Shareholder

Can the moderator of this forum give me 48-hours of dispensation on this thead as it affects how I will vote Wednesday on a major reform to the way we elect our provincial legislature/government in Canada's Ontario province? I can think of no other way of seeking the frank views of my New Zealand Commonwealth cousins on such an important matter, since you've adopted and lived through a similar Mixed Member Proportional system. (Posting this on OMNI would likely get lost since it is unlikely many who frequent this forum visit that one on any regular basis, if at all.)

What is on the table in a referendum vote this week is a proposal to adopt an MMP system much like yours, where 2/3rds of the legislature will be elected as local candidates, and 1/3rd as a party slate with members then drawn (from a party created list) in proportion to their vote for party only on a second part of the ballot.

We have been told this is a fairer method than the First-Past-the-Post we've been using -- and you used before the change down there -- since it permits a better reflection of actual party support in the legislature. However, on the surface it would appear to be more adventageous to minority parties (a 3% threshold would be used to determine which smaller parties would be eligible to draw seats from their lists) who could put pressure on the government when there is no majority elected.

If this thread is permitted to remain open until the end of the day Wednesday (NAmerican ET time), I would post a link to this forum on the AC forum so my fellow Ontarians can read the comments to assist in their own decisions.

Kiwi Flyer

I'm not familiar with Ontario politics (suprisingly enough) and the exact set-up of the MMP proposal. The way it is set in NZ (with approx 50/50 local/list representatives) a small party gaining multiple local seats ends up with more representatives than there share of the party vote - called overhang. In all the elections since adopting MMP there has only been one time (last election) when overhang has occurred - but that party is expected to again benefit from overhang at the next election.

In NZ there are 2 parties that each have a significant share of the vote. Since the switch from FFP to MMP there has been less cases of incoming governments reversing decisions of the outgoing government. In general there has been a significant shift towards the centre and more emphasis on whatever special interests are thought most likely to swing the support of particular minor party they want to deal with.

So, in my view, adopting MMP has brought both benefits and costs.

kiwibigdave

The threshold in NZ is 5%, so with 120 MPs that means if you get to 5% you get 6 MPs immediately.

As to whether MMP is fairer, that's definitely the big question. Right now in New Zealand the balance that the process is intended to bring does seem to work - as Kiwi Flyer alluded to. However it's my opinion this is down to the limited number of parties with a real chance of getting to 5%. If there were more, and it's quite conceivable that time will come here, then it takes the balance away. i.e. instead of one big left-ish (relatively speaking) party and one big right-ish (relatively speaking) party with whoever in power occasionally needing the help of a smaller party, you end up with the Italian parliamentary style, where they change government every nine months as multiple small groups change sides. That might be a big issue in Ontario, or not.

But regardless of all that, New Zealanders were defintely conned when MMP was introduced. Not because of MMP itself, but because during all the smoke and mirrors of which system was better it pretty much slipped by that we went from 100 to 120 MPs. And we need an extra 20 politicians like we need a hole in the head.

CHC Kiwi

Two positives of MMP are that it prevents one party gaining absolute power with only a minority of the vote (the National governments of 1978 and 1981 under FPP are cases in point), and that minor parties have a realistic chance of being represented (and yes, I do believe this is a positive). It is also arguable that coalition government is healthier for democracy, especially in NZ where we lack an upper house.

everywhere

Ah, my industry. I don't have detailed knowledge of the politics of Ontario but from what I understand you did have 130 seats; now you’ve got 107 ; and this proposition would shift it to 129 seats – 90 electorates & 39 list seats (which is quite a low ratio of list seats to electorates).

In NZ we have a 5 % threshold for representation [with the exemption that if a party gets 1 electorate seat then the party qualify's for proportional representation]. It remains ******* impossible to get a new party into Parliament. Just 3 % I think would be much harder.

Of course New Zealand's MMP is still relatively immature. A better place to look would be Germany, where the political landscape is really starting to change. You've seen the FDP force a 'grand coalition' between the two largest parties, and the whole dynamic of the Parliament change. This can only be a good thing, as it removes the entrenched old parties.

The key objection to MMP is that it shifts power from the voter in the electorate to the powerbrokers. However this is tosh. FPP allows a number of votes to effectively not be counted* because they are voting in 'safe' seats. That more than anything concentrates power in the hands of the powerbrokers.

Another objection is that representatives which are less than effective cannot be sacked by the voters under MMP. This is true; but things are organised along party lines under FPP anyway, so often said representatives stay in anyway, as your hardly likely to vote for the other guys. Under MMP your representative can be for the other guys; but you can still vote for power to go the right way.

[If you have any specific questions please pose them.]


*Just look at some canadian electoral results. For example in 1984, Jean Chrétien tells reporters he would introduce proportional representation if won. In 1993, he wins and continues as PM for 10 years - each election not topping 42 % of the vote. He never did introduce proportional representation. One step forward...

kiwibigdave

Ouch, my exact point above. So if it was me I would vote against the proposal on those grounds alone. Forget all the 'where does the power lie' stuff, regardless of who holds it 22 politician's worth of taxpayers money could almost certainly be better spent on a new school ...

Leumas

Yes, that is true. However, one situation NZ have repeatedly run into with MMP, is where a small party can hold the entire country in ransom. If no one major party has more than 50% in an MMP election, and therefore can't rule outright, you get the smaller parties becoming power-brokers. The bigger parties will effectively bid for the support from this smaller party.

