Apolitical Staples

But remember that MMP is only one of many options. A vote to keep the current system this time is not a vote to end electoral reform.

Agreed, it is just ends it for the next 20 years or so. Or until we have another NDP gov’t, whichever comes first.

Let me point out the obvious that the Labour Party has a vested interest in keeping things the way they are now. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac and the Labourites are in love.

I was under the impression that the centrist parties would lose votes to the peripheries, but I am no longer convinced that will occur.

I live in a union town that always goes to NDP or Liberal. My vote is always wasted (unless ontario gives some money per vote like the feds do).

I still see people campaigning saying things like Paul Martin said ‘Stop Harper’ and such thus still draining the NDP votes. If the voter turnout does not improve, why would voting patterns change?

In the end, will there be much of an impact since most people already vote for their party of choice and not the candidate?

The FPTP system is designed to result in stable, mainstream governments, and avoid pizza parliaments. The Constitution calls for ‘peace, order, and good government’. The MMP system gives fringe parties a bigger voice, which some would say is good, but in reality, if you look at governments with similar systems it results instability (economically and socially), and political extremism. You get parties based on extremes from both ends of the spectrum getting seats (imagine the Christian Heritage party and the Marxist Leninist party getting seats), and more importantly, it can make those fringe parties more important, and lead to deal making which is not in the interests of the province as a whole (If you are 2 seats shy of a majority, and a fringe party can give you those two seats, don’t you make some deals to get their support in a coalition?).

At best, MMP might result in government gridlock, an arguably good thing. Its hard for government to screw up if it cannot pass anything. At worst MMP could result in a radical left wing party holding the balance of power, with a center left party giving in to their demands to retain the reins of power.

Paul M., You’re completely wrong. Countries with PR are not “unstable” and governed by “extremists”. Arend Lijphart’s classic of comparative politics, Patterns of Democracy, (great summary here - http://wikisum.com/w/Lijphart:Patternsof_democracy) clearly shows that PR countries are NO more likely to have elections and spend almost exactly the same proportion of GDP on government programs.

However, PR countries DO have more effective environmental policies, slightly higher voter turnout and MUCH more voter satisfaction, as voters are 10-15% more likely to say that they feel “represented” by the government.

Is it any wonder - they’re largely governed by majority coalitions that represent a majority of voters!

First, let’s have a referendum if Ontarians want PR. Then, in 2011, let’s have a referendum on the system to implement.

MMP does a LOT more than just lead to minority government!

Good lord….where to start?

MMP gives me a vote that actually elects people I want. True, i can’t specify which one because it allows me to elect SEVERAL from the party I support. (How anyone can say electing several instead of just one is a bad thing is beyond me….) . MMP makes all part votes equal in value, equity of votes being a constitutional principle (in Canada) AND a fundmental premise of democracy.

MMP in a representative democratic setting does a FAR better job of accurately translating votes into representation than FPTP.

MMP does allow more women to be elected. Studies that look at MMP systems that did NOT transition from FIrst Past the Post are bogus and fraudulent. Of course there was little improvement in such situations because the “improved” situation is the norm. New Zealand saw a significant rise in female MPs after MMP was introduced. The first Pacific Island and Asian and Muslim MPs were also elected after MMP was introduced. The first openly gay MPs and a even a transexual MP were also elected….the latter in a local, conservative riding.

The “pizza Parliament” comment is completely inappropriate for two reasons:

1. MMP is not the pre-1989 Italian voting system and Canada is not Italy.

2. Italy hasn’t had that voting system for almost 20 years, yet PR critics, out of touch with reality as they generally are, don’t appear to have noticed. In fact, Italy went to a system more like the Korean SM system. It lead to the unpopular Berlusconi governent winning power and the extremely unpopular involvement in the Iraq War.

Berlusconi was on his way to a grand hiding, so he changed the voting system back to a more proportional system in order to avoid the “two seat solution” that fixed the Mulroney Anomaly in Canada.

Blaming MMP for Italy and ignoring the other 80 countries that use PR systems is just as dishonest as equating all FPTP countries the Mugabe government in Zimbabwe…..elected by FPTP.

The Brits lost interest in electoral reform when they realized they can take the pulse of the people far more quickly and accurately with a combination of microphone-enabled CCTV cameras and unmanned spy planes.

You get parties based on extremes from both ends of the spectrum getting seats (imagine the Christian Heritage party and the Marxist Leninist party getting seats)

Assuming that the CH’ers are the kind of religious nazis which you seem to fear they are, then both of these parties are at the same end of the spectrum. This is the end at which government maintains total control of people’s lives and property. The ideological differences which loom so large in your mind are simply a matter of branding.

If the religious zealots and the atheist zealots are a 10, then the Greens are a 9, the NDP an 8-1/2, and the Libs and Cons tied at about 7-1/2 and racing each other to grab 8. The main parties circa 1950 were at about 5, and back around 1900 they were maybe at 2. Your political spectrum looks like a slippery ramp leading into a cage.

The essential political questions are these: How much of your life should be owned and controlled by politicians and bureaucrats? If you wish to cede only partial control, then in which areas are you and your families, neighbors and your voluntary associations defective? (this is how you choose your political brand) And why are you willing to take the chance of having these (presumably vital) parts of your life controlled by (insert name of your most hated political party or leader here) in an election? If you consider all of the overlapping tag-team of levels of government which are arrayed against you, and the odds of “your guys” getting elected, added to the sleazy and opportunistic characters of a large number of those attracted to politics, it’s a wonder to me that anybody would take such a chance.

However, PR countries DO have more effective environmental policies, slightly higher voter turnout and MUCH more voter satisfaction, as voters are 10-15% more likely to say that they feel “represented” by the government.

Translation:

They ride to work on extremely crowded buses, but they’re convinced that the hairshirt imposed on them by their limo-riding, villa-owning, bribe-taking elites will buy them a ticket into some kind of heavenly Ecotopia.