My Objection to MMP
Ontario's electoral system is flawed; there is no doubt. A minority of voters can elect a majority government, and that is unjust. Small parties are at a very large disadvantage, so the Green's (although they represent a sizable portion of the vote) still don't have a single member.
I welcome electoral reform. Given our highly literate, educated, savvy electorate, it is very possible to introduce a more accurate and sophisticated system. We could introduce a preferential ballot, for example. We could even look at a republican model of government that would allow the popular vote to determine the Premiership. I'm open to suggestion.
Open minded as I am, however, I really am not convinced that the Ontario MMP proposal is a good idea. Sure, it balances out the votes and the members; I grant that. I take two issues.
First is that MMP gives more power to political parties. Because the order of names on the MMP list will be decided by the party, MMP members will be entirely beholden to party discipline. Members elected in constituencies are responsible to their electorate, and if that support continues then they are able to sit notwithstanding any partisan machinations. In an age where parties are less popular than ever before, I don't see how it is appropriate to give them more power.
My second issue is the prevalence of coalition governments in MMP systems. Political parties, if they do their job, should provide voters with choice. Confusing that choice by fusing options doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help parties develop and implement courageous policies. It doesn't help the public when ideologically dissimilar parties form awkward coalitions.
I am no supporter of our backwards medieval first-past-the-post system, but there certainly are worse systems. The electoral college is one example; the intra-parliamentary leadership system is another; MMP is one too.
I welcome electoral reform. Given our highly literate, educated, savvy electorate, it is very possible to introduce a more accurate and sophisticated system. We could introduce a preferential ballot, for example. We could even look at a republican model of government that would allow the popular vote to determine the Premiership. I'm open to suggestion.
Open minded as I am, however, I really am not convinced that the Ontario MMP proposal is a good idea. Sure, it balances out the votes and the members; I grant that. I take two issues.
First is that MMP gives more power to political parties. Because the order of names on the MMP list will be decided by the party, MMP members will be entirely beholden to party discipline. Members elected in constituencies are responsible to their electorate, and if that support continues then they are able to sit notwithstanding any partisan machinations. In an age where parties are less popular than ever before, I don't see how it is appropriate to give them more power.
My second issue is the prevalence of coalition governments in MMP systems. Political parties, if they do their job, should provide voters with choice. Confusing that choice by fusing options doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help parties develop and implement courageous policies. It doesn't help the public when ideologically dissimilar parties form awkward coalitions.
I am no supporter of our backwards medieval first-past-the-post system, but there certainly are worse systems. The electoral college is one example; the intra-parliamentary leadership system is another; MMP is one too.
posted by James Bowie at 3:25 AM
12 Comments:
Members elected in constituencies are responsible to their electorate, and if that support continues then they are able to sit notwithstanding any partisan machinations.
Ideally, that is the case. However, in reality, MP's are often elected with fewer than 40% of the popular vote. They do not represent their total constituency. There is little to prevent them from voting their party line in spite of constituency opinion. Case in point: Peter MacKay on the Atlantic Accord issue. Under the MMP proposal, btw, regional reps still have the most power. Party reps are included to help ensure that every vote counts. In FPTP, unless you vote for the winner, you may as well not bother.
My second issue is the prevalence of coalition governments in MMP systems.
If these coalitions represent a democratic proportion of voters, what's the objection. Just because FPTP is more likely to elect disproportionate majorities, does not make it preferrable. To me, it only makes it so my GPC vote is meaningless. Others, less enthused and more disgruntled, will stay away fromthe polls when their vote is seen as meaningless.
If you haven't already done so, I'd suggest you spend 6 minutes looking at this YouTube piece on MMP.
If you are a LPO or PCO backer, MMP will likely cost seats and power. Those seats were disproportionately elected. The big parties are more interested in maintaining false majorities and disproportionate representation than in democracy. If you think the parties have too much power already, why allow that power to be concentrated disproportionately?
JimBobby
I couldnt have said it any better myself Jimbobby. Bravo. There are a lot of false fears about MMP similar to what James has raised, and most of these fears are not founded.
MMP isn't perfect by any means, but it certainly isn't worse then FPTP as what James claims - it's a heck of a lot better.
(Coalition governments have been working in Europe under MMP just fine, by the way, James.)
James,
Your argument is questionable.
You raised many reasons why electoral reform is necessary, but in the end you decided on supporting the "no" side because of the potential loss of seats for the Liberal Party.
A not fully democratic electoral reform is no excuse to maintain majoritarian governments.
Please reconsider.
Jim: 1, sure, MP's and MPP's aren't supported by the majority of thier constituents; however, 100% of their consituents have a responsible MP or MPP.
MMP members don't represent voters; that's the problem. They represent parties.
Stott: Thanks. .
Mushroom: At no point in this post did I mention the Ontario Liberal Party. Nowhere in the history of this blog will you find an endorsement of Dalton McGuinty or the Ontario Liberal Party.
