"I'm very skeptical about a system that ... adds more politicians to begin with," Mr. Tory said. "I haven't met a single voter yet who has told me they're looking to add more politicians to the Ontario legislature, or any other place."
( . . . )
"I certainly haven't run into anybody who thinks it would be better to have MPPs, or any other kinds of politicians, who are appointed by party bosses and accountable to no constituents," Mr. Tory said.
Now Scott Tribe suggests that this is just a lot of fear-mongering, and that Tory should be stating up front that the process would be democratic with province-wide party nomination conventions; thus following Howard Hampton's lead.
Well, I have two problems with that. First of all, why waste time planning policy for a what-if situation? There are many more concrete issues to be focusing on in this election.
Secondly, are there any guarantees that just because John Tory, Dalton McGuinty or Howard Hampton would decree the party position to be "X", that a future leader wouldn't change it to "Y"?
I think it would be best for John Tory to keep hammering away on Caledonia and broken promises, and leave MMP up to the voters, whom I hope deliver a resounding "No!" at the polls.
* * * *
6 comments:
I hope all you MMP haters get stuck with another NDP majority. It won't happen this election, but as sure as Rae in 1990, it will happen again sometime. Nothing like 40% of the voters having dictatorial power over a province for 4 or 5 years like we do with current system.
A couple days ago you were complaining about how with red tory, like John Tory leading the PC's people like you have no one to vote for. But at the same time you defend to the death a system which ensures that if parties want to have any say they have to cram into the middle. Oh what a horror show it would be to have real democracy.
Can you guys hurry up and get your provincial election over with already? It's barely even started yet and already it's boring as heck. I think I remember now why I stopped following provincial politics when I lived in Ontario.
The only way I could even come close to stomaching any form of proportional representation is if, in adddition to a 5% threshhold before there was any representation (like in Germany), but it was made law that participating political parties had to leave it up to grass roots members to determine who the list candidates were. Party insiders have too much influence as it is now (and that's my complaint with respect to ALL parties). They don't need any more.
wayward,
"real democracy"?
How is a system where the people don't pick or vote for the candidates "real democracy"? How is a system with appointed politicians that have accountability to no-one but the party brass "real democracy"?
Sheesh, it's bad enough that senators are appointed, now you want to appoint MPs too?
Actually, I'm about to do a documentary on New Zealand's switch from a first-past-the-post system to a MMP system, and it's effects on the country 15 years later.
Maybe I'll swing by Canada and do some interviews there.
-- Brian Boyko
-- Producer, "Following Alexis West"
Hi Brian. Well, the referendum ended up in favour of the status quo, (FPTP), but the discussion continues about the need for some kind of electoral reform.
B.C. will likely be considering this once again during their next election, but the particular system they're talking about it STV.
In one of my more recent posts, a columnist discusses the results that might have occurred in Ontario if MMP had been in place.
Post a Comment