I think I would like a balanced electoral system. Partially representative, partially constituant would allow other parties to get voices in parliament.
Joking aside (the flighting yogis need to get 3% of the popular vote to get a seat) do you think it's right that the liberals have a majority with only 42% of the vote?
Everyone's inexperienced at the beginning... Dalton wasn't experienced as a premier when he was first elected, which in my opinion makes your point moot.
As for lessons learned... yeah he learned how to not keep promises.
Quite frankly, I find it predictable...the more misinformation provided by the media and well intentioned do gooders will prevent any genuine discussion on the issue(s) from taking place before the October election... or from a vague/badly written referendum question being ratified before October election. In the end, a referendum is not legally binding and mere political tokenism... In terms of Ontario political history, I find the timing for this referendum particularly interesting and wonder if it is not a political smoke cloud from dealing with more pressing controversial issues
"Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature? 1) The existing electoral system (first-past-the-post)? 2) The alternate electoral system proposed by the Citizens' Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)?"
I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem vague to me... But then again, I understand what is being asked of ontarians and what each system entails.
The fact that the referendum has hardly been talked about makes for one lousy smoke screen.
What is "The alternate electoral system proposed by the Citizens' Assembly" specifically? I didn't see a breakdown on that web site when I looked, just a lot of what's wrong with the current system. I'd hardly take option 2 until I knew what it really was. Heck, the alternate system could be "Joe Clark wins. Everything."
Let’s analyze the 2003 election for the 103 seats in the legislature to get an idea of the differences between the two election processes. Liberals got 46.4% of the vote for 72 seats (70% of the seats), the conservatives got 34.6% of the vote for 24 seats (23% of the seats) and the NDP got 14.7% of the vote for 7 seats (About 7% of the seats). Adding that up that only comes to 95.7% of the vote leaving 193,381 votes not for the major parties.
The existing system is called the first-past-the-post and refers to the fact that once it becomes clear that one candidate has the most votes and the others cannot catch him/her then he/she is elected, even if she/he did not get the majority of the votes. This allows a system where the liberals get 46.4% of the vote and then get 70% of the seats! Doesn’t seem fair.
Now, the alternative called Mixed Member Proportional will increase the seats to 129. 90 of the seats will be constituent based (still first-past-the-post) and 39 seats will be proportionally decided. What this means is we will have to vote twice on the same card. Once for the candidate of our choice and once for the party of our choice. These do not need to be for the same parties. You can vote however you wish.
So, re-examining the 2003 results we would get this picture. Liberals would get 70% of the 90 first-past-the-post seats or 63 seats and 46.4% of the 39 proportional seats or 18 seats for a total of 81 seats. Conservatives would get 21 and 13 respectively for a total of 34. NDP would get 6 and 6 respectively for a total of 12 seats. The three remaining proportional seats would be, most likely, divided between the big three parties in some matter. (for this case we’ll say equally).
Then the Liberals would have only 63.6% of the seats, conservatives 27.1% of the seats, and the NDP would have 9.3% of the seats. This, in my opinion, makes the legislature more reflective of actual voting results. Now, the fact is the green party at 2.8% of the vote would only need .2 percent more (in the case of the 2003 election only 8995 more votes) and they would have a seat in the legislature. This is more democratic and better reflects voter wishes.
Actually, I found Hawkeye's illustration quite useful. But one thing that was not mentioned was that each party would predetermine the list of members that would be installed in the 39 seats not won by individuals. This is another aspect to keep in mind when voting. No matter how much you want Green to have a seat, if their first member on the list is the ghost of Hitler, I'm sure you'll consider giving your vote to another party.
(Cuz, y'know, since dying he's become something of an environmentalist... oh wait, I meant something of the environment. Right)
What the parties would do is put all their top people in the member list, ie the leader as the first one, then finance minister etc. That way the leader would be assured of getting elected.
Off hand, only two examples of active mixed member proportional systems come to mind: British Columbia and New Zealand. Both switched from the "first past the post or FPTP" to the MMP system. Now that I think about it I have a vague recollection of Germany, Wales, and Scotland following a version of this system too. I believe it was back in May 2007, the Scots, who have had some experience with Mixed-Member Proportional voting, were first exposed to a "one ballot, two votes" system, which is virtually identical to what is being proposed for Ontario. The UK Government called the election a fiasco. The Opposition says no, it's a debacle. The Scottish Electoral Commission has called an inquiry. It seems that the rate of spoiled ballots went up by a factor of 10, with much higher rates in poor areas. Are Ontarians going to have the same problem?-Was it the ballot questions? Did they really understand what they were voting for?
Fundamentally, MMP system of voting creates 2 classes of politicians- one who represents and is loyal to the voters in the constituency who elected him, and another whose loyalty lies with the party leader. There is concern over party favoritism to members who are "high financial donors", etc. and giving too much decision making power to the parties to decide on who gets a portfolio (not to Ontarians). In addition, the MMP system can't guarantee absolute proportionality, so smaller parties may may still be left out. In the proposed system if a party has less than 3% of the votes..it gets nothing proportionally- so much for the Greens or other smaller parties!! MMP will be the end of majority governments in Ontario with less efficient minority or coalition governments being created. National Citizen Coalition states that MPP "will add an additional 29 MPPs at an annual cost of $3.2 million to Ontario taxpayers" while removing 17 ridings in Ontario.
