This is an article on the MMP from democraticspace.
Two-tier democracy: Under FPTP, some 75,000 “super-voters” to decide Oct. 10 outcome
Millions of other Ontario votes relegated to secondary importance
TORONTO | September 26, 2007: Under Ontario’s outdated voting system, the outcome of next month’s election will once again be decided by about 75,000 “super-voters”, whose lucky location and vote-changeability mean their votes count for a whole lot more than the other millions of Ontario voters, says election expert Greg Morrow of democraticSPACE.
“One would think that in a democratic system, the votes of all Ontario voters should count equally,” says Morrow, who also works with Ipsos Reid on election seat projections. “But in reality, under Ontario’s unrepresentative first-past-the-post voting system, only a small fraction of votes end up deciding the outcome one way or another.”
Based on past elections, an estimated 4.7 million Ontarians will vote on Oct 10. In a recently-published online report, Morrow estimated that only about 1.5% of voters will determine the outcome of the election. Under today’s FPTP system, “since the government is decided by a series of one-on-one riding battles, it will be determined by 5% of voters in the closest 30% of the ridings.”
“The new MMP system recommended by Ontario’s Citizens Assembly reverses this profoundly undemocratic imbalance between a handful of ’super voters’ and all the rest of us,” said Rick Anderson, campaign chair of Vote For MMP (www.VoteForMMP.ca). “Instead of today’s FPTP system wherein provincial election outcomes come down to a handful of voters in a handful of ridings, MMP’s new two-vote ballot system would mean every single vote counts equally towards determining the crucial province-wide question of who forms government.”
Morrow’s analysis is another convincing illustration of how badly the current voting system warps the way we do politics. “Rather than court all voters in all parts of the province, the undemocratic first-past-the-post system encourages parties to focus on a tiny minority of strategically-targeted voters,” said Anderson. “A proportional voting system such as MMP gives equal weight to all voters, meaning that parties need to compete for votes in all parts of the province. Whether a vote is cast in Timmins or Toronto, for party A or party B, in a swing riding or a safe one - they will carry the same weight and value under MMP.”
“This deeply changes the way parties compete for votes - and how they govern when in power,” said Anderson. “Under first-past-the-post, parties know they can win overwhelming control of the legislature and governing agenda with as little as 40 per cent of the votes. When parties focus on swing ridings, other voters, other ridings, and entire regions become a less-than-equal part of the picture when the cold hard calculus of policy-making is applied.”
“It’s time to replace the two-tier democracy and ’super voters’ of our winner-take-all system, and modernize our democracy by adopting MMP on October 10.”
About Vote for MMP: Vote for MMP is a multi-partisan citizens’ campaign supporting the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system presented to Ontarians for adoption in the referendum on electoral reform referendum on October 10. MMP was proposed by the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, an independent body of 103 randomly chosen Ontario voters. Assembly members were asked by the Ontario Legislature to (a) determine whether Ontario needs a new voting system, and (b) if so to recommend an improved system. The Assembly studied proportional electoral systems used in 81 democracies around the world, and selected MMP as the approach best-suited for Ontario. Vote for MMP is funded by donations from citizens and organizations who agree with the Citizens’ Assembly recommendations, and believe it is time to strengthen democracy and modernize Ontario’s voting system that gives voters more choice, fairer results and stronger representation.
-30 -
Media contacts:
Showing posts with label MMP electoral system. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MMP electoral system. Show all posts
Monday, October 1, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Star editorial on MMP
This is from the Star. The official Ontario government information website on MMP is here.
Get message out on referendum
Sep 25, 2007 04:30 AM
How much do Ontarians know about the Oct. 10 referendum on electoral reform, which could dramatically alter the way we elect MPPs?
Not much, it turns out. In fact, recent polls show nearly half of Ontarians know nothing at all about the referendum, which will ask voters to choose between our existing system and an alternative called "mixed-member proportional." And other people know a little about the issue, but likely not enough to make an informed choice.