Under a FPP system, while the majority of people might not have voted for the ruling party, under MMP, you may get a party that 95% of the people didn't vote for, getting to choose the direction for the country when they choose their coalition partner.

This was particularly common in our earlier MMP elections. People got rather sick of it and now ask for the minor parties to at least indicate some preference before the election.

Shareholder

Thank you. I find all your comments based on the MMP system in practice quite revealing. (And yes, I erred in the breakdown, it would be closer to a 3:1 ration Constituency Members to Party List Members.)

It is not the increase in numbers that so concerns me, but the nature of the List Members, how they are arrived at and to who they have allegience to...not to mention possibly giving Constituency Members a second-class status. I firmly believe in the local member having joint accountability, to the party and the constituency electorate. (I'm old fashioned and an idealist.)

Increasing the number of Members is disturbing, but unlike New Zealand where you are a relatively small, compact country, Ontario covers a huge land mass (about 25% of Canada), larger than most countries, and increasing the number of citizens per Constituency would decrease representation even further. (The reform I would prefer to see at this point is a true equity in the population of each Constituency. At present, these can vary by 25% and this has meant rural Constituencies and their voters are over-rerpresented, we urbanites under-represented.)

I also fear that given the many interest groups we have up here, and the threshold of just 150,000 votes in the Party ballot needed to achieve 4 seats, it will be quite easy to assemble such voters into blocs that translate into members who would then barter support with the minority government to skew policies. These could be interest groups or ethnic groups.

Coalition Governments have never had much of a try up here, either federally or provincially. We have had lots of Minority Governments at both levels, and these actually tend to work better than Majority Governments. Such has been the case federally for the last year. This way we can get rid of governments we don't like, who've over-stayed their welcome, but not have to live with the possible extreme policies of their replacements. It humbles extremists.

With 24-hours to go, I am tending to the "no" side, but will see tomorrow at this time.

Again, I appreciate the comments and your tolerance of my "hijacking" this forum away from its primary purpose of NZ points/travel threads.

everywhere

Ah so members roles can just be replaced by unelected officials - which often will end up costing more

Very Idealist! When things are split such along party lines there is really no such thing 'joint accountability'. For example in NZ we have Brian Connell, a constituency MP who pissed off the leadership of his party. The boundary's have just been redrawn by the electoral commission and suprise, suprise, his seat has been abolished. I see just in the last few hours he has announced he is resigning at the end of his term. Again, no suprise there.

I think you might be suprised at what happens out of view already under FPP. The scenario you pose is unlikely for several reasons
1) You can only vote once. Electors have to weigh up various factors.
2) NZ experience - 3 % is still bloody hard to get if your a small party or an establishing party.
3) A parliament that does not want to be held to ransom can force another election in the confidence that the electors will right it. The influence of minor parties is overstated.

Weigh that up with the benefits of MMP.

Shareholder

I can see some of your points, but I suppose it reflects the differences we have up here, and you down there. Many members have disagreements with their parties and if booted out of the party, sit as independents. As our electoral boundaries are revised by an independent commission, such gerimandering doesn't happen (as in such sterling democracies like Texas). In many cases, these members get re-elected as independents, or may join one of the other parties.

As for the difficulty in getting 3% of the vote, if you happen to be an organized group it is a very simple matter: unions can easily have their members vote for a given party on the List Ballot; Christian fundamentalists for "family issues" or "anti-abortion" parties; large ethnic groups for their own parties; aboriginals for a First Nations Party. No, the situation here would easily slip into the mold of Italy or Israel. And any of the three mainstream parties getting a majority to form a government, would end up having to find support from among these single interest parties.

I would prefer to see the Single Transferable Ballot model over the MMP model. But first, I want to ensure every constituency has the same number of electors, so the current distortions would end. That too would go far to eliminate the possbility of a party getting the most seats would get a popular vote more closely reflecting that number of seats. (This distortion seems to be the most given reason for adopting the MMP, so let's try an interim fix before a complete overhaul.)


*********

Again, I do thank you all down there for contributing, and letting me commandeer a corner of your forum for this purpose. I will head down to my polling station shortly, not 100% convinced. But I'll post the results later tonight when the ballots have been counted, and then the mods can then lcok this thread.

Shareholder

MMP goes down to defeat
Oct 10, 2007 10:14 PM
Marissa Nelson
Toronto Star Staff Reporter

CBC TV is predicting that MMP (mixed member proportional representation) has failed, with the majority of ridings voting against the change.

The CBC reported at 10 p.m. that 36.8% of Ontario voters were in favour and 63.2% against in votes that had been counted so far.

DCF

Good, it's a diabolical system, because it gifts small fringe parties the balance of power, and gives them influence far beyond what they deserve.

In New Zealand this has been Winston Peters' and Jim Anderton's unpopular vehicles, plus a fellow called Peter Dunne.

An even worse example of how PR distorts politics is Israel, where fundamentalist Jewish parties and far-right anti-peace extremists have enough seats in the Knesset that every potential government has to court them. As a result, each government can survive only by taking a hard line on difficult issues (e.g. the sovereignity of Arab East Jerusalem or the Jordan Valley), which makes a peace settlement impossible to achieve. This on the one hand allows Israel to retain total military supremacy but on the other hand exposes the citizens of Israel to the dastardly risk of terror attacks. I can't think of a better illustration of the destructive power of proportional representation.

SanDiego1K

And now I'll lock this thread as Shareholder suggests, as the election has passed.

SanDiego1K
Senior Moderator