JasonParis
Moderator
Well said! MPP's got my vote too!
|
|
|
2007 Ontario Election: MMP Referendum
- Thread starter Pep'rJack
- Start date
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I think lower voter turnout is a sign of greater satisfaction. It is hot topics and a need to send a message that drives people in greater numbers to the poll. People don't have marches on the streets to congratulate the government on a job well done... they hit the street to protest things they see going wrong. If the current government is delivering what you desire and the pre-election polls show that there will be no drastic shift in power then people are less likely to vote.
MMP means the end of the need to vote strategically and the ability to vote for the party that shares your goals more closely. It is safer government because consensus will need to be built with other parties to the point any idea must get the support of 50% of MPPs representing 50% of voters. As it stands, when you strongly disagree with an idea you are forced to vote for the party which has the greatest change of beating the party with that idea even if you don't particularly like who you are forced to vote for. A vote against a party is almost useless unless given to a party with the greatest chance to win the seat when really a vote against a party should count regardless of where that vote ends up going.
The situation in the current election is a prime example of why MMP is required. I don't want to vote for Dalton McGuinty but I have to because John Tory will see winning this election as a mandate to rip apart the public education system even if he only gets 35% of the vote and squeaks a majority. Why should I have to vote for someone I don't like? How is this a great democratic system? Some 65% could cast a vote for parties against ripping apart public education yet he has a mandate to do it anyways. That is a poor excuse for a democracy in my opinion.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
A number have studies have shown that turn out is due to a number of factors, including such things as disinterest in politics and distrust of politicians. Youth used to be the age group that turned out in the largest numbers to elections thirty or more years ago; today they are the lowest in terms of turn out.
As I have pointed out, turn-out is also falling in countries where MMP is used, so there is nothing to suggest that turn out will go up because of it.
But if you suggest that voter turn-out is down in Canada because of voter satisfaction, then why change a system that is satisfactory? In such a scenario, there would appear to be adequate checks and balances in place to stop any party from excessive or radical action. In the end, issues that drive voter interest are quite independent of the voting system.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
True. A person might not vote because they feel the outcome will be good without their vote showing satisfaction with government but also they might not vote because they feel the option they will choose has no chance of getting a voice anyways. In any case I can't think of a scenario where a dissatisfied voter would not show up to vote in a MMP system considering their vote for a party other than the leading two would actually hold some weight.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
If a few more parties become mainstream the FPTP system will show how ridiculous it really is. As votes are spread over more and more parties the greater the opportunity will exist for a party which holds views the majority finds absurd to get complete control of the government.
calimehtar
Active Member
I just hope that people are really aware of the options and are able to make an informed decision by the time the election comes. The results from previous referendums in BC and PEI suggest that the electorate is likely to be disinterested and uninformed.
I've had a number of conversations like this one and my impression is that people are _are_ aware of the referendum, and people on both sides of the debate are fairly well-informed, but I'm not sure about teh rest of the province.
I've had a number of conversations like this one and my impression is that people are _are_ aware of the referendum, and people on both sides of the debate are fairly well-informed, but I'm not sure about teh rest of the province.
adma
Superstar
If the Marijuana Party is poised to benefit, would it be a "reeferendum"?
Okay, I know that's lame and stale (and besides, Ontario ain't got a provincial Bloc-Pot)
Okay, I know that's lame and stale (and besides, Ontario ain't got a provincial Bloc-Pot)
St. Even
Active Member
I could see the headline when the Marijuana Party forms a governing coalition:
"Joint government brings high hopes to Ontario"
D
djjjjjo
Guest
come debate and prediction about the referendum here:
http://www.ziitrend.com/predict/on/...ystem_will_be_selected_in_ontario__2007-10-10
http://www.ziitrend.com/predict/on/...ystem_will_be_selected_in_ontario__2007-10-10
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
Firstly, I must applaud Hydrogen on his excellent debating skills! You seem well informed and answered opposing viewpoints decisively!
to repeat myself from another thread...
a big no to the referendum question on reforming the electoral system!!! All it will do is make the system bigger and slower. There would only be an illusion of better representation. In the end, public opinion rules on most issues... if you arent happy you wait till next election and vote for someone else. What we need is better leaders, not more of them. Some benificent dictatorships work quite well actually... (Singapore for example)
to repeat myself from another thread...
a big no to the referendum question on reforming the electoral system!!! All it will do is make the system bigger and slower. There would only be an illusion of better representation. In the end, public opinion rules on most issues... if you arent happy you wait till next election and vote for someone else. What we need is better leaders, not more of them. Some benificent dictatorships work quite well actually... (Singapore for example)
avatarreb
Active Member
What are people’s Toronto-specific take on MMP?
