MMP: How do you intend to vote?

[St. Even]

...there's no way I can vote for Tory after he's promised to bringing in publicly funded religious schools, Madrasas, Yeshivas, etc, especially since unfortunately unlike McGuinty he's likely to keep his promises, including this one.

I'm not so sure it's safe to assume that Tory is more likely to keep his promises. Every politician has broken promises under his belt. (I try not to use absolute terms like "every" and "always" without a Wikipedia reference to back me up...but I think it's safe here.) Tory hasn't broken any promises yet because he hasn't been given the opportunity to govern.

And I'm totally with you on getting rid of the separate system (while fully acknowledging it will never happen unless somebody has the balls to challenge it on constitutional grounds......Charter trumps BNA Act, I think.)

 

[salvius]

No one said anything about strange. They'll adavance some policies more than others. But as I noted, the at large members could be weighted any way the party wishes, and since the candidates are not for "public consumption" (so to speak), the criteria for selection may not have to be, either.

Of course they're for public consumption... We elect the party, they appoint some candidates. They're just as accountable as the rest of the party, if not more so. Indeed, I hope that MMP is used for as a balancing tool, considering the dysmal numbers of women and minorities in our supposedly multicultural and diverse society.

If we don't like them, we can always punish the party. And if it really proves to be a large problem, we can always think of a recall procedure. However, experience from other systems (such as Germany) would suggest that this is a baseless fear.

 

[Hydrogen]

We elect the party, they appoint some candidates. They're just as accountable as the rest of the party, if not more so. Indeed, I hope that MMP is used for as a balancing tool, considering the dysmal numbers of women and minorities in our supposedly multicultural and diverse society.

If we don't like them, we can always punish the party. And if it really proves to be a large problem, we can always think of a recall procedure. However, experience from other systems (such as Germany) would suggest that this is a baseless fear.

But who is appointing these candidates? The whole party? In that respect, nothing really changes at all on the party front. It's just that some candidates get selected, and are beyond the measure of the voters.

As for using MMP as a "balancing tool," to what end? Should it be used just as a feel-good tool? Or is this about generating tools of the party? And who controls these tools of the party?

I still don't see any good or clear evidence as to why this form of MMP is so essential.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

you know, maybe they should just get rid of party politics. this way we don't have to worry about MMP or "status quo".

 

[lordmandeep]

um you still need a majority of support and in about 2 years you would start to get separate groups...

 

[unimaginative2]

you know, maybe they should just get rid of party politics. this way we don't have to worry about MMP or "status quo".

Haha...because that works sooo well for city council.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I'm not so sure it's safe to assume that Tory is more likely to keep his promises. Every politician has broken promises under his belt.

Agreed, but McGuinty is the first Ontario Premier I can recall that made such a huge public deal of the promises we remember best, such as meeting with the Ontario Taxpayers Association and signing a pledge. I must admit I bought it, and voted for his last time. But not this time. I'm voting Green, which will be wasted vote this time around, but will, I hope, give confidence to the Greens that when MMP comes in, they stand a good chance of a few seats.

 

[cacruden]

Haha...because that works sooo well for city council.

I would just be happy with working to remove the ability to use a "sticks" / "whips" to enforce strong party discipline - removal of the ability of the premier to appoint many of the positions (other than cabinet) making the parliament as a whole responsible for committee appointments (etc) through secret votes for appointments... Non-confidence votes would only occur on budgets and non-confident votes. Kicking people out of caucus for voting what they believe would have to be done by secret ballot, and a very high threshhold of members before that person is removed from caucus. Basically make it as easy as possible for people to be rebelious (and hopefully) more representative of their riding.

You join a party because that party is more inline with your ideals than not -- but each party is a big tent and not all people will agree on everything. When you run you are both getting votes for your party position, but after being elected you should feel obligated to represent the MAJORITY of ALL the people in your riding -- not just the people that voted for you.

 

[salvius]

I would just be happy with working to remove the ability to use a "sticks" / "whips" to enforce strong party discipline - removal of the ability of the premier to appoint many of the positions (other than cabinet) making the parliament as a whole responsible for committee appointments (etc) through secret votes for appointments... Non-confidence votes would only occur on budgets and non-confident votes. Kicking people out of caucus for voting what they believe would have to be done by secret ballot, and a very high threshhold of members before that person is removed from caucus. Basically make it as easy as possible for people to be rebelious (and hopefully) more representative of their riding.

