Toronto Star Trashes MMP, Again

 
What in the world are they afraid of? Last week the editors of the Toronto Star came out against the mixed member proportional (MMP) system that voters will decide on in tomorrow's referendum [Electoral reform a backward step].

The editors were widely criticized for misinformation and fearmongering in that Sept. 30th editorial (e.g. The Toronto Star Endorses First-Pass-the-Post and links therein). They attacked the MMP system for giving more power to party bosses when the experience in other countries indicates that this is not a valid concern in the MMP system. Furthermore, all party leaders in Ontario are committed to a fair an open system for selecting list members. It turns out that the list will almost certainly contain only candidates who have been nominated in individual ridings.^1. Indeed, the parties have little choice but to commit to a fair and democratic process if they hope to attract voters. Read the statements of the party leaders on the Vote for MMP website [Party Leaders Quote].

Today, the editorial in the Toronto Star attacks MMP once again [Electoral reform fraught with risk]. The editors seemed to have heard part of the criticism because in this latest attack they avoid any mention of party lists. However, they return to another of the fears they raised earlier; namely, the fear of unstable government.

While some see this as a "fairer" system that produces a Legislature more closely aligned with the popular vote, it has one major drawback.

Countries that have gone this route, including Israel, Italy, Germany, and Belgium, have become notorious for chaotic, horse-trading minority governments and legislative gridlock.

Now let's think about this logically for a minute. The editors would have us believe that the Ontario Citizen's Assembly of 103 Ontario voters simply overlooked this major "problem" when they did all their research. The editors would have us believe that all 80 countries that use a proportional system have chaotic governments. Does that make sense? Of course not.

Germany, Belguim, Italy and Israel are hardly examples of failed governments in spite of what the fearmongers would have you believe. The MMP campaign refuted most of the points raised by the first Toronto Star editorial including the claim that Germany, Italy, Israel, and Belgium are in chaos because of MMP. (Belgium and Israel don't even use the MMP system.)

So why do the Toronto Star editors repeat the same false claims that were refuted 10 days ago? Why do they say the following even though they've been told that it misrepresents the experience in other countries?

Granted, some minority or coalition governments do manage to deliver solid, progressive government. But they are rarities. More commonly, governments in proportional systems are divisive, unstable, short-lived and paralyzed by conflict. Too often, the leading party is forced to align with small, sometimes radical, special-interest parties. That can badly skew the policy-making process.

Is that the kind of government that Ontario voters really want? Will it be good for Ontario? We don't think so.

Wouldn't you expect the editors to do their homework and look at the stability of comparable governments with proportional systems? Countries such as Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Spain, South Africa, and Austria. Is is fair to say that all these countries have governments that are "divisive, unstable, short-lived and paralyzed by conflict"? Of course not. It's a stupid thing to say. (Incidentally, all those countries use a full proportional system that's even more likely to produce "chaos" than the MMP system according to the reasoning of the fearmongers.)

In light of their previous attempts at misinformation wouldn't you expect the editors to be embarrassed? After all the Toronto Star like all newspapers prides itself on accuracy. Right?

Wrong! It's almost as though the editors have been completely oblivious to the serious attempts by the Ontario Citizen's Alliance to educate them and correct their misinformation. They repeat the same flawed argument they made ten days ago.

When people spread misinformation and fear for the first time you can put it down to ignorance. When they do it a second time there's something more serious going on. Why do the Toronto Star editors fear MMP so much that they have to publish an editorial the day before the vote? This is really strange given that all the polls show that MMP will be soundly defeated tomorrow.

It's a difficult question. As far as I can tell, the main problem is the fear of minority viewpoints—or "fringe" parties as the editors prefer. The editors are comfortable with the present first-past-the-post (FPTP) system because they know that minorities in our society have no chance of being represented in the legislature under that system.

Take the Green Party for example. Under FPTP their chances of electing a member to parliament are close to zero. Under MMP they will get four seats (out 0f 129) if 3% of the population votes for them. (The Green Party is the only "small, sometimes radical, special-interest" party that has a decent chance of electing members.)

This could lead to chaos if you believe the editors because parties with less than a majority of seats would have to negotiate with the other parties in order to get legislation passed—just like the current federal government under Harper and the previous one under Martin. Is that the "chaos" that the Toronto Star fears?

I don't think the editors and their allies are afraid of minority governments so much as they're afraid of giving minority citizens a voice in parliament. In other words, what they really want is a system that blocks out the views of minority groups. That's exactly the flaw that MMP is designed to overcome. It would be more honest if the opponents of MMP would simply come right out and what they're really afraid of instead of making up stories about unstable governments in countries with proportional voting.

Perhaps we could reach a compromise? We could have a mixed member proportional system but then ban all those parties we don't like? The editors and other concerned citizens could draw up a list of minority groups who would be specifically excluded from parliament, like the environmentalist extremists. The sitting members of Parliament would then pass a law preventing these undesirable parties from running candidates in the next election. That way we could have the best of both worlds, a proportional system that excludes all those undesirable minorities who might cause chaos if we let them have a voice in Parliament. That's how democracy is supposed to work, isn't it?

Do you think the fearmongers would go for this? I doubt it, it makes their motive a little too obvious. It's so much better to hide behind the unfair FPTP system on the grounds that it produces "stable" government. Those of you who laughed at this video should watch it again now that the anti-MMP side has triumphed. It pretty much sums up the logic of their arguments.

---

1. The reason why the list will contain candidates who have been nominated in ridings—and who will run in those ridings—is because if a party wins an election they will not have any members chosen from the list. Thus, a party who hopes to win would be foolish to put candidates on the list who they want to be in parliament but who don't seek election in a constituency. Since no party will want to be seen to anticipate losing it will probably be standard practice to put people on the list who are running for election in a riding. Thus, the MMP system will end up being similar to FPTP and fears about party bosses choosing favorites are unfounded.