MMP: How do you intend to vote?

[Prometheus The Supremo]

the only good thing i can see about MMP is that the greens will finally have more representation.

maybe they should create a 4 party rule stating that only 4 parties can hold seats, the ones with the most votes.

i know this may seem undemocratic but democracy doesn't always work well and in some situations could backfire.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Voting against MMP. I like to know who it is I'm voting for before I cast a vote.

 

[CDL.TO]

You would know exactly who you're voting for under MMP. There would be no surprises as to the members in the Legislature following the election.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think it's quite undemocratic to force parties supported by a very large plurality of the electorate to co-operate and make concessions to fringe parties in order to get a majority. Why should a party with 3% of the vote have the same power as a party supported by 30% or more? We'll still have big parties left out in the cold of opposition. The only beneficiaries here are the fringe.

Actually, it is even more undemocratic when the parties with relatively large proportions of the popular vote refuse to work with each other even when they have more in common with those fringe parties. Their ardent refusal to do that to me suggest an anti-democratic streak in our party system that is downright perverse.

AoD

 

[AndreaPalladio]

You would know exactly who you're voting for under MMP. There would be no surprises as to the members in the Legislature following the election.

No you wouldn't. Who gets in depends on the number of votes. If you want to elect the person who is tenth on the list, you have no way of doing so. And that assumes that the places on the list don't get mixed up in the all the horse trading and jiggery pokery that follows an election in a jurisdiction with any form of proportional representation.

 

[CDL.TO]

If you want to elect the person who is tenth on the list, you have no way of doing so.

Well, sure. And if you really want the candidate in Cornwall to get elected you have no way of doing so either. Doesn't mean that you don't know who it is you're voting for.

that assumes that the places on the list don't get mixed up in the all the horse trading and jiggery pokery that follows an election in a jurisdiction with any form of proportional representation.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the MMP system proposed specifically disallows jiggery pokery.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Well, constant minorities mean constant jiggery pokery in a desperate attempt to form some sort of workable majority. Look at Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Israel to see how nearly impossible it is to form a workable government in a proportional system.

 

[Hydrogen]

No jiggery or pokery in politics? It wouldn't be politics then, would it? MMP minorities are environments for politicking and deal-making. You don't get better or more effective government through MMP (nor even a discussion on what those things might be), but you will get more party politics simply because they are in so close. The deal-making is political and will be partisan because the effort to maintain party and ideological distinctions will be so much more demanding.

For all those supporting MMP, while you could end up with more fringe party representation, you could also easily end up with some parties - like the NDP - being squeezed out when the populace grows tired with gridlocked minority government. The door is open to that possibility.

This will still be the same party system, but with fewer directly elected representatives, and more party-elected representatives. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

 

[St. Even]

I don't think it's a legitimate argument to say "I don't want the Communist or Christian Heritage party represented." Disagreeing with a political viewpoint does not make it illegitimate or unworthy of representation in the political process.

Personally, I didn't want Mike Harris but enough people voted him in. Twice, even. And more people voted against his party the second time around than voted against it the first time and he still got a second majority. I don't see how that's democratic at all. Do you remember Frank McKenna winning ALL of the seats in NB with something like 50-60 per cent of the popular vote? In the past 20 years, we've had two premiers elected (in BC and Quebec) who received fewer total votes (barely, but still) than their opponent. This with first past the post.

I'm going to assume that the same thinking that doesn't want the Marijuana and Natural Law parties represented would also not welcome the presence of the Bloc Quebecois at the federal level. In the 1993 federal election, the PC party got 16 per cent of the vote and only two seats. The NDP got 7 per cent of the vote and nine seats -- less than half the total Conservative vote yet more than triple the number of seats. In that same election, the Bloc Quebecois came out as the official opposition with only 14 per cent of the overall vote. The BQ got fewer votes than the Conservatives yet they moved into Stornoway while the Tories were relegated to non-party status. I realize I'm using federal comparisons and the referendum is for provincial change, but it's the same system.

If we believe in the process of democracy, that majority rules with representation from minorities then we have to find a better system than the one we have now. I just don't see how we can deny representation to parties who receive votes -- the question is at what threshold?

I'm more concerned with the process of how those party lists will get put together than with hearing from more and varied voices in Parliament.

And why are there two threads on this same topic?

 

[CDL.TO]

Well, constant minorities mean constant jiggery pokery in a desperate attempt to form some sort of workable majority. Look at Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Israel to see how nearly impossible it is to form a workable government in a proportional system.

Indeed. As Hydrogen points out, it wouldn't be politics without any deal-making. As long as we're clear that the electorate would understand who it is they are voting for.

Although I'm locked in up in the poll as being in support of MMP, I actually haven't made up my mind as to how I'll vote. I'm not a big fan of the pure proportional nature of MMP and there are many, many electoral reform alternatives that I would have preferred. You won't hear any arguments from me when it comes to the weaknesses (and strengths) of proportional representation.

This is a big issue and I just want to make sure that people are clear on what is actually being proposed in terms of the system and how it would be applied before they make a final decision. There are a lot of misconceptions out there; CTV news tonight (uggh) reported that 47% of Ontarians don't know about or don't understand the referendum.

 

[lordmandeep]

I don't think it's a legitimate argument to say "I don't want the Communist or Christian Heritage party represented." Disagreeing with a political viewpoint does not make it illegitimate or unworthy of representation in the political process.

Why can't i have the right to be an elitist sob....

 

[St. Even]

Why can't i have the right to be an elitist sob....

It's a big House, there's room for elitists too.

 

[cacruden]

I will be voting against it.

This is just a patch to the current system, which will end up giving smaller parties a disproportionate amount of power.

Our system is party based, with a very strong party discipline, meaning that all members in a party will almost always vote the same-way - regardless of where they actually stand on an issue.

Parties are typically big houses where they have a right and left wing sides. The centre of the Ontario electorate is located just to the right of the center of the Liberal party, to the left side of the Conservative party, and to the very right of the NDP (if it is within it at all).

The most likely result would be a Liberal minority with support of the NDP. Without taking external political consideration into account, a party will typically position themselves to the center of their party (not necessarily the center of the electorate). A minority party will buy support from a third party which will shift or distort their record towards the direction of that 3rd party -- probably closer to the center of those parties together -- which means that the government of Ontario will shift towards the left of the center of the electorate (away from the center).

That does not sound appetizing to me..... but since most people on this board are left of center (more NDPers than the general population) -- I expect the majority to vote for it - because they will be the biggest beneficiaries of the change.

If the system encouraged people to vote with much more independance than it does -- then the alternate system would not be as bad as I see it being.

 

[Roy G Biv]

I will be voting against it.
which will end up giving smaller parties a disproportionate amount of power.

Wait, isn't that the current situation?

 

[St. Even]

I will be voting against it.

This is just a patch to the current system, which will end up giving smaller parties a disproportionate amount of power.

If we are to be a so-called "progressive" democracy, then personally I would prefer to err in favour of giving representation or "power" to smaller groups who currently have none, rather than maintain a status quo which gives more power to already established parties and completely ignores everybody else. It's the way we do things in Canada.

I guess the question is, how intelligent do we think the electorate is? Judging by some of the comments in this thread, voters are not to be trusted. Even though the required super majority likely means it won't pass, I'm voting in favour because I think it's better than what we have and who knows when we'll get an opportunity to effect this kind of change.