MMP Pros
A really well presented argument for the pro side can be found on the TVO April 16, 2007 Agenda program (you will have to scroll to the date and click):
or Rick Anderson on CBC (scroll down to You Tube picture...starts off slow but gets better)from the following creepy site: http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com/
Whichever system you prefer FPTP or MMP, I think we can all agree that the Liberal government has done a lousy job educating the public on the referendum issue.
Ontario is the first province to attempt to switch to the MMP format. BC has the first past the post currently, and attempted to switch to something called the Single Transferable Vote System, where a few ridings elect between two and seven candidates depending on riding population. The voter ranks the candidates on the ballot paper in order of preference. It is more complicated than that, but what it isn’t is MMP. http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/deliberation/BCSTV-FactSheet.pdf or http://www.elections.bc.ca/referendum/ref.htm#C
Germany I know for sure has the MMP system but the seats I believe are 50% constituent and 50% popular vote.
As for rate of spoiled ballots are concerned without knowing what the numbers were or what the ballot actually looked like, or the education campaign was like, it is difficult to just say it was only as a result of changing to MMP.
Quoted from Chiquita
MMP Cons Fundamentally, MMP system of voting creates 2 classes of politicians- one who represents and is loyal to the voters in the constituency who elected him, and another whose loyalty lies with the party leader. There is concern over party favoritism to members who are "high financial donors", etc. and giving too much decision making power to the parties to decide on who gets a portfolio (not to Ontarians). In addition, the MMP system can't guarantee absolute proportionality, so smaller parties may may still be left out. In the proposed system if a party has less than 3% of the votes..it gets nothing proportionally- so much for the Greens or other smaller parties!! MMP will be the end of majority governments in Ontario with less efficient minority or coalition governments being created. National Citizen Coalition states that MPP "will add an additional 29 MPPs at an annual cost of $3.2 million to Ontario taxpayers" while removing 17 ridings in Ontario.
Here are some issues I have with this paragraph. I agree there are 2 classes of politicians, however with the party system we have, individual party members usually have to tow party lines, regardless of what his/her constituents want. In the current system loyalty IS to the leader already… we’ve seen many examples of a party member not agreeing with their party leader and getting ousted, either from a cabinet position or from the party entirely. As an independent the MPP can do little for his/her constituents because he/she has little to no power within the legislature.
With regard to party favouritism etc… the parties make the lists before the election so voters can see who will hold a seat if that party gets the proportional vote. So, if it looks like cronyism reporters will report that and the people of Ontario will be able to choose accordingly. Ontarians currently do not choose who gets a portfolio or ministry post anyway; the party chooses who IT wants after an election from those candidates that were elected.
With regard to MMP not being able to guarantee absolute proportionality this is a red herring in that MMP can more closely resemble the popular vote than FPTP can. No one ever said MMP is perfect.
With regard to fear of minority governments, see my previous post on the numbers of the last election… the liberals would still hold a majority in the legislature. As well, comparing Ontario with Germany is a bit of a stretch. In that Germany’s current system has only had 60 years, since after WWII, and out of WWII came many, many parties, which get seats in the German Reichstag. Ontario, by comparison has only ever really had 3 parties, and before the NDP came on the scene it was only 2 for the longest time. So the idea that MMP will be the end of majority governments is, in my opinion, unfounded. The numbers from the election are as follows: Liberals 46.4%, conservatives 34.6%, NDP 14.7%, Green 2.8%, Family coalition .8%, Freedom .2% and 3 other parties at .05% and less… The main parties are the big three. Besides, if there is a minority government that makes them work harder, because Ontarians will expect more from the legislature.
With regard to the annual cost increase… yeah.. there is no way to dispute that.
I agree there are 2 classes of politicians, however with the party system we have, individual party members usually have to tow party lines, regardless of what his/her constituents want. In the current system loyalty IS to the leader already… we’ve seen many examples of a party member not agreeing with their party leader and getting ousted, either from a cabinet position or from the party entirely. As an independent the MPP can do little for his/her constituents because he/she has little to no power within the legislature.
ok, i agree it was a weak argument. I do think the independents will have even less power under a MPP system.
1) Is there any proof that minority governments get more stuff done or is it "urban legend status"?
2) Why is Ontario not going with the same provincial system proposed for in BC? Why would the STV system not work here?
In response to your questions: 1) Lester Pearson had a minority government and was deemed to have been a success and is the goal of all minority governments since. I think that it depends on the parties themselves... and how much they decide they want to cooperate. 2) I really don't like that system in BC at all where you would get 3 NDP canditates for one riding? 12 candidates total? However, I haven't delved too deeply into that electoral system... I wonder would it be more or less propotionally accurate than the MMP?
THe referendum lost... as I suspected.. The problem? Not enough lead time to inform voters.
Do you think that was really the problem? What about people who might think the MMP system *isn't* the answer? What about the people who like the current system? What about the people who just don't like change and don't want to bother to understand a new system? Documentation about the new system came with the election envelope containing your registration info, so people have had at least a month to look into it.
I was reading the criteria for a binding decision in the referendum, and MMP didn't just lose... it lost BAD. 102 ridings had over 60% voting against MMP. Only 5 had 60% voting for MMP.
I would think that most people did NOT know anything about the MMP system and that they would rather vote for what they know and not for what the don't.
I personally think that the flyers in with the voting registration card was a joke. I've spoken to numerous people that didn't even know there was a referendum... they opened their envelope on election day, and that's when they found out. Since they didn't know much about the issue, they just voted to keep things the same.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
E-mail
Private message
