Mixed Member Proportional = Crap
September 30th, 2007 | by MadHacktress |The Kingston Whig Standard, my local paper, today wrote a delightful little article exploring the MMP system and attempting to give some point-counter-point between it and our current electoral system. The article is here, headlined: Electoral Reform: Do you get it?.
It isn’t really a bad article inasmuch as it does outline some of the pros and cons of the two elections styles. It does lay out some facts and an benefits to the current system as well as list of pertinent concerns of the new system. However, I don’t think that it goes far enough to really explain how profound a change this could make it our government.
I have been shocked and dismayed at the lack of play this particular issue has received in mainstream media - and we’re really getting down to the wire now. I am not concerned that the referendum is going to pass. I am quite certain that it will not receive the two-thirds majority that it requires. But I am nonetheless wary and aware that this is a possibility for our future.
I am not fond of the idea that the number of ridings in the province will be reduced from 107 to 90. That means that 17 ridings will disappear in an instant - that is not a good harbinger of success for a supposedly proportionally representative system, in my opinion. Riding sizes will increase, the power of the individual will be lost immediately.
I dislike, too, that the balance of the seats will increase the size of the legislature by an additional 22 members - at minimum. If the electoral math cannot be worked out within the framework of a 129 member body, the legislature is within its rights - according to the MMP principal - to increase its own size for the duration of the term of office in order to reflect the electoral math set down by the voters.
I am dismayed that, at least in the Whig article, this is being proposed as a way to bring more diversity to Ontario politics. Two reasons for this are, firstly, that diversity for the sake of diversity helps no one. I don’t want a woman in politics if there is a man who is more qualified for her position who would be passed over. Perhaps that shifts my political views to the right somewhat, but I don’t care. Secondly this diversity relies on the parties themselves stepping up and supplying lists with diverse candidates on them. In other areas of the world where the MMP system is used many parties simple run the same candidates on the list as those who are running in local elections - with a few differences for persons eminent.
Most governments in Ontario - and indeed in Canada - are elected with a minority of the popular vote. While not exactly the same, the popular vote is basically correlative to the MMP party vote. This means that the MMP system is more prone to minority governments than our current system. And, more likely than not, the MMP system is apt to turn up minority governments on a regular basis. Proponents of the system would tell you that this leads to coalition building. In all its history Canada and Ontario have seen only one coalition government - in 1917.
I fear the that MMP system could fracture our political party system as the parties learn that smaller parties are more viable for coalition building. The huge parties are unlikely to ever come to an agreement on policy such that they would be able to form a coalition and so, out of necessity, smaller parties - parties that don’t even exist yet, to be sure - will be the ones that swing the tide.
The article would have you believe that these coalition government are more stable than the shaky issue-by-issue coalitions that minority governments form nowadays, but I have my doubts. Canadian politicians are notably my-way-or-the-highway and thus there is nothing to stop them from breaking ranks and bringing down a government and forcing an election due to lack of confidence in the government. The MMP system has no check or balance to force the membership of a coalition to continue working within the framework of the coalition. The MMP system may give the appearance of stability on paper, but what we will see in the legislature could be very different.
I am convinced that this is not a step in the right direction for Ontario. I will be voting NO on MMP in October, and I encourage you to research the facts, form your own opinion and vote on the issue as well - hopefully the will of the Ontario people will be heard.
Entry Filed under: Provincial, Pure Opinion
I think you’re mistaken in your views on the topic. Here are 12 reasons to vote for MMP, and here are 10 Misconceptions of MMP.. and I think you should read both before condemning the system.
Thank you for the comment. I have read a great, great deal about the MMP system, both before this referendum came up and since. I have read about Germany, the U.K., New Zealand and others who use the system, I have read the entire report, word by word, that was put out by CAER, I have read, now, the opinions of these two bloggers.
I still stand firm in my opinions and feelings with regard to the MMP system. I admitted that the MMP system looks good on paper, but I feel that the reality of Ontario politics will not bear out the affirmative opinions of many individuals.
There has been at least one notable coalition in the Ontario Legislature: In 1985 PCs won a minority of the seats (52), but power was held by a coalition of the Liberals with 48 seats and the NDP with 25 seats. The 73 seat “Accord” was responsible for the introduction of pay equity legislation and outlawing extra billing for doctor’s services.
–Bob.
Actually, the Accord was not a coalition. If you check the history books you will find that David Peterson is listed at the Premier of Ontario, for the Liberal party; not for the Liberal-NDP party. I wouldn’t consider the government of that day to be a coalition in actuality, it was, in truth, a government-in-agreement.
I would be interested in seeing any historical sources that do claim that the Accord was a coalition because I have seen umpteen sources that state that Ontario has never had one.
We have not had coalitions in Canada because the voting system is not conducive to coalition. There are no incentives for cooperation. We have a winner-take-all system that generates cut-throat politics and makes power the only issue.
We currently have 25% women in the Ontario Legislature, 21% in Ottawa. It’s a national disgrace! FPTP stifles diversity of all sorts. Every country (except Cuba) that has at least 30% women in its national parliament has a proportional voting system.
It’s not about putting a woman ahead of a more qualified man–it’s about removing the barriers to election for qualified women and minorities.
MMP is about changing the strucutre of incentives to generate different behaviour from our politicians and political parties.
Why would you suggest that “the power of the individual will be lost” under MMP? MMP is a voting system designed by voters to be good for voters. It will give voters the power to hold political parties accountable, by giving every voter a party vote that actually helps to elect somebody, every time.
Don’t fall for the hype that list MPPs are not elected, or that MMP will give more power to party bosses.
On a minor point, you should re-read the Report. You say “If the electoral math cannot be worked out within the framework of a 129 member body, the legislature is within its rights - according to the MMP principal - to increase its own size for the duration of the term.” This indeed happens in Germany and New Zealand, but not Scotland, and not Ontario. This “overhang” feature is one the CA decided to dispense with, in the interests of simplicity.
You are correct that, in other areas of the world where the MMP system is used, many parties simple run many of the same candidates at large as those who are running in local elections. However, you may not realize why these countries elect many more women than we do. Left parties tend to put every second candidate on the at-large slate as a woman, while conservative parties may make a woman every third name. Local ridings still tend to nominate “the strongest man” 75% of the time, but when a larger group nominates and ranks the at-large candidates (in New Zealand they do this in six regional conventions, then fold the six lists into one) they tend to nominate a balanced slate. If they run out of locally nominated women they might add a few “list-only” women, but usually that’s not necessary, because only the top half or so of the list have any real chance, and they usually have enough local women candidates for the top half of the list.