In the last federal election, 600,000 people voted for the Green Party, but it won no seats. In the same election, the government was voted into office with 36% of the 63% of voters who showed up. So, 77% of voters did not cast ballots for Mr. Harper.
Today pollsters consider “majority territory†to be somewhere north of 38% of the electorate. Thus, a majority almost always results from a minority of votes, thanks to vote-splitting, poor turnout and a first-past-the-post system open to manipulation by the Big Party electoral machines.
The way we elect our leaders is rife with problems. Unless a party can concentrate votes in a specific region, city or riding, it doesn’t elect members – even with broad-based national support. So, our Parliament very infrequently represents what Canadians actually want. No wonder skepticism, distrust and disgruntlement have poisoned public life.
At a provincial all-candidates debate the other night I listened to the sitting Ontario MPP crap all over a proportional representation proposal coming up for a public vote on October 10th. This system, he said, will create two tiers of politicians. Some will be accountable to the people, and some will be party hacks accountable only to their bosses.
Those were the words he used. “Party hacks.†It belies a deep lack of understanding on the part of this man, and many other critics, as to what PR means and how it works. Or, perhaps he’s just being a mouthpiece for a political party that truly fears reform which puts more power in voters’ hands and removes some from it.
The coming provincial referendum in Ontario is the latest attempt to break the influence of machine politics. A citizen’s assembly came up with a compromise system called MMP. In brief, citizens will get two votes, one for a local rep and one for the party they want to form government. The guy getting the most votes in a riding (like now) will be elected. In addition there will be a list of other candidates-at-large and they will become MPPs in a proportion equal to the support their party received. The party with the most elected from both ridings and lists gets to govern.
This would ensure a few things. For one, everybody’s vote counts in some way or another, unlike now when 2 million votes usually elect nobody. Second, it gives some assurance the party that most people vote for actually forms government.
But what of the criticism that the ‘list’ MPPs would not have a constituency and be beholden only to the parties that put them on that list? Scrutiny, experience and common sense show this criticism is bunk.
For starters, nominated candidates who stand for election now are, by definition, party hacks. They’re usually selected by a small number of party members, then presented to the general population who had nothing to do with the process.
Take Halton for example. Let’s say there are 500 Conservative association members and an equal number of Liberals (probably not far off reality), plus another 500 combined for the Greens and NDP. That’s 1,500 people in a riding of 150,000 voters – or 1% of the population. So, in the next election, there will be four candidates that 99% of the citizens living here had no influence over choosing. How could this be a better definition of “party hacks�
As for criticism of “two tiers†of MPs or MPPs under PR, how do the malcontents ever justify governments made up of cabinet ministers appointed by the leader? That is the ultimate in undemocratic rule, since the disparity between ministers and private members is extreme.
Finally, all responsible parties under a PR system like the one Ontario is debating will surely be nominating their list candidates in an open and fair manner, usually through competition. And those people will be paraded publicly before the vote – just like riding candidates. How can this be less democratic?
A proportional representation system empowers voters. It gives them more choice. It ensures the majority opinion is reflected in government. It is fairer. It allows smaller parties a role. It encourages compromise. It lets parties increase the role of women and minorities as list candidates. It permits citizens to decide on the best local candidate, and also the best party to govern. One voter. Two votes.
And, I seriously hope, an end to politics as we know it.
_______________________________________________________
Related: ‘MP Larry Miller can’t have it both ways on MMP’.
Click here.
_______________________________________________________
120 comments ↓
INSANITY! Help!
http://www.bourque.org/
Garth, seems you are purporting an American system where you vote for your candidate and well as vote for your government.
Is the the new liberal way, turn us into americans?
I new you guys had a hidden agenda.
Why don’t you make this a private members bill and see if it flies with the other parties?
I know you would have NDP support for such a move. But then again who the hell knows how the NDP would vote. Not so sure about the Liberals or Conservatives or the Block. I rather doubt they would think it would be in their best interest to support such a change.
This type of government was voted on in BC and was defeated and just. It will be interesting in how Ontario will go. Perhaps how Ontario goes will be the way the Feds will go as well.
This indeed would be an interesting debate and vote. I am all for it btw.
If this one doesn’t fly why don’t we elect our governments the way the NWT does. get rid of all the parties and have only independents run and once elected they elect who the PM will be. Works great for the Territories and should also work federally as well.
Unfortunately, this will never happen because none of the parties would ever vote to do away with the party system.
This type of government was voted on in BC and was defeated and just
No STV was voted on in B.C. This is not STV.
By Jim on 10.03.07 5:16 pm
You, obviously, know nothing about the American system. Go report to your Supervisor, and ask for a new Chit sheet. The one you have is BOGUS!
Unfortunately, this will never happen because none of the parties would ever vote to do away with the party system.
By Van on 10.03.07 5:22 pm
Uh, Van, the people are voting, not the parties. Hold onto your hat Bud!
And now some news from the Muskoka-Black Fly Country.
Candidates answer to Gravenhurst constituents
Miller applauds Tory’s reversal on funding faith-based schools
LMAO! Yeah, right Norm. You applaud the flip flop, but still support the party leader’s position. Next!
“I honestly don’t think he expected it to be as big an issue as it was,†he said. “It was a minor part of our platform. It’s been frustrating for us because we’d rather be reminding people about Mr. McGuinty’s broken promises and outlining all the positive things we have on our platform. Unfortunately this issue has dominated and that’s too bad.â€
Oh, poor Baby got caught with his diaper down…BIG TIME!
The separation of church and state
Yeppers, we may be Hicks to some., but we damn well understand BS, and Tory has a truckload that even the flies are not abiding to.
Garth,
Thank you for stating your position, and support. I have been seeing many of the old party hacks writing the papers here, trying desparately to instill FUD to protect their turf. The people do not seems to be buying it.
Neither are they buying Brenda Rhodes, the Liberal Candidate’s position on blaming ‘not having a Liberal MPP’ for us being removed from the Northern Ontario designation. It was McSquinty and Saboro who did that little number, and we are not about to forget it.
Kevin wrote:
>No STV was voted on in B.C. This is not >STV.
With all due respect, it was a form of A proportional representation system and is very similar to what Garth is advocating and what Ontario is debating at the present.
Re: Van
I only learned about the NWT voting system recently, and I found it a fascinating concept.
Anyway, I was fence-sitting on this vote until Garth’s comments, now I’m thinking I’ll vote for it. I’m actually open to the idea of being able to vote for the local (M)MP I agree with, and then also voting for the political party I like overall.
If this one doesn’t fly why don’t we elect our governments the way the NWT does. get rid of all the parties and have only independents run and once elected they elect who the PM will be. Works great for the Territories and should also work federally as well.
Unfortunately, this will never happen because none of the parties would ever vote to do away with the party system.
By Van on 10.03.07 5:22 pm
I agree with this 100%, independent government is the only way to restore representation to the constituents, parties are destroying democracy!
Garth, seems you are purporting an American system where you vote for your candidate and well as vote for your government.
Is the the new liberal way, turn us into americans?
I new you guys had a hidden agenda.
By Jim on 10.03.07 5:16 pm
Jim, that is too funny, the Cons have touted the Liberal party as American haters, I suggest you go back and look at the play book…LMAO…
Garth:
I have spoken on the voting system before and how goverments need only a small percentage of actual ballets cast to gain full control. Couple this with the neo conservative attitude that once they have a majority they then set themselves up as having the will of the entire country. We only have to look south to see just how defiante both the President and Vice President have been.
To-day our younger people are more political savy and see the system for what it is. They will soon demand more and the party that understands this and learns to work in a new a fair system will be smart to do so.
Now on another front, many may think I have beat this horse to the ground but reports are out that GWB has now doubled the national debt to 9.6 Trillion dollars! and no end in sight for the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hey Garth who is going to pay for this bill. Canadains? or are we bullet proof.