Jim: 1, sure, MP's and MPP's aren't supported by the majority of thier constituents; however, 100% of their consituents have a responsible MP or MPP.
James, I'm not sure you understand MMP. Under MMP, 100% of constituents have a responsible MPP, too. Which constituents are you thinking don't get represented? It sounds to me like you may be confusing MMP with pure PR.
Did you have a look at the 6 minute video?
FYI, a few years ago, I was against PR, in general. I felt, for the same reasons as you, that it was not a good fit for our geopolitical reality in Canada. Just like you, I blogged on the reasons I was against PR. I was encouraged to study it further and was pointed to, among other sites, fairvotecanada.ca. After taking a thorough look and seeing how the system works in other jurisdictions, I changed my mind.
Whether or not you mention the LPO, you do blog as a Liblogger so we must assume you are a Liberal Party supporter. Disproporational representation is disproportional because it affords a huge bonus to the old, large established parties and shortchanges the smaller, newer parties. If all you want is the most votes for the PC's or Lib's, regardless of what the voter wants, then keep on working against PR and an improved democracy.
JB
Okay, I checked your blog again. You have links to the Young Liberals of Canada and a few prominent bloggers with ties to the Liberal Party. Thus, I may have mistaken your affiliation, but we know that your support of the political party that I belong is obvious.
Let's put it this way. John Lennard, Scott Tribe, Matt Guerin, and I will continue to support all forms of proportional representation. We believe in progressive governments that represent ALL Canadians. This needs to happen in both the federal and provincial levels. A referendum victory in Ontario will undoubtedly lead to movements to implement some form of proportional representation in the federal level. In fact, we will push hard for Dion to bring forth electoral reform as a part of the Liberal mandate in the next election. We have Carolyn Bennett on board and we are confident we will have others on our side too.
Having advanced some of the problems of the First Past the Post system, I feel that we can convince you to join our political reform movement. We definitely want you on side and would welcome you to reconsider the merits of MMP.
You're missing the point Jim. These new list MP's will be responsible to their party, not to the voters.
Mushroom: I am a Paul Martin Liberal. Huge difference.
These new list MP's will be responsible to their party, not to the voters.
It is voters who elect the list MPP's, too. The current system rewards the LPO and PCO with MPP's they have not really elected by the popular will of the voters.
When I (and 5%-10% of all voters) vote GPC and get absolutely zero representation, that is an affronbt to democracy. Mt GPC vote is meaningless. As a GPC supporter, I get nothing for my vote. Under MMP, GPC voters will get some representation.
If you are such a disbeliever in political parties, why do you plaster Liberal logos all over your site?
Your party and the PCO are being given the benefit of my vote and I didn't vote for either party. How is that fair? Does fairness concern you or are you simply trying to promote the current system? Do you not see how frustrating it is for voters to go to the polls time and again and get zero representation? Do you not see how this contributes to teh cynicism that has resulted in a voter turnout below 60%?
Have you watched that YouTube yet? What did you think of it?
JB
I thought it was shit, if you must know.
James,
It was nice to have met you on Saturday, but alas, I must also call bullshit on this post.
Under MMP, list members are not selected/appointed/elected by political parties. THEY'RE ELECTED - BY VOTERS!
Consider this, in 2003, it took,on average, 21,993 votes to elect a MPP in Ontario. In 2003, 4,309,912 votes were cast, (which under MMP will all count if cast for a party that got more than 3%). So if we divide that number by the 129 MPPs who will be elected under MMP, on average it would have taken 33,410 votes to elect a list MPP.
Therefore, since it takes nearly 50% more votes to elect a List MPP as compared to a local MPP under the present system, how can it be said they are not elected?
Oh wait, list MMPs are elected by Ontarians – and with more voter support than our current MPPs are!
James,
Good meeting you after all these years, even if I had an ailing dog to go home to.But seriously: your objections to MMP just don't hold water.
Members elected in constituencies are responsible to their electorate, and if that support continues then they are able to sit notwithstanding any partisan machinations.
Well, until the next election. As a Liberal, you know full well what happens when members go against the powers that be--or even if they don't, as is the case with the Ignatieff shoehorning.
So list MPs will be beholden to the party? Not really. I'm sure you have a more sophisticated model of electoral dynamics than that. If list MPs behave like robots, and come from the insiders' group, opposition parties won't fail to make an electoral issue out of that. The whole culture will change. But in any case, it's a bit much for you to bemoan party discipline, which was absolute under Chretien and close to it with Martin. Did I hear you dissent? Pleas refresh my memory.
As for coalitions, if ever there was a coalition, the Liberal Party is one all by itself. The same cross-Canada brokering goes on--and so what? You end up with a platform and a set of public policies, even if you abandon them the day after the election. :) There's nothing wrong with coalitions--Germany has had them for decades, and a mor3e stable government you would be at pains to find.
My issue with coalitions isn't stability. I agree with you about Germany. But how do you calculate which promises need to be kept? Canada has enough trouble with that already.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home