While reducing party discipline is a good idea in theory, it tends to spur the development of a massive industry designed to lobby individual representatives. It causes a lot of nastiness, and trying to solve this problem is not simple. Party discipline, for all its ills, has definite advantages.

 

[salvius]

But who is appointing these candidates? The whole party? In that respect, nothing really changes at all on the party front. It's just that some candidates get selected, and are beyond the measure of the voters.

Yes, but we VOTED for that party; so these people are accountable to the voters.

As for using MMP as a "balancing tool," to what end? Should it be used just as a feel-good tool? Or is this about generating tools of the party? And who controls these tools of the party?

Balancing things out is obviously not just a 'feel good' tool; it can, and has, equalized the practice of politics. MMP can launch political careers of traditionally unrepresented segments of society.

I still don't see any good or clear evidence as to why this form of MMP is so essential.

Well, the clear advantage comes in having a more democratic system.

A simple majority plurality system wastes votes in no uncertain terms. It awards TOTAL victories to candidates that may receive ~35% of the vote (and with the rise of the Green party, the number may decrease). This is a rather fundamental flaw. The 'rest' of the riding voters should not have their voices shut out completely, and MMP is a proven way of providing some much needed balance.

Any talk of the current system's efficiency is not only suspect, but is also irrelevant. This, after all, is a question of our belief in democracy, and is therefore a question of principle, quite apart from anything else.

 

[salvius]

A few final points...

It is obvious that, under most circumstances, people vote for the party, rather than the person. But under the current system, we have further developed the absurd system of strategic voting; since we know that X does not have a chance to win, we vote for Y, even though Y is not what we really want; it's just that Y is better than Z. Basically, plurality has really managed to compress choice. There is much less need to do this is in the new system.

As far as I can see, MMP may also give ridings some of their old relevance back, since vote splitting also becomes an option. You may really like your local candidate, but the party... not so much. That's not an insurmountable problem under MMP since you can split your vote: vote for the person you wish AND for the party you wish.

I really have a hard time seeing how anyone can find that less preferable than the current method.

 

[Hydrogen]

Yes, but we VOTED for that party; so these people are accountable to the voters.

First of all, just because you voted for the party does not mean everyone votes for a party. That's just your assumption of what happens. Besides, who is the party? Does the public at large actually rate the party other than through the representatives they cast a vote for? What portion of membership of a political party actually controls its direction in terms of platforms and agendas? Let me blunt: a very small proportion of the actual party membership does this.

In MMP, the parties can control their lists to fit their agendas, and this version of MMP only amplifies that level of party control. Thirty percent of the legislature would be made up of representatives selected by only a tiny proportion of the active membership of any given party - and those members have only to answer to those who selected them, and not the public in any riding anywhere in the province.

Balancing things out is obviously not just a 'feel good' tool; it can, and has, equalized the practice of politics. MMP can launch political careers of traditionally unrepresented segments of society.

Equalize the practice of politics? What does that mean? Are you suggesting that if you are a fiscal conservative, you are a different kind of fiscal conservative depending on whether you are white or asian or a female? Parties will select individuals who fit their agendas in terms of ideology.

Well, the clear advantage comes in having a more democratic system.

Well if you think that handing even greater control of the legislature's membership to political parties is more democratic, then I guess that's democracy to you. Don't assume that it appears more democratic for everyone.

A simple majority plurality system wastes votes in no uncertain terms.

That is just an opinion. I've cast my vote for and worked for politicians who have lost. I never feel my vote or my effort have been wasted.

This is a rather fundamental flaw.

Democracy is messy. Always will be. Deal with it. Lots of other people means lots of other opinions.

The real flaw in this version of MMP comes with the over-concentration of power within political parties that already govern their agendas and manage their internal affairs without facing the public at large. You vote on their platform, not on how they arrived at it. Such a system only amplifies and institutionalizes the central power of the party. It reduces democracy.

 

[salvius]

Can't answer everything right now, but to start...

First of all, just because you voted for the party does not mean everyone votes for a party. That's just your assumption of what happens.

Well, it's not an assumption, but a fact... Ok, not everyone, not all the time... Just almost everyone. Care to guess how many people know their MP or MPPs name (or God forbid, anything about them)? I'll give two tries... Surely this should be common knowledge if people are voting for the person.

Besides, who is the party? Does the public at large actually rate the party other than through the representatives they cast a vote for? What portion of membership of a political party actually controls its direction in terms of platforms and agendas? Let me blunt: a very small proportion of the actual party membership does this.

Of course... I'm not sure what's so terribly different about plurality. Candidates are nominated from an insiders circle, and by-and-large, don't have any input into platforms and agendas either.