Aging baby boomers, CCP and health care, where will the money come from, should American force our prices highier/or worst down affecting downward wages and benifits. Sounds like a lose,lose situation.
Garth:
The sitting MPP who derided this because of “party hacks” either is ill-informed, or was spreading falsehoods. All four parties have committed to democratically electing their List MPP’s, if Mixed Member PR were to pass.
Interesting that this MMP system in New Zealand is not going too well – constant gridlocks and some are crying for a referendum to get rid of it.
It’s the responsibility of the parties to sway to voters in their direction, nto be given token seats. If they want to government, build your votes. The NDP have been at it for a long time and yet when they do get any power they mess it up. We need some new blood – and the Green Party haven’t had any experience in government – perhaps it’s time to give them a chance – some seats to get that experience. The NDP haven’t really done anything for us – ideas sometimes, but they haven’t changed their platform since the 1970’s.
We need to get rid of CPC and NDP and try Liberals and Green – interesting combo if you ask me.
Sorry Van,
STV is not a form of proportional representation. This is misinformation that can be refuted with at least 3 points.
STV is only proportional within constituencies, and since constituencies will vary in size and number of seats, the only way to make STV proportional would be to turn BC into one constituency. That would be ridiculous – strike 1.
Next, all ridings won’t have the same number of MPs. How can someone’s vote have the same value when in one seat there is an opportunity to elect 3 MPs, while in another there is a chance to elect 5 or even 9? Now we are even further away from PR – strike 2.
Finally, the ratio of electors to MPs will also vary within constituencies. This will also affect the value of votes – strike 3. How is this system PR again? And another thing, why do you generalize when you try to simplify? With PR/STV, every vote does not count equally, and it’s not as easy as 50% here, 50% there. The mechanics of the system allocate different values to votes. Votes can be worth 1, more than 1, or _gasp_ votes can be worth 0.
Let’s say there are 21 voters voting to elect 2 politicians from a field of 5 candidates – the quota is 8. The quota is determined by dividing the total votes by the number of vacancies + 1, then adding 1 to the total (21/(2 +1))+1 = 8.
Under the Gregory method, which is the method I assume was proposed for dealing with the surplus, all votes are transferred from the person who meets the quota to the person with the most second preferences, but at a reduced value. To determine this reduced value, we must divide the surplus by the total number of voters.
So, let’s say the winner of the first round had a surplus of 5 votes (he received 13 first preference votes) – his votes for the second round would be then worth 0.25 (5/20) each, giving his 13 votes a new value of 3.25. The random sampling method of dealing with surplus at least would have seen the second preference getting the 5 vote surplus at the value of 1 each, rather than all at reduced value, as in this example. The second place candidate who received 5 second-place votes has not reached the quota, so all of the winner’s votes go to her, but remember, they’re now worth .25 each, instead of 1 each. So, she receives 3.25. This means the second preference candidate now has a total of 8.25, which sees her elected. We how have filled our two vacancies. Sure, you got lucky; the candidates you voted for won. But, there’s no way of knowing if your vote went to the winner as 1 or ended up in the surplus and therefore went to the second-choice as .25. How is this “one person, one voteâ€? And what if you voted for the 3rd place candidate as your first preference? She didn’t get elected, so your vote was “wasted.” And don’t get me started on how this system supposedly does not “waste†votes…
-R
Hi Garth,
Thanks so much for finally blogging about this! Your rationale for MMP is easy to understand and carries a lot of weight.
By the way, how many hits do you get on your blog these days?
Zillions. — Garth
One need only look to this site to see how a backbench MP/MPP can have a constituency that is expressed beyond the bounds of a normal riding, something that under FPP is normally restricted to the leader and cabinet of sitting government, and the opposition leaders.
I like the NWT system too. There are 19 MLAs who sit around a round table, whose diameter from this photo I estimate to be about 30 feet. So each member gets about π X 30 / 19 = 5 feet of circumference to him or herself. Now I believe Ontario currently has 103 MPs, which would require a table with diameter of 5 X 103 / π= 165 feet. That’s one big piece of lumber! And don’t worry about being separated by the distance of 2 sword lengths, even an MPP carrying a jousting stick would be emasculated in this chamber.
Hi Bill.
I was actually talking about the federal system and not the provincial. Hopefully the Ontario voters will do the right thing and vote for it.
I have already voted and I voted Green and against MPP, all this will do is sit 39 more party MPPs in the seats at Queens Park, 39 more salaries, 39 more expense accounts, and 39 more bobbleheads. I want an independent government, if we have to go this route, I would rather have run offs.
“You, obviously, know nothing about the American system. Go report to your Supervisor, and ask for a new Chit sheet. The one you have is BOGUS!
By Bill-Muskoka on 10.03.07 5:35 pm”
Quite familiar with the American system actually. Its not a bad one either. At least everyone that has voting power is elected. Unlike the liberal patronage appointees in our wonderful senate.
Not familiar with a chit sheet though. Is that a liberal phrase?
Off topic — US has the FBI and CIA, Canada has CSIS. I imagine CSIS gets the instruction manuals from down south!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/031007_seven_retards.htm
Van, I’m a big fan of proportional representation and I dont much care for STV. Its far too complicated for most people to even understand who the winner is, or how it was decided. To think that MMP == STV is rediculus. The votes will not be the same.
Figured something like this was going to happen sooner or later.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9d7c3f32-711b-11dc-98fc-0000779fd2ac.html
Some may have already seen this, but it’s worth looking at (computer repair rip-offs).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsHoTxU5hwg
Garth..One question…Will the Premier be able to appoint Cabinet Ministers from the ‘list’ MPP’s…I don’t mean this badly, I will vote for MPP, I’m just asking..
Van:
Watch this on STV http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/flash/bc-stv-full
and then
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/resources/new_billy_final.html for info on MMP.
The two systems are as different to each other as they are to FPTP.
Poll shows Liberals neck-and-neck with Tories
http://www.thespec.com/News/BreakingNews/article/258776
The Conservatives hold commanding leads on the Prairies, among voters over age 50, among those who earn over 100-thousand dollars and among men.
Hooray for Jon Stewart! The MSM is a bunch of old, wet farts.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Chris_Matthews_to_Jon_Stewart_This_1003.html
BRAVO!
I’ve been waiting for this post for a long time! Way to go, Garth – I’m proud of you!
Garth, If 36% voted for Harper, then 64% voted against him, not 77%.
Also I don’t believe you mentioned that the last PM to win a true majority was Brian Mulroney.
Only 63% of voters turned out, and of those 36% voted Conservative. So, 77% of eligible voters did not vote for Mr. Harper. — Garth
STV was not accepted by many here in BC because it was VERY poorly reported in the mass media, and very little good advertising went out.
(The sitting gov. was not interested) But,
More people are interested now as there is general anger with the system that exists.
FPTP is just a tool of the power brokers that they do not want to loose.
If it went to vote today a different result might just occur.
I for one truly hope that Ont. voters are wiser than BC’s where.
I will not vote for the MMP for 2 reasons.
One, there were these fringe parties which received over 30,000 votes each in last election. Over 30,000 votes is sometimes close to a single riding’s electorate turn-out. While it may not represent 3% of the total votes cast, it is still significant for them to bitch that they would not be represented. I have not problems believing that a single issue party could possibly win enough votes to get their party’s wacko to sit as an MPP or MP. An MPP or MP who would receive a pension (after 6 years) and not be accountable to his constituents. No thanks. I do not want Family Co-alitions, or Marxists, or whatever to get near the legislature.
Also, it also discourages independants to run, as they will have even less opportunties without the financial backers. No thanks. I would rather have the strong independants run.
