The other big issue in the October election - Updated with great link

Update: This is a fantastic piece by Peter Woolstencroft et al from the University of Waterloo - Electoral System Change a Risky Move.

I hope to examine this more thoroughly in the days to come, but please feel free to comment here.

* * * *

Ian Urquhart reminds us to pay attention to the October referendum issue - that MMP could become law if we're not careful. (How MMP could sneak to victory).


One thing for sure - If MMP gets in, there's no turning back.

* * * *

Part 2 - Why I'm Voting against MMP (Star)

Is Coyne correct?

I have to admit that I find this whole MMP issue quite tedious.

I can't imagine the majority of the population even caring enough to educate themselves on what is an extremely complex question. However, several people have asked me to respond to Andrew Coyne's Op-ed in Saturday's National Post (Why Conservatives should support proportional representation), so I will attempt to fulfill that request now. I've also made a few comments at Christian Conservative and Diogenes Borealis.

If I am interpreting it correctly, Coynes' basic argument is that the present system ("First Past the Post" - FPTP), encourages a dull middle ground of policy or McGuintoryism as he refers to it. (Why not TorMcGuintyism?)

Anyway, that is a moot point. At first Tory's ideas seemed very close to McGuinty's, but lately he's been throwing out new ideas at such a rapid rate that the Liberal attack dogs can hardly keep up.

In a nutshell, Coyne is saying that MMP is preferable "because the 'winner take all' dynamic would have been broken -- parties get roughly the share of the seats their proportion of the vote would suggest, rather than the highly leveraged payoffs under FPTP -- all parties would have less fear of taking risks".

I'm not sure that 'taking risks' is going to sell MMP for me.

The supposed advantage of forming coalitions doesn't really do much for me either. As Paul Wilson wisely notes in his letter to the editor in today's Post (Coyne is wrong about MMP):

...So the issue is not stable government but responsible government, which depends on our collective ability, as electors, to toss a government out. In choosing between the existing system or the new proposal, Ontario voters should not think about instant gratification ('The Greens have seats at last!"), or about which end of the political spectrum gets the advantage, but about the long-term consequences of being governed by successions of coalitions over which we, the electors, no longer hold the power of life or death.

Excellent letter!


Now one of my regular readers, Kingston, made an interesting proposal in the previous thread:

Joanne, I think I have come to a reasonable conclusion concerning MMP and if it was implemented as follows I could live with it, say after all the math is done, the Libs end up with 8 extra seats the PC 5, the NDP 4 and the Greens 2 just for example, instead of the parties leaders picking off a list of cronies they have to fill these seats with those members who lost but had the highest voter support. i.e. the Libs 8 highest percentage vote winners that never actually won are appointed, kind of like the wild card position in Major League Baseball, at least that way the members are partial accountable to the voters and have actually stood for election.

This sounds very close to the STV (Single Transferable Vote) system that has been proposed in B.C., would certainly help make the process a bit more democratic, but it still doesn't seem to address the coalition concerns that the Post reader had noted.

I'm sure this debate will rage on between those who are passionately interested in change, and those who are concerned about the ramifications. Lots of good points were made by both sides in a previous post here.

But what will the folks who can hardly be bothered to vote do? Assuming they can even drag themselves out to the ballot box, will they just close their eyes and pick?

I do agree with Coyne's last line: "...start changing minds today".

But do it for the side you truly believe in. Change just for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing.

In today's Record Geoffrey Stevens reminds us that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I'm not sure I totally agree with him. The system may be 'broken' inasmuch as there is a lot of voter apathy out there, which is antithetical to a health democracy.

I'm just not convinced that MMP is the panacea.

John Tory less than enthused about MMP

Today's Post contains a bit of insight into John Tory's position on MMP (Tory signals he'll vote no in referendum):

"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.

* * * *

Sunday Update: Canadians favour current system of voting: report.

More reasons to say NO to MMP

George Radwanski lays it all out in a National Post editorial, A Referendum Ontario Doesn't Need.