In MMP, the parties can control their lists to fit their agendas, and this version of MMP only amplifies that level of party control. Thirty percent of the legislature would be made up of representatives selected by only a tiny proportion of the active membership of any given party - and those members have only to answer to those who selected them, and not the public in any riding anywhere in the province.

So, wait... Parties can control their lists... Just like they control the riding nominations process; why does John and not Jane get to be on that ballot for our great plurality system? Oh, because John got nominated by the party and Jane didn't. Hmmmm... I could perhaps be forgiven if I do not see what is SO different with what we have now. Party lists will also be public LONG before voting occurs, so if you find the party list so objectionable, you can choose not to vote for it on the second column. Basically, we not get more choice than ever before, and somehow this is a bad thing?

Well if you think that handing even greater control of the legislature's membership to political parties is more democratic, then I guess that's democracy to you. Don't assume that it appears more democratic for everyone.

Please provide me with statistics on how often the party member breaks ranks in the current system, so that we can once and for all actually banish this idea that MMP will radically change the system.

If you cannot find the stats, I'll find them for you at my earliest convenience. And if you do favour that we move towards a 'strong individual' 'weak party' system, please explain why that is more democratic, especially given the very tangible reality of the lobbying industry in such a system (one just needs to look over to our neighbour).

And finally, please explain in what way would you argue the CURRENT system is MORE or EQUALLY democratic than the alternative. I am very interested.

That is just an opinion. I've cast my vote for and worked for politicians who have lost. I never feel my vote or my effort have been wasted.

That's great that you've felt this way, but it's hard to argue against this reality. Other than a personal feeling, please provide a tangible example that would suggest that the vote has not been wasted.

 

[cacruden]

Well, it's not an assumption, but a fact... Ok, not everyone, not all the time... Just almost everyone. Care to guess how many people know their MP or MPPs name (or God forbid, anything about them)? I'll give two tries... Surely this should be common knowledge if people are voting for the person.

Again, it is not a fact.

And I disagree, in fact I believe that it is most likely NOT the party that they are voting for but the LEADER of the party. Which is why I prefer the executive and congressional model. Are their problems in the that style of system right now, yes.... which is why elections should be very strict about their rules and enforcement. Make sure that only those that can vote can contribute - (i.e. people not organizations). Don't allow really large contributions. Big fines for violating rules, including any advertising that crosses the line into personal attacks.

As far as lobbying, regulate it -- lobbying can only be done in public, or in front of an entire committee, or make sure that all contacts have to be made public. And as far as the fact if we have more independent members of parliament that they will be lobbied -- well, at least they will have to lobby more people instead of just a small group of cabinet members

So, wait... Parties can control their lists... Just like they control the riding nominations process

Don't allow parachute candidates.

 

[MisterF]

First of all, just because you voted for the party does not mean everyone votes for a party. That's just your assumption of what happens. Besides, who is the party? Does the public at large actually rate the party other than through the representatives they cast a vote for? What portion of membership of a political party actually controls its direction in terms of platforms and agendas? Let me blunt: a very small proportion of the actual party membership does this.

In MMP, the parties can control their lists to fit their agendas, and this version of MMP only amplifies that level of party control. Thirty percent of the legislature would be made up of representatives selected by only a tiny proportion of the active membership of any given party - and those members have only to answer to those who selected them, and not the public in any riding anywhere in the province.

Like you said, a very small proportion of the actual party membership calls the shots. Everyone else falls in line. Under MMP, an at large MPP will vote exactly the same way as a local MPP, so as far as votes in the house go how they're chosen is irrelevant. Local MPPs do lobby for their ridings, and that won't change with a proportional system, except the number of ridings will be reduced by 14% or so. This will be offset somewhat by the increased voice of the other parties.

As far as accountability goes, of course they'll be accountable to voters. If people don't like what the party does, they won't vote for the party next time. Simple. Right now we don't have the option of differentiating between local candidates and the party as a whole. I share salvius's opinion that most people know a lot more about the parties than their local candidates, and that's how they vote. MMP gives you the choice of voting for a Liberal member but not the Liberal party, which in itself is very powerful and might just make local candidates a bit more relevant.

Here's a thought: the fact that at large MPPs aren't tied to a local riding could actually be a good thing. They won't be occupied by minor local concerns, so they'll have time to concentrate on larger issues. I do think that they should be chosen by the entire party membership rather than the party leadership, but that's hardly a dealbreaker to me.