With barely two weeks left before Ontarians vote on the possibility of fundamentally changing for all time how seats in the Legislature will be allocated among political parties, such widespread lack of awareness is deeply troubling. The referendum, which will be held at the same time as the provincial election, is far too important to have so many voters admit they do not understand what they will be voting for, and what the outcome will mean.
To that end, Elections Ontario, which is running a $6.8 million public information campaign on the referendum, needs to do a better job of getting the word out. It should immediately step up its efforts by blitzing the province with a major campaign of newspaper, television and radio advertisements. It also should boost its Internet presence to steer more people, especially young voters, toward its referendum information website, www.yourbigdecision.ca.
Voters, too, need to start paying attention to the choices so they are not in the dark when they mark their ballots in a few weeks' time.
The choices that voters face on Oct. 10 are starkly different.
One is Ontario's existing system, also known as "first-past-the-post." It awards each of the province's 107 ridings to the candidate with the most votes. The political party that wins the most ridings then forms the government. Each voter gets one vote. This system often allows parties to form majority governments even though they won less than 50 per cent of the popular vote across the province.
The other option is a form of proportional representation called "mixed-member proportional." It would distribute seats in an expanded 129-seat provincial legislature based roughly on each political party's share of the popular vote.
Under the proposed system, voters would cast two votes. The first would be for a "local member." A total of 90 geographic, or riding, seats would be determined using the "first-past-the-post" system.
Voters would also cast a second vote for the political party they prefer. The party they selected would not have to match the party of the riding candidate for whom they voted. This second vote would decide how many of the 39 "list members" – candidates selected by the parties – each party would be awarded to ensure their seat count in the Legislature more or less matches their overall share of popular votes.
Earlier this year, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, a panel of 103 "ordinary citizens" struck by the Liberal government, recommended mixed-member proportional as a more democratic way of electing MPPs. But supporters of the current system fear it would create more problems than it would solve by entrenching permanent minority government and giving undue influence to fringe parties.
The government has set a high bar for change. At least 60 per cent of all voters, as well as 50 per cent of voters in 64 ridings, would have to vote for mixed-member proportional in the referendum.
Given how high the stakes are, voters must be prepared. That's why Elections Ontario needs to beef up its campaign. If that requires more money to buy advertising, then it should ask the government for it. This referendum is simply too important for people to cast their ballots without really knowing what it is all about
Get message out on referendum
Sep 25, 2007 04:30 AM
How much do Ontarians know about the Oct. 10 referendum on electoral reform, which could dramatically alter the way we elect MPPs?
Not much, it turns out. In fact, recent polls show nearly half of Ontarians know nothing at all about the referendum, which will ask voters to choose between our existing system and an alternative called "mixed-member proportional." And other people know a little about the issue, but likely not enough to make an informed choice.
With barely two weeks left before Ontarians vote on the possibility of fundamentally changing for all time how seats in the Legislature will be allocated among political parties, such widespread lack of awareness is deeply troubling. The referendum, which will be held at the same time as the provincial election, is far too important to have so many voters admit they do not understand what they will be voting for, and what the outcome will mean.
To that end, Elections Ontario, which is running a $6.8 million public information campaign on the referendum, needs to do a better job of getting the word out. It should immediately step up its efforts by blitzing the province with a major campaign of newspaper, television and radio advertisements. It also should boost its Internet presence to steer more people, especially young voters, toward its referendum information website, www.yourbigdecision.ca.
Voters, too, need to start paying attention to the choices so they are not in the dark when they mark their ballots in a few weeks' time.
The choices that voters face on Oct. 10 are starkly different.
One is Ontario's existing system, also known as "first-past-the-post." It awards each of the province's 107 ridings to the candidate with the most votes. The political party that wins the most ridings then forms the government. Each voter gets one vote. This system often allows parties to form majority governments even though they won less than 50 per cent of the popular vote across the province.
The other option is a form of proportional representation called "mixed-member proportional." It would distribute seats in an expanded 129-seat provincial legislature based roughly on each political party's share of the popular vote.