Now, the proponents will use the Green Party’s situation. Well the Green’s need to work harder to get better people to run for them. Many of them are (and we have had many in our riding) are so out of touch with everyday people, that they are not credible. I have had many opportunities to speak with and ask them questions. The answers I receive are so off the wall and are just not relevant for my considerations.
For examine, how would seniors on a low fixed income “retrofit” their homes or purchase solar power, when they cannot scrape together the few thousands dollars needed to qualify for government grants? Answer: Increase their mortgage!
And another one: what would they do to address the doctor shortage? Answer: Encourage people to live “greener” lives! OK, but, what about the immediate problem, when people do not even have a family doctor for regular checkups? Answer: They wouldn’t need one if they lived “greener” lives!
Sorry, these Green candidates just don’t cut it. But, they do get some young ideologues’ or protest votes. And therefore receive their 1.75$ per year allotment.
MMP : Garth Turner : One Voter, Two Votes…
While I’d like to think of Garth Turner as a “conservative” for MMP, he is in fact, technically a “Liberal” for MMP….
MMP-more mangy politicians…..this is reform?…you got to be kidding…I’m against it.
Question. The nominated candidates. Will they actually have their names on the ballot or are they appointed with the second or surplus votes for the Party?
I believe their names will be published in advance, but not on the ballot because they are not riding candidates. — Garth
Only 63% of voters turned out, and of those 36% voted Conservative. So, 77% of eligible voters did not vote for Mr. Harper. — Garth
My point exactly….now divide that by four/five parties and the majority in reality is even less
Hi Garth – Not sure how these blogs work. Do you take it off line for several hours while you peruse the comments. Sometimes my comments go through right away and other times they might pop up hours later. I don’t comment often as I get fed up with the con trolls and have to take a break. Wish more people on your blog would just totally ignore them and not respond. I’m guilty at times too. I also note that the time I post always represents Ontario time. I’m naive – maybe that’s the way a blog works.
I shall reread your blog tomorrow to try and understand MMP. Without investigating further, sounds like the NWT system is better. But, if MMP gets the go ahead in On tar ri o, maybe it will spur Canadians to actually consider other types of government. Sure hope so.
Comments are moderated when I get to them – in my office, on a laptop or on my Berry. Occasionally I do sleep and ride. — Garth
I believe their names will be published in advance, but not on the ballot because they are not riding candidates. — Garth
By got rope? on 10.03.07 8:27 pm
Interesting mix of elected and nominated.
Many years ago I was asked by the Mayor to run as a councilor at large but it involved my name on a ballot and in competition with others `at large`. Everyone on council had to be voted in including at large but then there was not actual political Parties.
The Liberals lead the Tories in Ontario, Quebec and B-C, throughout Atlantic Canada, and among women and younger voters.
The Conservatives hold commanding leads on the Prairies, among voters over age 50, among those who earn over 100-thousand dollars and among men.
From above posted URI…
There some key points here, younger voter to which I stated are part of 37% who do not take time to vote, so what if they do…..
Older people making over 100K what if their home values fall, and they are all aware of Income Trust lies, and other broken promises…..
So if this happens the old will p’d off and the young will see no future to make big bucks….so who would they vote for….? All comes down to money, and PMSH & Co spent everything on Quebec and missed the train, do they have more money for Quebec and would that really make Reformers happy?
So perhaps Garth was correct when he said here “It will all about money” and waiting is in Dion’s favour.
I hope Ontario gives a new system a try. Nothing new here other countries have the same type of system and are doing better than England,US and Canada
Garth:
CBC, news, PMSH makes yet another threat, holly smokes not again! Surpirse Mr. PM, what’s new! Blame the Senate, Blame the Bloc, Blame the NDP, and of course Blame the Liberals. oops forgot Blame the press.
On your first paragraph you state that 77% of voters did not vote for Mr. Harper. What country are we in as I thought we voted for MP’s from local ridings and cannot recall even seeing Stephen Harpers name on my New Westminster- Coquitlam ballot.
Stephen Harper did garner 72% of his riding making him much more deserving of a win then your 45% that you received.
I think the meaning was clear. Would you like me to use crayons, though? — Garth
Thank-you Garth.
Trust the consensus of 103 of our peers. Vote for MMP. Tell your friends, tell your family, this is the best opportunity we have had to wrest control from the political elite and they are fear mongering and suggesting the opposite to talk us out of it.
I new you guys had a hidden agenda.
By Jim on 10.03.07 5:16 pm
Learn to spell Jim & then maybe you would have some credibility.
Only 63% of voters turned out, and of those 36% voted Conservative. So, 77% of eligible voters did not vote for Mr. Harper. — Garth
I have a problem with this type of math. If you look at every party, the majority of voters didn’t vote for them. In fact, if you use your math even more than 77% didn’t vote for the Liberals, or the NDP, or the Bloq etc…
Hence throwing out numbers such as this mean nothing.
But to other matters MMP.
Your scenario of who will be “elected” under the second vote for the party is a little optimistic. First who will pick these candidates. Possibly the grassroots card-carrying party members? By your own admission they are only a very small percenatge of Canadians. Or parachute by the party leadership?
Secondly, once the votes have been counted which of the candidates will be given the seats. Say a party has 10 candidates, but the vote only allows for 5 extra in the HoC for that party. Who decides which 5? In an ideal world your scenario would be wonderful. But in reality, patronage appointments for hard working party insiders would be top of the list. (Yes, they will be on the list of candidates paraded before us!)
So we will have MP’s who were selected by a very few, less Canadians would have voted for them than a riding candidate. Now if one of these should become a cabinet minister….! That would be almost as bad as appointing a new senator and making him a minister
Now for who makes the next government; suppose the PC’s have more elected riding MP’s, but the second vote the Libs have a majority giving them more of the PR seats. But when the seat totals are compared there are still more PC’s. Therefore the PC’s form government, even though more people voted Liberal. (Swap the parties round if you wish, its the point that counts.)
I used to think PR was a good idea, but now you’ve made me think, I’m going to vote against MMP because we’ve no idea how our votes will count towards the forming of the government.
Amazing,
Garth understands the issue and see that it is a better solution than our current Furtherest From The Post
I truly like Garth, eventhough he is a Sales Distributor for Bio-Petroleum Reptilian Lubricants
I have already voted and I voted Green and against MPP…”"
By pjw on 10.03.07 6:50 pm
This hurts. I agree with so much of what you have to say. I’m good with Green but against MMP? Go back and look agiain. You have missed something.
If you support MMP please go to http://www.voteformmp.ca and donate $10.10 or more. Even with almost no campaign BC’s referendum on electoral reform lost by just 2%; the yes side got almost 58% of the vote, but like in Ontario, the government set the threshold at 60%. So, every vote counts and every $10.10 counts. ($10.10 because the election is on $10.10!)
Guess Stevie is now going to force an election (CBC National this eve). I’m beginning to think that I want one. And all those who are against his govt ever attaining a majority should start preparing their lawn signs and the lists of lies and broken promises of the ‘New Government’. Tomorrow I’ll start preparing my lists and get my DH, whose pretty good with photoshop, to help me. And, I’ll be distributing them in every postbox that I can. This will be a nasty campaign unfortunately. But, IMHO, its Stevie who has turned Canadian politics into an American (US) never ending campaign. God help us if this theocon ever gets a majority.
It is my opinion that the only groups that stand to “lose†if the referendum is successful are the large political parties and the power structures that form and support them. My reference is http://nommp.ca/about.shtml. Note that the list of people who will (apparently) say “No†are all politicians or in politics. Locating any information, let alone biographies, for the executive of No MMP has been difficult but references such as “More backroom Liberal politics at work†http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/2007/09/mmp-campaign-has-unfair-advantage.html and histories of failed election bids were found. Doesn’t their willingness and ability to publish such a list of politicians suggest a close connection with politics?
