I'll be voting No to MMP in the referendum to be held ten days. I have several reasons:
1 - There will be two classes of MPPs, one set will be accountable to their electorate (like they all are right now), and one class will only be accountable to the person(s) who appointed them. I don't like that.
2 - More MPPs = More money for their salaries, staff, etc. I really don't like that.
3 - There are many countries where it hasn't worked well and has resulted in legislative gridlock. Supporters tend to name the countries where it works and ignore the rest.
The Star is surprisingly coming out against MMP, and their editorial explains the negative aspects of MMP quite well.
This is not to say that I don't support electoral reform. I personally prefer the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) system. As always, Wikipedia has an excellent collection of articles on different voting systems.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
The first point is a falsehood - 3 of the 4 parties -even John Tory of the Conservatives - has committed to democratically electing their candidates.. and I have little doubt the Liberals will also do the same. The "different class of MPP's" argument simply does not hold water, as that has not been the case in Germany or New Zealand where MMP is currently in place.
ReplyDelete#2 - MMP would add more MPP's yes, but this will bring us back to the level of MPP's we had in the 1980's... and Ontario is currently one of the least underrepresented constituencies in Canada. Furthermore.. I guess I could argue that you might as well be advocating for a dictatorship.. since that would eliminate all those pesky MPP salaries if you're complaining about costs.
3. I challenge you to name countries where it doesn't work well. If you name Italy and Israel, then you're comparing apples to oranges - those countries don't use the same mixed-member system that Germany and New Zealand use. That goes for other countries in Europe as well.
4. The Star is fear-mongering and using the same falsehoods you are. It's one of the worst editorials I've seen come from them.
5. Instant Runoff or preferential ballot does nothing to solve the problems in the current FPTP system. It will not make voting results more proportional to what the population voted for, nor will it solve the problem of our current system not being very representative of our society, where we have 3/4 of the current Ontario candidates being male, and 90% of them being white.
I suggest you study up on MMP better, because it's apparent you don't know much about the current system being proposed.. or you've been misled by the smear campaign against MMP by the establishment, or you're trying to perpetuate the falsehoods on your own.
Wow, where to start.
ReplyDeleteThe first point is not a falsehood. Iggy is my MP, the voters of Etobicoke-Lakeshore elected him, and he answers to us.
A candidate put on a party list by the party leader does not answer to a constituency. There is no way to argue around this. You could argue that it doesn't matter, but arguing that it won't happen makes no sense. It IS happening in New Zealand and Germany, I think it's a problem, and you don't.
With point two, you could easily just say that you're willing to pay for more MPPs. Instead you try to portray me as an advocate of dictatorship, which makes no sense. I think Ontario already spends enough money on its politicians, and you don't. The only time the number MPs should increase is if there is a significant increase in the population.
I don't think it works well in Germany, where shifting coalitions have often resulted in legislative gridlock. If you want proof, follow Angela Merkel's term from the beginning until now, she has a hard time getting anything done under the system. I'm not familiar with New Zeland's politics so I won't comment.
You can argue that IRV won't do what you expect MMP to do, but I really don't see what it has to do with electing more minorities and women. Scott, I suspect you're neither a woman nor a minority, and a lot of us minority folk have had enough of the patronizing b.s. that you and others like you like to spout.
Nothing ticks me off like the claim that women and minorities can't get elected in our current system. This makes it hard to explain how Anne Mclellan became Deputy PM or Ujjal Dosanjh became Health Minister.
Ask a woman or a minority why they don't run for parliament, and I'll bet that not very many of them will say that it's because they can't win in FPTP, but would definitely run under MMP. Race and gender politics have nothing to do with this (nor should they). This is simply about which system works better.
"A candidate put on a party list by the party leader does not answer to a constituency."
ReplyDeleteThe people appointed to the Provincial Party Lists are effectively Ontario Senators.
Who do Federal Senators represent...the party that put them in a job for life, or the voters at large?
Who will the new MMP Ontario Provincial Senators represent...?