Under the proposed system, voters would cast two votes. The first would be for a "local member." A total of 90 geographic, or riding, seats would be determined using the "first-past-the-post" system.
Voters would also cast a second vote for the political party they prefer. The party they selected would not have to match the party of the riding candidate for whom they voted. This second vote would decide how many of the 39 "list members" – candidates selected by the parties – each party would be awarded to ensure their seat count in the Legislature more or less matches their overall share of popular votes.
Earlier this year, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, a panel of 103 "ordinary citizens" struck by the Liberal government, recommended mixed-member proportional as a more democratic way of electing MPPs. But supporters of the current system fear it would create more problems than it would solve by entrenching permanent minority government and giving undue influence to fringe parties.
The government has set a high bar for change. At least 60 per cent of all voters, as well as 50 per cent of voters in 64 ridings, would have to vote for mixed-member proportional in the referendum.
Given how high the stakes are, voters must be prepared. That's why Elections Ontario needs to beef up its campaign. If that requires more money to buy advertising, then it should ask the government for it. This referendum is simply too important for people to cast their ballots without really knowing what it is all about
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
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.
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.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Andrew Coyne: On the MMP
Here is a conservative defence of the MMP. I must say I agree with much of the article except that I don't think the NDP is much to the left and it is certainly influenced by the same forces that cause the Liberals and Conservatives to be like Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum. Although on particular issues the NDP might be able to drive the main parties a bit to the left the whole political spectrum has been drifting right for decades. Imagine a Regina Manifesto in 2007 or even a Waffle Manifesto for that matter. This is excerpted from Andrew Coyne's blog.
The conservative case for electoral reform
On points, I’d give last night’s debate to John Tory. The Progressive Conservative leader was poised, articulate, punchy and surprisingly focused. All in all, he made a strong case for … much the same....
A Tory government would Plan Better, and Spend Smarter. It would also Tell the Truth -- we have his word on it. But in the broad strokes, the government of Ontario would look much the same under Mr. Tory as under Dalton McGuinty. It would do much the same things, at much the same cost, with much the same results.
Oh, Mr. Tory would fiddle at the margins -- cut a tax or two, expand funding to a few thousand kids in religious schools -- issues that both leaders would like you to think show the vast gulf between them. But they’re not kidding anyone. Whoever wins, the forecast is for McGuintory governments, as far as the eye can see.
I’m not blaming either man. Both are simply responding to the incentives in our political system -- notably the method of voting. Sometimes known as “first past the post,” sometimes called “plurality” voting, it should really be called the “winner take all” system, since that captures its most essential dynamic.
Whoever gets the most votes in a riding, no matter how few, wins; they may only have 25% of the vote, but they get 100% of the representation. Likewise in the aggregate: a third of the vote is commonly sufficient to win two-thirds of the seats -- and all of the power. In such a system, as we have seen, victory or defeat can turn on the swing of one or two percentage points.
Living on a knife-edge does strange things to people. On the one hand, it leaves the parties in a perpetual fever of anticipation, convinced they have only to gain a few points in the polls to destroy their opponents. That is one reason the two federal conservative parties, Progressive Conservative and Reform, were so reluctant to merge. It is also the reason why minority governments tend, under our system, to be so unstable.
On the other hand, the consequences of losing a few points makes them excessively, almost neurotically cautious, unwilling to take the slightest risk or advocate the mildest change, but each hugging as close as it can to the median voter, the status quo and each other. Hence the dominance of the two brokerage parties, indistinguishable in philosophy -- alike, that is, in the lack of it.
Put the two together, and you have much of Canadian politics -- viciously partisan, yet unspeakably trivial; much ado about nothing much. McGuintoryism, in short.
So the case for electoral reform, it seems to me, is one that conservatives, if not Conservatives, should find appealing. It is a cause that has tended, historically, to be identified with the left, not least in the current referendum debate; many conservatives have accordingly rejected it. Yet it is not the left that has suffered most under the current system. It’s the right.