I would like to draw your attention to their primary objection: “…the proposed MMP system shifts power from the local voter in ridings across Ontario to the power brokers at Queen’s Park.†So let me get this straight: A group opposed to the change to MMP, with apparent ties to the political system, supported entirely by the political elite, objects to a suggestion made by regular citizens, because it benefits those who are against it. Am I the only one who sees the flawed logic and improbability of this being the case?
In my opinion any initiative that is condemned by people in the system is very likely good for those outside the system, specifically we the voters.
Catherine,
You may not like MMP and vote against it, which is absolutely your right, but I think the reasons you’ve listed to vote against it are questionable.
With respect to your cited figure of 30000 votes going to fringe parties, if that total is not enough to meet the very reasonable threshold of 3% (personally I’d like to see it at 5%), then so be it, the party does not get a seat. A rational voter can accept that the number of MMPs has to be kept to within a tolerable limit, and if a party is not attractive enough to meet the cutoff, then it either has to work harder next time and/or do some serious reflection on why its policies are so offensive to the electorate.
With respect to independents, I cannot see how that would change from the way things are now. One of the 2 votes goes to the representative of the local riding; if an independent is the overwhelming choice of his or her riding, then why would he or she not get in? The second vote, for party, is irrelevant to the independent (unless he or she can clone themselves to create a list), just as party affiliation is irrelevant now.
Finally, with respect to the Greens, it appears that you’re saying you don’t like their policies so their supporters should be disenfranchised accordingly. Perhaps the Green voter feels the same about your preferred party’s policies, so why should your preference trump theirs? Sounds rather undemocratic to me. Personally I sometimes find the Greens to be, well green, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have an opportunity to learn through experience where refinement to policy is in order. Work in a coalition with a more experienced “older sibling” to see how things work and where their own shortcomings might lie. You can rest assured, they won’t garner enough votes to lead government.
And now I’m watching the Quebecers in Afghanistan (must be Govt approved) and I wonder (as many have in the past) if Stevie is really worried that the longer they are in Af and the more body bags come home, will Quebecers continue to support this mission. Based on past history, I doubt it.
80% of Canada’s population lives in urban areas. If any kind of rep. by pop. goes through, we rural folk might as well roll up the roads and give up. Our voice would be lost and things in the country would slide even further downhill. L
Our present system doesn’t work, this is what drew me to the reform party years ago, although the love affair didn’t last long.
We need some form of proportional representation, I have no opinion on the proposed Ontario system but anything has to be a step in the right direction.
The liberals need a new bold policy to set them apart from Harper, how about it?
But Leasa, with the partisan politics of the existing system the MPPs do not vote for their constituents. The rural communities best chance to get a voice at Queens Park is the MMP, 3% of the vote for your party and an independent voice in the house. MMP works better for you.
I think the meaning was clear. Would you like me to use crayons, though? — Garth
Yes could you, You could have also stated that Mr. Harper was not voted in by 99% of the voters as he only receives votes from 1 riding out of 308 further skewing your numbers. I really don’t see why you even made a statement about Mr. Harper in this post as you are referring about provincial politics and he is a federal politician. A comment regarding the percentage of voters who did not vote Conservative would have been much more respectful then using only the PM’s name as it shows what disrespect you have to the man.
I thought he led the party. And the government. — Garth
Haven’t heard from him for some time now, but it seems that he still gets under peoples’ skins.
http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/2007/10/shame-on-you-desmond-tutu.html
Mr Garth TurnerMP,
Re:climate change.
The most terrifying video you’ll ever see. 9:33 min. (you must see!!!).
http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=317652
PMSH is an Action ‘B’ guy.
I want an Action ‘A’ guy for a leader!
Are you a critical thinker?
“Belief in myth avoids the discomfort of thought.”
There some key points here, younger voter to which I stated are part of 37% who do not take time to vote, so what if they do…..
By David Bakody on 10.03.07 8:59 pm
David – I know my 23 year old niece will certainly vote – and likely her friends – in Montreal – and it will be against the cons. Last year she wrote a Let to the Ed (Mtl Gazette) she was so upset with our current gubermt. Malheuresement it was ‘edited’. She graduated ‘with distinction’, at Concordia, rec’d a Presidential (Clinton) top student award in US at 12 or 13, & was pursued by top universities in US. Yeah, even at that age. She wants to be a journalist but not sure she realizes how big biz controls what journalists can report. Also wants to move here. Think I’ll send her “Into the Buzzsaw” – “The Myth of a Free Press” – a mind opener. Think she’s naive but don’t want to discourage her. She and her friends are the future.
So, if the Conservatives are so anxious to have an election, when are we going to here about a candidate selection for the Halton riding? I’m surprised that still hasn’t happened.
I have to admit, I’m really curious who we/they are going to find to take Garth on.
I hear they are conceding. — Garth
If you don’t give me a mandate to govern, the election will be all your fault!!!–Stephen Harper.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/03/harper-election.html
Poor boy!!!!! He had better go and pout in his room. No more pictures when they turn out like this.
Isn’t it bullies who threaten and blame?
Hey KPN,
I agree with your logic. Even if MMP is not your preferred alternative electoral system, changing a prominent province’s system such as Ontario will have huge ramifications in Canada. So, please vote yes if you want electoral reform, even if MMP is not your 100% preference. The opportunity to vote on electoral reform hasn’t happened in Ontario since 1792, it might not happen again in our lifetimes.
Nothing you wrote in your post refutes the claim that the PR system will put more party hacks into parliament, accountable to no one outside the party. Indeed, in most places where lists are used, only the party executive are involved in deciding who is on it. If the ballot question does include any rule about requiring some sort of democratic method for selecting list candidates (and I can’t envision what this would be), the selection process will be similar or worse to what already exists for riding candidates.
Thus, you end up with party hacks…it’s unlikely that someone like yourself (and while I disagree with many of your specifics, I really admire your belief that you work for the electorate) would ever get on such a list.
The fact is that PR worsens the existing problem of too much concentration of power inside two or three parties. I don’t really see why you can’t see that. The basic problem with our current system is that people vote for the party instead of voting for the individual. PR, and it’s variants like the one proposed for Ontario, institutionalize that and make it effectively impossible for there to ever be real change.
We need to remove parties from the system, not further entrench them.
1 – Treat all candidates and MPs as independents. Obviously no law should prevent people from associating with each other, but nor should these associations be recognized and printed on the ballot, or used to assign seating in Parliament.
2 – Have the Premier or Prime Minister selected from amongst MPs. This is actually more democratic than the current system, since the PM would be selected by the representatives of the people, instead of by a group of people with similar views who have the money to join a party, and in many cases time and money to attend a convention.
I think that’s the biggest things. I also like single transferable ballots, since they naturally favour moderates, and no one has to worry about their vote going to waste.
I said it earlier and I’ll say it again. The problem with the system now is that people vote for parties instead of people. Forcing them to do this makes the situation worse, not better.
Welcome to the club, Garth!
“At a provincial all-candidates debate the other night I listened to the sitting Ontario MPP crap all over a proportional representation proposal coming up for a public vote on October 10th.”
Sadly, the Liberal candidate isn’t any brighter:
Zemlak said the Liberals want to stay away from influencing people’s decision, but added if the government is given the power to appoint people, “you’re asking for trouble.”
Sigh.
The only one to come out in favour was the Green candidate, who also seems like a really interesting, well educated guy with a good handle on the sprawl issue.
Which is exactly why I really wish we had MMP right now!
As to accountability, see the graphs in yesterday’s Globe.
In 1999 they show 22 Liberal MPPs elected at-large. Would those 22 Liberal MPPs have been unaccountable? But in 2003 they show only 3, so all but 3 of those 22 would either have won a local seat or been out.
Similarly in 1990 they show 18 Progressive Conservative MPPs elected at-large. Would those 18 MPPs have been unaccountable? But in 1995 they show only 3, so all but 3 of those 18 would either have won a local seat or been out.
