MMP explained with Q and A

Here is more from the National Post's useful material on the MMP.

MMP Explained: Q&A with The Planning Desk's Peter MacLeod


During the 2004 election, the Ontario Liberals committed to pursuing electoral reform if they formed the government. The following year, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced 103 average voters from across the province would examine the current first-past-the-post electoral system and recommend whether to change it. The citizens’ assembly voted overwhelmingly in favour of a new “mixed member proportional” system (MMP) that would give every Ontarian two votes instead of one -- one for a local candidate, and another for a political party.

Now it’s up to Ontarians to decide whether they agree. Voters will have the chance to forever change politics in Ontario on Oct. 10. In addition to casting ballots in the provincial election, voters will be asked in a referendum whether they want to implement the new system.

But what is MMP, exactly? The Post's Mary Vallis recently spoke with Peter MacLeod, Fellow at Queen's University's Centre for the Study of Democracy and principal of public systems design studio The Planning Desk, about the basics of this electoral system.


But we'd like to open the floor to our readers as well. If you have any questions for Peter McLeod about the proposed mixed member proportional system, please send them to feedback@nationalpost.com. Mr. McLeod will respond to your questions on this blog every Friday leading up to the election.


What is MMP?

MMP, or Mixed Member Proportional, is an electoral system that gives each citizen two votes on election day: one for a local candidate and one for a party. The votes for the local candidate are counted just as they are now and determine who wins the riding. The party votes are also counted, determining a party's overall share of seats in the legislature. If a party doesn't win enough local seats to satisfy its share of the party or so-called popular vote, that party is allocated additional seats which it fills from a list that is drawn-up well in advance of the election. This second element is what makes the system 'mixed' and more 'proportional' than our current electoral system.

Ontario's Citizens' Assembly proposed that the provincial legislature should have 90 directly-elected, local MPPs and 39 at-large or list MPPs. The legislative assembly would expand from 107 to 129 members -- which is still one member less than Ontario's legislature before the introduction of the 1996 Fewer Politicians Act.




Where else is this system used?

Germany has used the MMP system since 1949. After a long public debate, New Zealanders voted in a 1993 referendum to change their electoral system from Single Member Plurality/First Past the Post (Ontario's current system) to a Mixed Member Proportional system. Its first election using the new system was in 1996. Their experience is probably the best model for our own. Since 1999, elections for both the Scottish and Welsh assemblies have also used a Mixed Member Proportional system.




What is the Ontario Citizens' Assembly?

Ontario's first Citizen's Assembly was created by the provincial legislature to study our electoral system and, if they agreed, propose an alternative. In a remarkable exercise, one hundred and three citizens, fifty-one men and fifty-two women, representing each riding in the province were randomly selected to serve on the assembly. They met every second weekend from September 2006 until April 2007. During that time they studied Ontario's current electoral system as well as many of the alternative systems used throughout the world. Using a set of nine guiding principles, including "Stable and Effective Government", "Fair representation", "Voter choice" and "Simplicity and practicality" the members of the Citizens' Assembly ultimately narrowed their focus to a short list of possible systems after traveling the province to listen to the input of their fellow citizens. On April 15, 2007, they voted overwhelmingly to recommend to the government that Ontario's electoral system be changed to MMP. This recommendation automatically triggered October's referendum.




What are the advantages of MMP?

MMP was recommended by the Citizens' Assembly for three principal reasons. First they believe it offers voters more choice by allowing citizens to vote for both a local representative and a party. Secondly, they feel that electoral results under MMP will be fairer because the allocation of seats in the Ontario legislature will more closely resemble each party's performance in the election. The Assembly worried that because our political parties are frequently over or under-represented in the legislature, this can lead to sharp swings in government policy. Lastly, the Assembly was concerned that the new system retain what most Ontarians will agree is one of the best features of our current electoral system: strong local representation and accountability. MMP ensures that each Ontarian is still served by a local MMP who knows and likely lives in their riding.

Additionally, MMP has been credited with reducing partisanship and promoting cooperation between political parties. This is because MMP reduces the likelihood of strong majority governments. It provides an incentive for politicians to 'get along' because they are more likely to need each other's support to pass legislation.




What are the disadvantages of MMP?

This is a case where the virtues of some are the vices of others. MMP generally does not produce majority governments. Instead, parties must enter into coalitions if they are to command the confidence of the House and form a government. The prospect of coalition government would be a major change for Ontario and some fear that it would sap the ability of a government to pursue a strong agenda and deliver on their election promises. Some people are also concerned that the introduction of a list system could concentrate power in the hands of the party leader. It's likely that politicians would compete with each other for a favorable slot on their party's list — though all parties will feel considerable public pressure to create gender balanced and broadly representative lists.




What will happen if the referendum passes?

If the referendum passes, the government will activate a Boundaries Commission, charged with drawing up the new 90 local ridings and preparing for Ontario's first MMP election in October, 2011




Which is more important under MMP – my party vote or my vote for a local candidate?

This is an interesting question. Clearly both votes have real power. What distinguishes the party vote is that it is combined with other votes from every riding in the province. This means that no party vote is ever wasted, in the way that the votes that exceed the threshold needed by the winning local candidate or the votes spent on the local losers are lost. They haven't counted towards securing a seat. All party votes count towards a seat and this will create an incentive for all parties to campaign vigorously in every part of the province. While there might still be safe seats, all party votes are gold to the final outcome of an election.

Of course, votes for local candidates are still very important because they determine who will directly represent you and your riding.



Does this system necessarily make it easier for women and minorities to be represented in Legislature?

Generally speaking it does. Parties will be under considerable pressure to create balanced lists and this creates a new route into politics for under-represented groups, including women. It's generally held that the presence of more women and minorities in the legislature will create a positive feedback loop where the more women, for instance, who are in politics, the more attractive politics will become for women. In New Zealand, the number of female representative has increased significantly since adopting MMP. This is the principle reason that that MMP is supported by Equal Voice, a multi-partisan provincial organization dedicated to electing more women.

---

Peter MacLeod is principal of The Planning Desk, an evolving studio for public systems design which brings together strategists, researchers and designers to improve the character, quality and efficacy of citizen-state interactions. An architect of Ontario’s recent Students’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, he has a specific interest in public learning processes and the future of responsible government.

Peter writes and speaks frequently on democratic citizenship, government and design. He is a visiting lecturer at the Kaospilots School of business design and social innovation in Denmark, works regularly with the British think tank Demos, and is completing his doctorate in political sociology at the London School of Economics. He was recently appointed a Fellow at Queen's University's Centre for the Study of Democracy.