By whatever combination of historical circumstances, the left has a party that will advance its ideas, free of the brokerage parties’ grip: the NDP. Though not often in government, outside of the West, it has succeeded in dragging the entire political spectrum to the left, its policies adopted by Liberal and Conservative governments alike. Nothing like it exists on the right, federally or provincially, nor has since Reform’s demise. Nor is one likely to emerge, so long as “first past the post” remains the rule.
The same is true of parties less easily categorized, like the Green party. Though it is the party of choice for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, it has yet to win a seat, unable to concentrate its support geographically in the way that FPTP requires. How many more votes might it win if potential supporters were not disheartened at the prospect of “wasting” their votes, or worse, “splitting” the vote, as they are forever warned against doing?
But what if there were a system in which no votes were wasted, where vote-splitting ceased to be an issue? There is such a system, and it’s called proportional representation, of which the proposal before Ontarians is a variant. Not only the Greens, but other parties -- libertarian, social-conservative, or other -- might then have a fighting chance. The spectrum of acceptable ideas for debate would noticeably broaden.
Moreover, 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 observed under FPTP -- all parties would have less fear of taking risks. True, there would also be less upside: progress would only come by sustained advocacy over many years. Conservatives grouse that a Mike Harris revolution would be unlikely, but so would the NDP disaster that preceded it.
So conservatives, genuine conservatives, have a choice. Hold onto the current system, and hope for a Harris-style change of government every fifty years or so. Or take a chance on something new, and start changing minds today.
The conservative case for electoral reform
On points, I’d give last night’s debate to John Tory. The Progressive Conservative leader was poised, articulate, punchy and surprisingly focused. All in all, he made a strong case for … much the same....
A Tory government would Plan Better, and Spend Smarter. It would also Tell the Truth -- we have his word on it. But in the broad strokes, the government of Ontario would look much the same under Mr. Tory as under Dalton McGuinty. It would do much the same things, at much the same cost, with much the same results.
Oh, Mr. Tory would fiddle at the margins -- cut a tax or two, expand funding to a few thousand kids in religious schools -- issues that both leaders would like you to think show the vast gulf between them. But they’re not kidding anyone. Whoever wins, the forecast is for McGuintory governments, as far as the eye can see.
I’m not blaming either man. Both are simply responding to the incentives in our political system -- notably the method of voting. Sometimes known as “first past the post,” sometimes called “plurality” voting, it should really be called the “winner take all” system, since that captures its most essential dynamic.
Whoever gets the most votes in a riding, no matter how few, wins; they may only have 25% of the vote, but they get 100% of the representation. Likewise in the aggregate: a third of the vote is commonly sufficient to win two-thirds of the seats -- and all of the power. In such a system, as we have seen, victory or defeat can turn on the swing of one or two percentage points.
Living on a knife-edge does strange things to people. On the one hand, it leaves the parties in a perpetual fever of anticipation, convinced they have only to gain a few points in the polls to destroy their opponents. That is one reason the two federal conservative parties, Progressive Conservative and Reform, were so reluctant to merge. It is also the reason why minority governments tend, under our system, to be so unstable.
On the other hand, the consequences of losing a few points makes them excessively, almost neurotically cautious, unwilling to take the slightest risk or advocate the mildest change, but each hugging as close as it can to the median voter, the status quo and each other. Hence the dominance of the two brokerage parties, indistinguishable in philosophy -- alike, that is, in the lack of it.
Put the two together, and you have much of Canadian politics -- viciously partisan, yet unspeakably trivial; much ado about nothing much. McGuintoryism, in short.
So the case for electoral reform, it seems to me, is one that conservatives, if not Conservatives, should find appealing. It is a cause that has tended, historically, to be identified with the left, not least in the current referendum debate; many conservatives have accordingly rejected it. Yet it is not the left that has suffered most under the current system. It’s the right.
