorse any candidate or political party as we head to the polls tomorrow. But we are not shy about our support for the Mixed-Member Proportional system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.
In recent years, urban concerns have not been well represented at Queen’s Park. In a political system that favours rural ridings over urban ones, Toronto and other urban regions have seen their influence marginalized, as they’ve suffered from a mixture of provincial indifference to outright vindictiveness. At a time when cities around the world are assuming more importance than ever, provincial politics have dragged urban regions backwards.
How would MMP affect this problem?
A fairer government means that by nature urban areas would be more represented in the provincial legislature. The thousands of urban votes that currently go to unsuccessful candidates would help to elect the 39 list MPPs. Toronto voters would be electing a large number of these new MPPs, purely by benefit of the city’s population. This means that the value of the Toronto vote to all parties would increase significantly. This extends to urban regions generally, as the decreased importance of ridings and the increased importance of individual voters would favor areas with high population density.
Parties would be obligated to tailor their platforms to urban voters in order to secure votes for list MPPs; “vote rich†areas would be as important as “seat rich†areas. Areas with a high population density will see their value increase, as their votes will be more consequential. The possibility of electing a party with an anti-urban platform would decrease, as urban elected list MPPs from other parties could compensate for any success such a party could have across the province. A party pursuing an anti-urban strategy would be doing so at great risk, given the increased power of the urban vote.
MMP would also allow for alterations to the province’s party makeup, and a Toronto or urban-oriented party could emerge to advocate on behalf of urban issues. This party could operate in a coalition or play “kingmaker,†helping a more successful party form a government and ensure that urban issues — transit, housing, uploading, etc. — are given priority in government. Such a party could have significant power in the legislature, able to work over time to ensure that urban concerns are heard.
Succinctly, urban voters would be less marginalized under MMP. They’ll have a greater say in provincial affairs, and could even elect local issue or pan-urban parties if they so choose. And while MMP isn’t a panacea for the problems of urban regions, it provides a real and improved opportunity for cities to articulate their concerns at Queen’s Park. For these reasons, Spacing supports switching Ontario to a mixed member proportional system. We hope you support this too.
On election day, say yes to MMP.
lordmandeep
Banned
i will bet 5 bucks it will fail...
afransen
Senior Member
The polling agrees with you.
JasonParis
Moderator
Is that such a bad thing? Personally, I'm a little tired of MPP's only being for/against something based on how it plays out politically in their wee slice of Ontario.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
But so often, without the link to that "we" of the wee slice, politicians lose touch with what they are actually supposed to be there for: the people.
Frankly, those beholden only to party ideology and allegiances to platform positions are the types that worry me.
Frankly, those beholden only to party ideology and allegiances to platform positions are the types that worry me.
Lone Primate
Active Member
Yeah, but WHICH people? The people of Ontario, or the people of Weeville-Smallsburough-St. Teensy-Concession XIII? As long as Weeville's got its member, what's wrong with some people who aren't beholden to a particular tract and its parochial interests against those of everyone else?
Jdot
Active Member
I thought that MMP had a chance. For the most part, I think that there was a really poor job done educating the public on what MMP really is (pros and cons), which I feel would have lead to it's success. I think there is a general feeling out there that our electoral system is flawed, and this was a means of changing it. I was pleased that MMP was rejected, but was quite surprized.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Problem was that the ballot didn't explain what you were voting for. Instead it asked you to vote for something some committee came up with, without explaining what that was.
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Because those people would have been beholden - they'd have been beholden to the party leaders who put them on the list. Representative democracy is supposed to represent the people. I can't see how it would be an improvement to have a system that decreases the representation of the people and increases the representation of the party leaders. If that's what we want, lets bring back the appointed upper houses to provincial legislatures.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
So are you suggesting that these people and their interests/concerns don't count, and don't require representation? It sound like you are suggesting as much. The snobbishness of your answer is actually quite spectacular.
What is so right about a plan where one quarter of all MPP's would be be answerable only to a political party and its agenda?