So an at-large MPP has to spend his or her term being a good shadow local MPP, in order to win locally when the tide turns in their party’s direction.
I believe it has been stated already but the current system is well beyond in need of repair. It needs to be thrown out and almost anything will be a great replacement. So is this MMP system a better one? Well it certainly is not a perfect one, no system ever will be.
I suppose that Harper could actually encourage one thing since he seems to think that Australia is superior in, perhaps our dicktator should think about enacting legislation that requires, no demands, all citizens to be registered and to vote. Failure should result in some fairly hefty fines and say after 3 or 4 failed showing to vote, you get some free tour time in the local jail house to serve an appropriate time away from society.
I’m equating Harper already to the Dark Lord of the Sith, so he might as well enact this draconion method to really see how people do like him or the other parties for that matter.
A comment regarding the percentage of voters who did not vote Conservative would have been much more respectful then using only the PM’s name as it shows what disrespect you have to the man.
I thought he led the party. And the government. — Garth
By Marc on 10.03.07 10:05 pm
How could one possibly have rspect for the man (Harper), have you not watched question period?
This hurts. I agree with so much of what you have to say. I’m good with Green but against MMP? Go back and look agiain. You have missed something.
By Brammer on 10.03.07 9:21 pm
Maybe but I am not supporting the taxpayer being fleeced by 39 more bobbleheads who will be told by the people who put them on the list how to vote. Run offs would be better, independent candidates even better.
I new you guys had a hidden agenda.
By Jim on 10.03.07 5:16 pm
Learn to spell Jim & then maybe you would have some credibility.
By KPN on 10.03.07 9:12 pm
If you are so smart KPN, why don’t you tell Greg W Oakville about spelling. No, he/she is not of your ilk. Its great to be smart like you eh? I see you want an election too, that isn’t very smart. You will probably get your wish. No worry here, we have a very smart PM and he knows what he is doing. Can you say, “boxed liberals’, Soon the top of that box will be closed and then it will be fini for Mr Dion.
I’m going to vote against MMP because we’ve no idea how our votes will count towards the forming of the government.
By James- Chatham on 10.03.07 9:20 pm
Dude, wasn’t it just explained extensively? Need me to send you a booklet on it? It’s plain and simple: Any system is better than FPTP. This is a once in a live time chance to make for better democracy. Last time there was a referendum on anything was back in the 20’s. Finally we have the chance to make ALL votes count!
By pjw on 10.03.07 6:50 pm
You certainly didn’t do the green party a favour. A party who sends emails to all of their members pleading to support MMP.
What you did instead, was wasting your vote this time around by voting green, and making sure that your future green votes are wasted as well by voting against MMP. Way to go buddy!
MMP is a huge scam. The kooks shouldnt having any representation.
The kooks shouldnt having any representation.
By Gary V on 10.04.07 8:02 am
That would people like you?
What you did instead, was wasting your vote this time around by voting green, and making sure that your future green votes are wasted as well by voting against MMP. Way to go buddy!
By Tobias Kaiser on 10.04.07 7:00 am
Like most Ontarians, I voted against the parties I did not want to see form the government, It was a choice between the NDP and Green (no independent running here). McGuinty lied and Tory blew it big time with faith based schools. It was the least offensive option, I have already explained my reasons for voting against proportional representation. If there has been an independent running, he/she would have got my votes as parties are destroying democracy in Canada, there is no representation by voting for a candidate affiliated with a party. So yes, I wasted my vote, but it is mine to waste.
By pjw on 10.04.07 8:45 am
No, you did not waste your vote. Those who can only find security in a group, are unworthy of freedom. TK obviously, falls into that category.
I will cast my vote for the Green Cadidate here as well. It is not a protest vote, it is an honest choice for change and a better future, based ona solid and meaningful platform. One my grandchildren will inherit, rather than the lethargic lies and failures of the Big Two parties.
The vote does count, and it adds to the momentum. Funny how everyone complains about how things are, but are too cowardly and insecure to do a damn thing about it. Like a dog returning to its vomit, over and over.
They are ideal sheeple for dictators like Harper and his ilk.
Garth,
In the year I have been following you closely, your problem with our current political system has been the exercise of power by parties without reference to the electorate, the baneful role of party insiders, and the reduction of MPs to potted plants. You object to the resulting culture of MPs having no say in policy, of being reduced to bobble-heads in Parliament, of being at the mercy of insiders, and parties not being accountable to voters. Have I missed anything?
So what does MMP do? It increases the control of parties over elected members. Candidates for direct mandates still are selected and approved by parties, but candidates for mandates on party lists totally depend on the grace of parties to appear on the list in the first place, then being assigned a high enough place on the party ticket to be elected.
MMP does not affect the role of insiders, except to make candidates even more subject to the good will of “apparatchiks†to assure party support and avoid sabotage. And MMP does not in any way affect the role and power of elected members, except to add members who are not accountable in any way to the electorate, only to their party.
So, Garth, how does this amount to “an end to politics as we know it�
It adds more members to parliaments, it adds more parties to parliaments, but it does not in any way improve the conduct of politics by politicians and parties. Is that not the problem we think we have?
Furthermore, policy becomes even less a matter of platforms presented to voters for approval. It becomes subject to compromise, to modification by the inevitable coalition partner, whose ideas received even less support than the party elected on a platform. And now we add internal horse-trading between coalition partners for government and political appointments.
Let me show what MMP has led to in the politics of a country that has had it for a long time. Since 1969, Germany has been governed by a 13-year SPD/FDP coalition (1969-82), a 16-year CDU/FDP coalition (1982-98), a 7-year SDP/Green coalition (1998-2005), and since 2005 by a grand coalition of the two big parties, CDU and SPD. Note that one junior partner, the FDP, managed to stay in government from 1969 to 1998, a total of 29 years.
Yes, it’s politics specific to one country, Germany, but it shows where the MMP system we are contemplating can lead. Do you really want to go there?
In theory, to get an absolute parliament majority with 4 candidates in each riding (actually there are more) then you just need just over 1/4 of the votes in half the ridings. So 12.5% percent of the cast votes can elect 50% of the MPs with 100% of the power. Since only 65% or so voters actually go to the polls, a party needs just approx 8% of the vote to get 100% of power. MMP would fix a big part of that; it only makes sense to support it.
As for FCP, Marxists and who knows who; they rarely get over 0.X% of the vote, why would we worry? and if they did get a seat, who cares? no one will want to include them in a coalition, if they are part of a “crazy” party. Remember, Reform, in the eyes of eastern canadians, were just very right-wing ppl trying to break the peace… FCP, which holds the same values, would do the same!
I’m equating Harper already to the Dark Lord of the Sith, so he might as well enact this draconion method to really see how people do like him or the other parties for that matter.
By Steve on 10.04.07 5:08 am
Not very smart comments but then again you have lots of company. So stupid and so sad.
[...] to see that Garth has come out yesterday with a long detailed column at his blog declaring himself in favour of MMP passing on October 10th: A proportional representation system empowers voters. It gives them more [...]
PR isn’t happening in Canada, this is for 2 reasons.
1) the major parties won’t let it happen, PR hurts the big 2 (lib and con). It doesn’t matter if a hundred referendums are held on it, such a change to our electoral system will have to be approved in both houses, and then likely the courts.
2) It’s a bad ides. PR has crippled the governments in most European states that have implemented it (i.e Italy). Furthermore, in the Canadian context, our system thrives on ‘third parties’ who have no hope of being elected. These third parties are in a position to spread grand ideas and popularize them, many of these ideas are initially unpopular and as such an electable party won’t touch them until they become popular. The NDP/CCF is a great example of this, the NDP has been hugely influential in Canadian politics specifically because they are unable to form National government (think the rise of the Canadian welfare state).
