Apolitical Staples

What happens in MMP & PR countries is that voters don’t only vote for a party’s platform, but also based on potential coalition partners. If a centrist party will invite a communist or fascist party into their governing coalition, then they bleed significant votes to another centrist party that won’t.

The first election in Ontario with MMP will have as its major issue how much of the NDP’s platform will the Liberals adopt. That is almost a guaranteed governing coalition, so it is the defining issue. If the Liberals dodge the question and the NDP becomes strident in its demands, then voters will stampede to the PC’s. If they do so in great enough numbers, then no left wing coalition will be able to govern. If they don’t, then Ontario gets the government they voted for.

That’s how democracies function. We agree to live by the bad choices that the majority of people make. We don’t organize a coup to force balanced budgets on people. We substitute persuasion for violence. I like that when bad decisions are made no one had to kill me to do so.

MMP is not the kind of reform our system needs, true reform would include:

limiting party power… (more FREE votes, abolish taxpayer funding of all parties, let them sell their policies to the public for support) Term limits for all politicians… from (alderman/councilor to mayor to Prov MPP to Fed MP) all elected officials…two—4 years terms max.

MMP won’t solve the biggest problem facing the electorate..that being..

Politicians lying through their teeth.

But a voter recall mechanism might!

Vote no to MMP…and start demanding true reform of the political rules, …NOT reform of the way we vote…!

“If that is what the people vote for then that is what they should get.”

Unfortunately, we would all get it. Are you proposing that those of us who do not vote for more power for the loathsome NDP should not get it? I’m intrigued. A democracy opt-out clause? Do tell.

William, the reforms you describe are not antithetical to MMP. You do not have to vote against MMP to bring them about. In fact, I would suggest that voting against MMP will be interpreted by the Liberals and Conservatives as a vote for the status quo forever and ever amen. MMP will be the first reform. It doesn’t have to be the last.

Alan: Loathsome? Unphotogenic maybe. Big boned? Sure, but not loathsome.

the concern that MMP could cause government spending to increase, as it has in other countries that have adopted PR

It’s actually much stupider than that. Nobody’s done a comprehensive study of multiple jurisdictions that have SWITCHED to proportional systems from first-past-the-post, because there’s only one of those (New Zealand). So what they’re really doing is taking the sum total of all of the places where propotional systems exist, and comparing them with the sum total of all of the places where first-past-the-post exists, finding that there tends to be more spending in the (primarily European) countries that fall into the former category, and assuming that’s because of the voting system.

Finding the stupidity in this assumption is left as an exercise for the reader.

The first election in Ontario with MMP will have as its major issue how much of the NDP’s platform will the Liberals adopt. That is almost a guaranteed governing coalition, so it is the defining issue.

I’m intrigued by the ubiquitous assumption that the NDP would be the chosen governing partner of the Liberals. I would think that given the extent of “McGuintoryism,” they’d prefer to govern with the PCs. They’re certainly ideologically closer these days than the Liberals are to the NDP.

A case for voting against electoral reform:

http://www.policystudies.ca/documents/assessingthecaseformmpin%20ontario.pdf

I’ll try again. Coyne and other bloggers with bigger words than I say us the system is cheating we voters of a fair outcome. So you propose to give everyone a second vote. To further mudle the waters of clear political intention. I will say it again, MMP is an endorsement of political and rhetorical as well as idealogical mediocrity. FPTP rewards excellence and punishes lazy, uninterested voters. Too bad! No to MMP! I continue to work hard to convince my neighbours that MMP is a gift to fringe political ideas. They are on the fringe (low support) for a reason. FPTP has provided a platform for Ontario and Canada to be one of the greatest nations on the planet, I assume we all agree. How much more fun, money and satisfaction does Mr. Coyne think he needs. Two votes per voter…sheesh!

FPTP rewards excellence and punishes lazy, uninterested voters.

Ya know, a lengthy series of plainly unsubstantiated assertions and hyperbole is not very convincing.

Andrew Coyne responds to the concern that MMP could cause government spending to increase, as it has in other countries that have adopted PR … If that is what the people vote for then that is what they should get.

If people vote for someone else’s money to be confiscated and redistributed then they “should get” it? You seem to be suffering from a Marxist delusion that all property is communal, and that the only real problem is figuring out how to achieve a consensus on the disposition of all this common property. Sounds like a plan - but how d’you think all that is going to end?

I don’t know exactly when the vacation in cloud-cuckoo land will be ended, but I have a pretty good idea how it will happen (skip to the Appendix if you’re impatient). Spoiler:

“… extravagant spending on public works by central government and cities … heavy expenditures for wars, exhausting reserves and tax resources … Heavy spending continues on army, bureaucracy and extension of dole … military anarchy combining with ruinous taxes and inflation to demoralize business and break down the middle class … increasing taxation … skyrocketing prices …price- and wage-controls … totalitarian state … end of Western Empire.”

Actually it may not take very long for chaos to overtake Ontario. Glancing at my incumbent Liberal MPP’s campaign leaflet today, I see that since they’re cruising to victory (and since we live in a gigantic commune) they couldn’t be bothered even pretending that they are going to be the slightest bit fiscally responsible. Other than decrying John Tory’s plan to “cut $500 million from government funded education” and “cut $3 billion from public health care” it’s nothing but an 8-1/2x11, double-sided, glossy shopping list of brand new spending “priorities”. But I guess I should be happy - according to our pundits, the use of demagoguery and gerrymandering to extinguish civil society through bankruptcy and the splitting of the population into government mandarins on one side and dole-queueing beggars on the other side is, far from being a disaster, something which should be encouraged.

Greg… MMP is NOT reform of our system. The reforms I mention above ARE!

MMP only changes the way we vote… NOT the way politicians ACT!

MMP gives credence, validity to fringe elements in our society, at my expense, since my taxes will support any view, that can muster 3% of the popular vote. MMP is multicultural affirmative action run amok!

Extremist veiws AREN’T extremist just different, seems to be what you and MMP supporters are saying. Exactly, HOW does that improve our democracy?

Lets limit party power, NOT increase it. Institute a voter mechanism for recall. Abolish taxpayer funding of all political parties first, then maybe we can talk about changing the way we vote. These are true reforms, MMP is NOT…!

PS…you suggest the reforms I mention ..can still happen after MMP is instituted. HOGWASH…which extremist party will willingly give up taxpayer funding after they get their seat in parliment…the communists, the green party, the anti-abortion party?…please explain!

Sound political policy (sane NOT radical) will always find support among the voting public. MMP deliberatly usurps, distorts that principle, by allowing extremists views, it takes away the voting public’s right to choose, which views should be represented in our parliment.