There's no doubt that it's confusing and complicated. Some newspapers are starting to offer information, but the viewpoints are usually skewed one way or the other.
Steve Paikin of The Review (The 'other' vote on Oct. 10) has managed to come up with some arguments for both sides of the question, but since I am on the "NO MMP" Blogroll (bottom right of this blog), I'll highlight our side here:
Others worry about creating two different classes of MPPs: the 90 members who are tied to a riding, versus the 39 others who, they say, will need to curry favour with the leaders in order to be as high up the party list as possible, thereby improving their chances of winning a seat.
"I believe in parliament and the current party system," says Mac Penney, long-time backroom strategist for the Ontario PC party. "This is a jury-rigged solution."
Another interesting submission is a Letter to the editor of the Sarnia Observer by Paul McKeever, leader of the Freedom Party. Now you would expect the leader of a fringe party to be all for MMP. Not so:
We believe that the MMP is desired primarily by collectivists, anti-individualists and advocates of unbridled majority rule, and that the MMP threatens the rights and freedoms we value so much in Canada that we have enshrined them in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. For these reasons, even though the MMP might make it easier for my party to win seats, I will be voting in favour of the existing electoral system, First-Past-the-Post. It's not a perfect system, but it is far better, and far safer, than the MMP.
Finally, my 'No'-colleague, Jason Cherniak highlights some concerns that the NO side has - MMP Campaign has unfair advantage.
This whole issue has encouraged some strange partnerships.