Sorry MMP doesn’t allow anyone to pick the MP, it allows the party to choose the member, hence, party hack is very appropriate. That’s what we don’t need, more partisan MPs who don’t belong to any riding, and therefore, don’t answer to any voters at all.
Sorry Sean.. that’s a falsehood. As I stated earlier, all 4 major parties in Ontario have committed to democratically picking their List candidates.
How would they do it? Probably at regional nomination meetings where the party members would vote for who they’d want on the list.
You might still claim thats the party picking them… but that’s no different from how they do it now in the local nomination meetings now.
Scott Tribe,
what haven’t parties promised?
And if the selection of candidates is “no different from how they do it now in the local nomination meetings”, why go for it? What is the benefit to democracy?
Garth (or others here) perhaps you can help me with this?
I believe whole-heartedly that FPtP does not work, and can not represent the real wishes of the majority unless it is a two-party system, or unless the winner receives more than 50% of the vote. So I don’t want FPtP.
However, I’m not sure MMP is much better.
1. The majority of seats are _still_ decided by FPtP, so in those ridings the winner will _still_ be chosen (most likely) by less than 50% of the popular vote.
2. Will this system not potentially lead to more minority governments? Is that something we want?
Please note, I am not a con, or lib, or any particular party. I’m just trying to understand this issue, because it seems to me that voting for something new just because it is different that what we have isn’t the best reason to do it.
I think (so far) that we should vote NO on MMP, but continue to lobby for a new electoral system (and a process to select one that allows for MORE public input and education).
It seems to me the only way to ensure a fair election is a run-off vote.
You might still claim thats the party picking them… but that’s no different from how they do it now in the local nomination meetings now.
By Scott Tribe on 10.04.07 11:41 am
The question I have is this: how many ridings actually still use that process to select candidates? I am not familiar with Ontario provincial politics so I cannot comment on that.
Federally, on the other hand, Liberal and Conservative riding associations have virtually no say in who gets to seek the nomination. That is left to the central party or the leader.
No matter what parties promise, the party hierarchy is essentially in charge of who gets to be on the lists.
By Michael on 10.04.07 2:22 pm
YES! I never want to be abused again by any majority government. They always stick it to the people.
We need a government that works together from freewill and having solid solutions, not some dictatorial bozos ‘vision’. It is called Consensus, where everyone sits down, with respect, and gets it done to the satisfaction of all.
Study the NWT Legislature and learn what mature governance is like.
No matter what parties promise, the party hierarchy is essentially in charge of who gets to be on the lists.
By C. B. Innes on 10.04.07 2:36 pm
And that is ALL the parties, not simply the FPTP that forms the government. Think about that C.B.. Please! We may get the best and the brightest as a result, instead of the dregs we have been getting. There is nothing to fear from ALL people being represented under MMP. It is direly needed.
Hi there, Michael,
1. Yes, you are right that the majority of the seats (70%) will still be determined by First Past the Post so yes, like now, the representatives of those seats could be represented by someone who has garnered less than 50% of the vote. However, the other 30% of the seats, the top-up seats, will ensure that the seat allocation in Queen’s Park reflects the province-wide popular vote. The Citizen’s Assembly’s rationale in designing this system was that the riding seats preserved the best of the current FPTP system (local representation) and added what we lack now, proportionality.
2. If parties do not garner more than 50% of the popular vote we would have either a minority government OR a coalition-majority government (coalitions typically happens in countries that use MMP such as Germany and New Zealand). You ask whether we want this. Well, that depends what we value in a democratic system. If you value single-party majority governments which may not have the support of over 50% of the population, (Bob Rae’s government only had 36%, but essentially 100% of the power since he had a majority) because they can more easily get legislation through parliament without relying on other parties or compromising (some people call this stability), then FPTP is for you. If you value your legislature more closely reflecting Ontario’s population even if that means more compromises and more time to gain consensus, then some form of proportional representation is for you.
3. You mention that you want electoral reform, but not MMP. I personally prefer the system designed by BC’s Citizen’s Assembly and if I had the opportunity to vote between BC-STV and MMP, I’d choose BC-STV. But, the choice on the ballot is between FPTP and MMP. If you want electoral reform, MMP is for you. FPTP has been in use since 1792, the big parties (Libs and Cons) like it because they can win majorities with only 40% of the votes–they don’t like MMP and it’s pretty unlikely that they are going to initiate another referendum in our lifetime. So, if you want electoral reform, but want a modified version, I say, vote for MMP and we can improve it further later. Once Ontarians go through the Herculean task of changing the system that’s been in place since 1792, it will be much easier to make future changes again. But, if the referendum fails, electoral reform might be off the agenda for a long, long, time.
Hey all,
If you take a look at how MMP works in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland, and Wales you will see that party hacks and the like aren’t a problem.
The number of list seats are dependent on the number of local seats a party wins. Last time the Liberals in Ontario would have won very few list seats and all their list only party hacks would have been kicked out. What kind of a lousy patronage system is that?
No any serious politician in MMP needs to run locally as well as on the list as the list seats are a total gamble for large parties. The two tier concerns are baseless.
Michael: We’ve had some very good and productive minoirty governments in Ontario and Canada. Bill Davis and David Peterson had great minoirty governments and Lester B. Pearson got a lot of work done and never had a majority.
Plus in PR countries what happens is that a few parties band together to form coalitions that truly have the support of more than 50% of the people of Canada.
More than one out of three Albertans don’t vote for the Conservatives. Yet we don’t see them. More voters vote FOR the conservatives in Toronto and Vancouver than vote for the NDP, and yet we don’t see them either. That has to change, and runoffs won’t fix that, but PR will.
Also check out these other great articles:
http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/09/case-against-first-past-post.php
http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/09/pr-fearmongers-debunked.php
http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/10/mmp-would-not-mean-appointed-party.php
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071003.wcokent03/CommentStory/specialComment/
Also check out my website to see just how many votes don’t have any effect on parliament at all
http://www.wastedvotes.ca
Michael,
I have done some research on how the system works in New Zealand which is much like the Ontario version of MMP. Since the system was adopted there has never been a majority government. There also tends to be tension between those who have to run for election in a riding and those who get selected from party lists. Initially the voter turnout increased but it then fell back to the pre-MMP turnout.
If I read one source correctly in the first election about 50 per cent of the population were not represented. I am not sure why that would happen but it could be that so many small parties tried to gain representation in that election and did not meet the threshold or there were so many independents.
The positives is that the desparity between the popular vote and the number of members elected drops. In New Zealand it dropped to about 11 per cent from something around 20 per cent. Minority groups also gain better representation but, for example, representation for women improved it only improved from about 1/4 to 1/3.
The general consensus seems to be that New Zealand is learning to live with it, which is not a ringing endorsement.
I prefer some kind of alternate voting system. Once the MMP system is in place it will be just as difficult, or even more difficult, to change it than the FPTP and that is why I believe people should be careful.
BTW, When was the last time you can recall a party saying in their campaign ‘We want a functional government, where respect, and equality are the norm.
We want to work together with the other members to do what is best for all Canadians!’
Anyone ever heard that before?
I voted yesterday at an advanced polling station and vote for the new proportional system.
In my riding at the last federal election, less than 100 votes separated the two parties, but only one ended up with having any voice in which legislation is passed. With the new system, there would be two voices heard and my vote would not have been wasted…my time to vote would have been worthwhile and I wouldn’t have been as disappointed with not having any voice after the votes were counted.
Proportional is fairer. I expect there will be changes in how the unelected people are chosen.
However, I’m not hopeful there will be a 60% supermajority for it to pass. Pity because young people are NOT voting.
Sean P. Hogan
How naive you are about how candidates are chosen to represent their riding. Party leaders presently pick who gets to be a candidate. In most of Canada, you as a voter get to vote for who it was the party leader picked.