But even if you believe that the current system is seriously flawed, where is the evidence that this particular change would do more good than harm? The potential drawbacks and consequences haven't even begun to be explored. For instance, what would be the effect on regional representation of reducing the total number of ridings from 107 to 90, and adding 39 seats for new legislators appointed from party lists to reflect province-wide vote totals? It's a good bet that rural and northern Ontarians might well find themselves with even less representation than at present, which would scarcely be a triumph for democracy.

Likewise, would it really improve over-all representation to have two classes of MPPs, with one-third of them exempted from having to be elected, maintaining contact with constituents or facing the accountability of having to seek personal re-election? The proposed system would also make minority governments much more likely, if not inevitable. Occasionally having minority governments has its benefits. But since such governments tend to make decisions based on short-term expediency rather than long-term planning, and to be more high-spending as they toss bones to stay in power, do we want to deliberately make them more frequent or even permanent?

Radwanski also criticizes the lack of information on the subject and the rushed format, referring to it as "sideshow to a one-month election campaign". Well, unofficially I think that election campaign has been going on for months now, but it's true that the officials, media and pundits only seem to be getting into the issues of MMP now.

He closes with a suggestion that since "it's too late now to rescind the provincial legislation requiring the referendum concurrent with this election, it would be best to defeat the proposal soundly, then revisit the whole issue thoughtfully and separately a year or more down the road."

This is the point I have been trying to make - This is not a now or never situation. Don't be pressured. If you dislike FPTP, there are other options out there.


But most of all, please vote.

* * * *

Important Update: Please check out Allan Cutler's column at Step to the Right - "A new way to vote; not a better way to vote".

Save this one for Oct. 10

Kudos to Philip Jalsevac of the Record for providing Ontario voters with this excellent explanation of the upcoming referendum question - A chance to reimagine Ontario. Title notwithstanding, it is a fairly non-partisan analysis, and quite comprehensive in its approach.

I am still in the "No" camp, but the article presents many interesting points that are worth considering. If you study the accompanying diagram in the Record, it would almost seem beneficial for the PC party to be pushing for this change.

However, I was impressed by the decision of U. of W. political scientist Peter Woolstencroft's offer to help the "No" side:

"Do we want to have MPPs who will be passing laws who are not directly elected by the voters and are not accountable to electors in a district?" Woolstencroft said.

He hopes a group of local people will come together to "look at our options" and develop a plan for an opposition campaign in Waterloo Region.

However, he said the No side is well behind "organizationally and financially . . . The reformers have been out there for a long time beating the drum."

His voice lends a great deal of credibility to the cause for trying to come up with an alternate solution. It doesn't have to be a decision of MMP or status quo forever.

There are other models out there.

FPTP has its flaws, but why therefore opt for a less democratic Ontario?

* * * *

BTW, stunts like this make me even more determined to say No to MMP.

More info here on the pros & cons of MMP (Full Comment).

James Bowie with a great post and discussion here.

Raphael - Olivia Chow's MMP vision: 20 people attend.

MMP - Editorials starting to trickle in

I would imagine that most Ontario voters have little interest or information regarding the referendum vote coming up in October.

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.

Final Decision re: MMP

NO!!!

That is what I will be voting - against MMP.

Why?

Just read who is supporting it here.


H/T Steve Janke who opened my eyes. A brilliant comment from one of his readers:

Reject MMP it's a scam to allow liberals to split the vote by running sycophant indi candidates and win the house through cooperative alignment after the election.

An insider sleaze paly if there ever was one.

If a Liberal is fogging a mirror they are actively plotting to scam you.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at August 28, 2007 09:10 AM

Great post here by Porno Christian - Proportional Representation: Invoking Godwin. (H/T to reader Brian in Calgary).

* * * *

Thursday Update: NO MMP!!!!

Great Canadian Debate - Holmstrom vs. Tribe on MMP