I personally think that voting for MMP is a no-brainer for big cities in Ontario, especially Toronto. I would argue that the downloading to cities would have never taken place, or at least reduced in scope, if we had MMP. Regional-based voting has been a failure in representing differing population densities. Is it right that your vote should count for less just because you happen to live in a dense riding? What happens when all of a sudden 6 million voters feels like 6 million and not 2?
I personally think that voting for MMP is a no-brainer for big cities in Ontario, especially Toronto. I would argue that the downloading to cities would have never taken place, or at least reduced in scope, if we had MMP. Regional-based voting has been a failure in representing differing population densities. Is it right that your vote should count for less just because you happen to live in a dense riding? What happens when all of a sudden 6 million voters feels like 6 million and not 2?
unimaginative2
Senior Member
Actually, riding size in the current system is an interesting point of debate. I personally think that it's crazy that ridings, barring exceptional circumstances like vast remote northern regions, have any significant population difference at redistribution. The courts enforce this very tightly in the U.S., though they have other ways of rigging ridings which are rather worse than the situation up here. The Australian model is also worth following, in that it tries to take into account population growth so that ridings should all be roughly equally sized at the midpoint year of the redistribution.
Anyway, what's interesting to note is that Toronto is not at all underrepresented in our current system. In fact, the downtown Toronto ridings are some of the smallest in Ontario, and they're experiencing virtually no population growth either. There's a wide variation in the population of rural ridings. The people who really get screwed are fast-growing cities like Kitchener-Waterloo, and especially the 905 suburbs. Brampton West is absurdly large with 170,422 people (and growing unbelievably rapidly) at the 2006 census. Parkdale-High Park had 102,142 at last census and it's shrinking. By the next redistribution, which won't come until about 2013, Brampton West will probably have at least 250,000 people, while Parkdale-HP Beaches-East York, Toronto-Danforth, etc. will be well under 100,000.
Anyway, what's interesting to note is that Toronto is not at all underrepresented in our current system. In fact, the downtown Toronto ridings are some of the smallest in Ontario, and they're experiencing virtually no population growth either. There's a wide variation in the population of rural ridings. The people who really get screwed are fast-growing cities like Kitchener-Waterloo, and especially the 905 suburbs. Brampton West is absurdly large with 170,422 people (and growing unbelievably rapidly) at the 2006 census. Parkdale-High Park had 102,142 at last census and it's shrinking. By the next redistribution, which won't come until about 2013, Brampton West will probably have at least 250,000 people, while Parkdale-HP Beaches-East York, Toronto-Danforth, etc. will be well under 100,000.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,453
- Reaction score
- 9,226
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
That is really interesting. The northern ridings are the ones that have the smallest population, but are still huge in size and aren't that bad. Kenora-Rainy River has just over 60,000, but most, like Cochrane-James Bay, Algoma-Manitoulin have around 80,000.
It's the federal riding count that's really messed up, where PEI has four seats for a population of 130,000, and Brampton has 3.5 seats for a population of 425,000.
Brampton West, incidentially, will likely be one of the few 905 ridings to go from red to blue. First of all, Vic Dhillon is one of the Liberals' dimmest bulbs, and the Tory candidate, Mark Beckles, has impressive credentials. He's no Tony Clement. Driving through my old ridings really shows the number of blue signs out compared to Dhillon's. Plus the massive population growth really doesn't help incumbants so much.
It's the federal riding count that's really messed up, where PEI has four seats for a population of 130,000, and Brampton has 3.5 seats for a population of 425,000.
Brampton West, incidentially, will likely be one of the few 905 ridings to go from red to blue. First of all, Vic Dhillon is one of the Liberals' dimmest bulbs, and the Tory candidate, Mark Beckles, has impressive credentials. He's no Tony Clement. Driving through my old ridings really shows the number of blue signs out compared to Dhillon's. Plus the massive population growth really doesn't help incumbants so much.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
There would be little to stop any party from placing a disproportionate emphasis on its listed representatives from outside urban centres. In fact, following unimaginative2's point, selecting MPP's at large could be used to satisfy, or reflect, the support of rural regions.
I don't know how you could suggest that MMP would have stopped downloading, or reduced its scope. I don't recall a massive or organized rejection of the idea from any other political party at the time. Besides, using possible methods for selecting membership in houses of legislation to answer political actions of the past is useless.
avatarreb
Active Member
Tricky to speculate... but you’ve actually articulated part of my argument. You’re right, I also don’t recall any organized rejection other parties. I’m suggesting that MMP could have motivated parties to take a stronger position on this, with the reward of significant electoral support from the cities.