Micheal:
I’m not from Ontario, and therefore do not have to vote on MMPR, but I am a student of political Science so I’ll offer to help answer some of your questions.
1)As I understand the system in Ontario is not actual a true MMPR, but is instead a ‘Full Past the Post, with Top Off” system. The difference is that in a true MMPR 1/2 the seats are elected by PR and 1/2 are elected by first past the post. In a top off system most seats are elected via first past the post (usually 2/3) and the remaining are elected via PR.
2)The best answer is maybe. In some states that use variations of PR, or top off systems the party system has developed to create broad coalition’s of similar parties(Germany for example). While these governments are still technically minorities, they are very stable and the strongest party governs in a way we would see a majority in Canada governing. In other states (Italy and other) the parties do not form into strong coalitions, the governments are fragile, and parliament is deadlocked on even the most minor of issues.
I hope I was able to help.
AAMIRHUSSAIN,
if you don’t think party hacks are a problem in Germany, you have never been there and don’t know what you are talking about.
I know of no other western country where the leader of a ruling coalition party was jailed jail for a year over election finances, and a past Prime Minister and leader of the larget party avoided prosecution over DM 2 million of improper election financing by copping a deal and paying a DM 300,000 fine.
How naive you are about how candidates are chosen to represent their riding. Party leaders presently pick who gets to be a candidate. In most of Canada, you as a voter get to vote for who it was the party leader picked.
By Canuck on 10.04.07 3:20 pm
Canuck, Garth denies being chosen by any leader. Are you calling him a liar?
Sorry Sean.. that’s a falsehood. As I stated earlier, all 4 major parties in Ontario have committed to democratically picking their List candidates.
How would they do it? Probably at regional nomination meetings where the party members would vote for who they’d want on the list.
You might still claim thats the party picking them… but that’s no different from how they do it now in the local nomination meetings now.
By Scott Tribe on 10.04.07 11:41 am
You’ve just described party hacks bud.
Actually, it is different, anyone can attend a nomination meeting but everyone cannot be on a committee.
Vote no to MMP.
Lots of opinions on what should be done, with a lot of anger getting the best of you; I’ll add my own opinion. The Opposition will be allowing Harper to define the terms yet again if they bring down the Government based on the Throne Speech and its caveat that if you support the speech, then by extension this implies you must support all consequent legislation. Personally I think the Opposition should cool down and behave strategically rather than emotionally and in a reactionary manner. the Throne Speech should be allowed to pass – sit on your hands if you must – then treat each piece of legislation as it’s brought forward according to its merits. If you feel it needs compromise, bring that compromise forward in a clear manner with full explanation as to your reasons; be firm but not dogmatic. Demonstrate a willingness to try to make Parliament work; if your compromise is reasonable, the public will recognize it. If the change is not accepted and Parliament is brought down because every bill has obdurately been designated as Vote of Confidence, then the public will be smart enough to recognize who is truly at fault.
As a case in point, there is something disingenuous about a Prime Minister who says on one hand that the focus of our Afghan mission after 2009 will have to be established through debate in Parliament, but on the other has said that it is going to be one of the main planks in the Throne Speech and hence will become a Vote of Confidence, so that if the focus is not exactly as defined by the Conservatives, then government will fall. What then is the purpose of the previously promised debate if all that is expected is a rubber stamp as outcome?
No, you did not waste your vote. Those who can only find security in a group, are unworthy of freedom. TK obviously, falls into that category. – Bill Muskoka
I am very much of a green supporter. I went as far as going out to canvas for Green when Elizabeth May was running here in London. That particular time (due to the circumstances) they had a pretty good chance… low and behold got 22% being the second strongest party in the riding.
Generally speaking, however, voting Green is a wasted vote (as unfortunate as it is), and exactly what the conservatives want voters (who usually tend liberal and for sure aren’t voting conservative) to do… vote splitting… resulting in a conservatives often being the strongest party with hardly 30% while 70 % of the voters where unable to “team up”.
Thats why buddy DID waste his vote and thats why we need MMP to put a stop to that. Many more so called “strategic” voters who don’t necessarily like the liberals but vote for them anyways to prevent cons from getting power, would finally be able to vote who they truly support.
That Momentum-talk, Bill, may possibly apply where-ever E. May is running… anywhere else thats baloney.
Again, I support Green. But I’m a realist who understands that they do not stand a chance unless the system finally turns democratic. period.
Dube,
did you mention “disingenuous” and “Harper” in the same sentence? How could you!
I have a one-track mind where this governmentr is concerned: ÉCRASEZ L’INFÂMIE!
AAMIRHUSSAIN,
if you don’t think party hacks are a problem in Germany, you have never been there and don’t know what you are talking about.
I know of no other western country where the leader of a ruling coalition party was jailed jail for a year over election finances, and a past Prime Minister and leader of the larget party avoided prosecution over DM 2 million of improper election financing by copping a deal and paying a DM 300,000 fine.
By Herb on 10.04.07 3:48 pm
Who was jailed? And BTW, we do not have Prime Ministers but Chancellors and Federal Presidents.
Look at Germany’s economy, infrastructure, environmental progress… all light years ahead of Canada. Why? because we (the German people) dont have to put up with partisan governments and bullheaded parliament behaviour. Coalitions make for plenty more consensus and ideas, preventing reform jamb like we see it here…. all partially due to a well working electoral system.
Let me show what MMP has led to in the politics of a country that has had it for a long time. Since 1969, Germany has been governed by a 13-year SPD/FDP coalition (1969-82), a 16-year CDU/FDP coalition (1982-98), a 7-year SDP/Green coalition (1998-2005), and since 2005 by a grand coalition of the two big parties, CDU and SPD. Note that one junior partner, the FDP, managed to stay in government from 1969 to 1998, a total of 29 years.
Yes, it’s politics specific to one country, Germany, but it shows where the MMP system we are contemplating can lead. Do you really want to go there?
By Herb on 10.04.07 9:49 am
Yes, I do.
Unlike here, Germany’s results are a direct translation of the peoples will… and that is what really matters. MMP may not be the most perfect of them all but everything beats what we’ve got here now… a system that may have been sufficient to manage a two party country over 200 years ago is now WAY out of date. This is a once in a live time chance to get it changed over.. make use of it!
BTW: This is the second time around that there is a CDU/SPD coalition in the history of “Bundesrepublik Deutschland”.
Dear Garth, sometimes I think to myself there is nobody left in politics who actually cares about anyone but themselves. You make me realize I am not right on that. Despite the fact that you and I will likely never agree on anything policy wise I appreciate you. You are are true politician and a true citizen. Thank you for your fortitude and the gonads you have to stand up for what is right.
Vote MMP
Sincerely,
Bryn Ossington
Tobi,
who was jailed? Otto Graf Lambsdorff, who after serving his sentence, returned to the executive of his FDP party, although he was precluded by law from returning to government as a minister due to this criminal record. (Can you think of any reason why his German Wikipedia entry would only mention a fine?) Glad you did not challenge my reference to Kohl – I would have come back with the Kirch affair.
I know that the German government is headed by a “Bundeskanzler”, but how many of our fellow bloggers know what a Chancellor is, except that universities have one? Everyone knows what a PM is, so forgive me for using the familiar term for the equivalent function.
As to your “we (the German people) dont have to put up with partisan governments and bullheaded parliament behaviour”, let’s not make this personal, but if I knew how old you were when you came to Canada seven years ago, I could deduce whether I should consider you to be innocent, out of it, or deliberately selling a bill of goods.
I do know that there was a previous “große Koalition”, but saw no point in listing every government since the founding of the BRD to make my point.
By the way, I went to an event of the Austrian Society in Ottawa last night (my wife is Austrian and a member). After the event, there was a clutch of Austrian-Canadians gathered on the sidewalk practically pounding their heads into the pavement in agony over Canadians even considering adopting an MMP system. And these guys know how it works and what it does.