By whatever combination of historical circumstances, the left has a party that will advance its ideas, free of the brokerage parties’ grip: the NDP. Though not often in government, outside of the West, it has succeeded in dragging the entire political spectrum to the left, its policies adopted by Liberal and Conservative governments alike. Nothing like it exists on the right, federally or provincially, nor has since Reform’s demise. Nor is one likely to emerge, so long as “first past the post” remains the rule.
The same is true of parties less easily categorized, like the Green party. Though it is the party of choice for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, it has yet to win a seat, unable to concentrate its support geographically in the way that FPTP requires. How many more votes might it win if potential supporters were not disheartened at the prospect of “wasting” their votes, or worse, “splitting” the vote, as they are forever warned against doing?
But what if there were a system in which no votes were wasted, where vote-splitting ceased to be an issue? There is such a system, and it’s called proportional representation, of which the proposal before Ontarians is a variant. Not only the Greens, but other parties -- libertarian, social-conservative, or other -- might then have a fighting chance. The spectrum of acceptable ideas for debate would noticeably broaden.
Moreover, 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 observed under FPTP -- all parties would have less fear of taking risks. True, there would also be less upside: progress would only come by sustained advocacy over many years. Conservatives grouse that a Mike Harris revolution would be unlikely, but so would the NDP disaster that preceded it.
So conservatives, genuine conservatives, have a choice. Hold onto the current system, and hope for a Harris-style change of government every fifty years or so. Or take a chance on something new, and start changing minds today.
Monday, September 17, 2007
John Tory will vote against MMP
Tory has very strong views on the issue of MMP considering he takes no position on the issue.
Tory signals he'll vote no in referendum
MMP 'Less Accountable'
Mary Vallis, National Post
Published: Saturday, September 15, 2007
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory hinted strongly yesterday that he will vote against an electoral reform proposal that will be put to voters in a referendum next month.
In a candid interview with the National Post's editorial board, Mr. Tory said he is wary of the mixed-member proportional system because some MPPs would be "appointed by party bosses and accountable to no constituents."
"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."
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory: "I'm very skeptical about a system that ... adds more politicians to begin with."
Peter J. Thompson, National Post
After saying he has taken no official stand on the referendum, Mr. Tory spent several minutes criticizing the proposed new system, which would raise the number of seats at Queen's Park to 129 from 107. It would also reduce the number of ridings to 90; the parties would create lists of candidates from which an additional 39 MPPs would be selected.
"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.
"The notion to me that you'd have a whole bunch of people that would be down there now who will be accountable only to party bosses who put their names on the list, to me seems to be making the place less democratic, not more, and less accountable."
The system was developed by an independent citizens' assembly of 103 voters from across the province at Premier Dalton McGuinty's request. The assembly did not suggest how political parties should draw up their lists of candidates.
Tory signals he'll vote no in referendum
MMP 'Less Accountable'
Mary Vallis, National Post
Published: Saturday, September 15, 2007
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory hinted strongly yesterday that he will vote against an electoral reform proposal that will be put to voters in a referendum next month.
In a candid interview with the National Post's editorial board, Mr. Tory said he is wary of the mixed-member proportional system because some MPPs would be "appointed by party bosses and accountable to no constituents."
"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."
Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory: "I'm very skeptical about a system that ... adds more politicians to begin with."
Peter J. Thompson, National Post
After saying he has taken no official stand on the referendum, Mr. Tory spent several minutes criticizing the proposed new system, which would raise the number of seats at Queen's Park to 129 from 107. It would also reduce the number of ridings to 90; the parties would create lists of candidates from which an additional 39 MPPs would be selected.
"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.
"The notion to me that you'd have a whole bunch of people that would be down there now who will be accountable only to party bosses who put their names on the list, to me seems to be making the place less democratic, not more, and less accountable."
The system was developed by an independent citizens' assembly of 103 voters from across the province at Premier Dalton McGuinty's request. The assembly did not suggest how political parties should draw up their lists of candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)