Nix für ungut.
Lots of opinions on what should be done, with a lot of anger getting the best of you; I’ll add my own opinion.
Dube, that’s a sad but true statement. Why should people be angry? Just voice your opinion, others will agree or disagree. Live with it. Good commentary.
Oh here’s another reason not to vote for MMP. We will constantly have minority governments and nothing will get done, if not very slowly.
Vote No for MMP.
Glad to see someone from one of the big 2 in favour of MMP. 3% of the vote will not be easy to come by for minor parties (none have made it there recently in Ontario) and if 150k people feel a certain party to reflect their views then they certainly deserve representation.
Right now my vote is useless as I live in Wellington-Halton Hills where the Tories rule. Our last MPP (who now is running in Halton) was useless but had a job for life. Our current one has been in office since 1990 without getting into cabinet, basically a lifetime backbencher who is ignored. The at large reps would at least give me a shot at getting heard by an MPP who might actually be able to do something.
Elections make me miss my old hometown (Cambridge) which used to alternate between PC and NDP (odd riding) so we’d at least get heard. If you are not in a swing riding you are irrelevent today. MMP is the best hope for those of us in a single party riding.
“Yes, you are right that the majority of the seats (70%) will still be determined by First Past the Post so yes, like now, the representatives of those seats could be represented by someone who has garnered less than 50% of the vote.”
1.So then how does this fix a system that elects representatives who don’t actually represent the majority? Each of those 70 ridings will still (in theory, and usually in practice) be won by someone that MOST of the people in that riding don’t want!
2.As for minority governments and coalition governments, given what has become an (embarrassingly) adversarial governing system (parliament) won’t we just end up having frequent (and costly) elections? (At least until the parties learn to work together. How long will that take?!)
“Once Ontarians go through the Herculean task of changing the system that’s been in place since 1792, it will be much easier to make future changes again.”
I think it is more likely that if it passes the Government will say “phew, that’s over. We still have our FPtP, and since they picked this system, they must want it, so we don’t have to revisit electoral reform for another 200 years.”
Wouldn’t it be better to vote against it, but continue to NOISILY lobby for electoral reform? I was aware of the citizens’ assembly that was set up, but how many others (who aren’t political wonks like us) were aware of it? How many people actually got to have input on this before it was decided?
Why isn’t a run-off style better? Parties who don’t get more than x% drop off the ballot, and voters who tried to elect them get to try again with their next choice. This way you can actually get a government that demonstartes the will of the masses. And yes, I prefer a majority government that represents the will of the majority over minority governments that might have to compromise in ways the majority do not want.
Have a look at John Robson’s “A Zombie Election” in to-day’s Ottawa Citizen for semi-light reading on a serious matter:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=dd38fef8-4b60-4b21-be84-ea857a04b5d6
I was aware of the citizens’ assembly that was set up, but how many others (who aren’t political wonks like us) were aware of it? How many people actually got to have input on this before it was decided?
By Michael on 10.05.07 9:54 am
It was in all the newspapers here in the Muskoka and North, even Elections Ontario sent out flyers. Those who cared paid attention. There are still articles and ads being run regarding MMP.
By Tobias Kaiser on 10.04.07 10:34 pm
Here the Greens are leading. People are pissed at McSquinty, and refuse Tory’s FBS funding. The NDP is almost non-existent, except in their own minds, and people are pissed at them as well for wanting to exclude us from FedNor.
They are also within striking distance in Bruce Grey Owen Sound.
The poll by Oraclepoll shows:
Bill Murdoch, Progressive Conservative – 37%
Shane Jolley, Green Party of Ontario – 28%
Liberal – 21%
NDP- 13%
The Fat Lady hasn’t sung yet mon ami!
We all know that if Sean is against it, then we should support it. Like a backwards pointing weather vane he is.
We all know that if Sean is against it, then we should support it. Like a backwards pointing weather vane he is.
By Bill-Muskoka on 10.05.07 10:49 am
You’re right Bill, I’m against suicide too.
First Nations persons are talking about going after a seat under MMP. Greens will get a few. Seniors should form their own party to protect their interests. In a few years they will be able to get a majority. Future governing will resemble the comments to Garth’s blog – all over the map. The 30 percent who form the current majority and who have to appeal to all voters in order to get there in the future will be shackled by one issue MPPs.
Bill:
Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not, but in many cases this is exactly what has happened.
Hi again, Michael,
“1.So then how does this fix a system that elects representatives who don’t actually represent the majority? Each of those 70 ridings will still (in theory, and usually in practice) be won by someone that MOST of the people in that riding don’t want!”
Hi Michael, overall, with MMP the number of seats in the legislature will reflect the number of votes the PARTY received. I agree with you that there should be a mechanism to ensure the local riding representatives receive over 50% support. This could be achieved by having a preferential ballot where voters indicate their preferences by numbering the candidates 1, 2, 3 and so on. It could also be achieved by having multiple-member ridings which have been proposed in BC. The logic for the MMP system proposed for Ontario is that OVERALL the number of seats will reflect the popular vote.
“2. As for minority governments and coalition governments, given what has become an (embarrassingly) adversarial governing system (parliament) won’t we just end up having frequent (and costly) elections? (At least until the parties learn to work together. How long will that take?!)”
Germany has had MMP since 1949 and they have had no more elections than Canada has. Usually parties join together to form majority-coalition governments. Minority governments have given Canada medicare, the flag and the pension plan. Forcing parties to compromise can be a good thing.
“I think it is more likely that if it passes the Government will say “phew, that’s over. We still have our FPtP, and since they picked this system, they must want it, so we don’t have to revisit electoral reform for another 200 years.â€
Hmmmm…maybe, but please bear in mind that if Ontario votes for MMP it is much more likely that BC’s referendum on STV will pass in 2009 (it got 58% in 2005, just 2% shy of the super majority the government set). Quebec is also talking about electoral reform. If the influential province in Ontario sets the wheels for electoral reform, there will be lots more electoral reform on the way. What we’re fighting against now is inertia. You might be right that it will take another 200 years to change the system, but if Ontario votes to keep FPTP it’s just as likely that it will take another 200 years for another referendum. MMP is MUCH better than the current system so if you prefer it to the current system, please vote for it. And the fact that the two major parties dislike it, is more reason to support it.
You can find more detailed answers to your questions on the citizen’s assembly and MMP, links, videos etc. at voteformmp.ca
Since the system was adopted there has never been a majority government. (New Zealand, MMP ..)
We have not had a majority gov’t in Ontario since 1937. They have all been FALSE majorities.
So are we for democracy, or not?
MMP would mean coalition governments I guess, if the parties don’t actually get a majority government they deserve. They get majority governments now, but they don’t even get 50% of the vote. It’s a complete joke.
BC will have a second referendum in November 2008. This was done because although BC had a double-super-majority requirement to get their version of Proportional Representation (Single Transferable Vote: STV) like we do now (60%of the vote and 60%of the ridings) they got 97% of the ridings and 57% of the vote.
Secondly if the Americans had any form of PR there wouldn’t be an unwinnable war in Iraq and plans for another in Iran. Furthermore, none of us would have to put up with any further Bush-isms and the American Idiocracy!
Very good contents…
[url=http://airline379tickets.com]airline tickets[/url] http://airline379tickets.com
The Regard! The Excellent forum! Thank you!
[url=http://viagra-gl-pills.com]viagra[/url] http://viagra-gl-pills.com
I am glad to find this forum !
[url=http://airline333tickets.com]airline tickets[/url] http://airline333tickets.com
Easy to find helpful information.
[url=http://viagra-77-pills.com]viagra[/url] http://viagra-77-pills.com
I just wanted to pass on a note to let you know what a great job you have done with this forum.Thanks!