The people of Ontario will vote in a referendum on October 10th. The question on the ballot is whether to adopt a new voting mechanism called "Mixed Member Proportional." The new system is described on the government website [Ontario is facing a big decision].Here's a brief summary of the new system.
If this system is accepted, Ontarians will have two votes in future elections: one for a ‘Local Member’ and one for a political party.I favor the new system because my vote will no longer be wasted if I don't like the candidate who is going to win in my riding. Furthermore, I like the idea that the new system will be more representative of the voters wishes. In many cases this will lead to minority governments and coalitions but that's what we want.
The provincial legislature would have 129 seats: Local Members’ would fill 90 seats while ‘List Members’ would fill 39 seats.
The political party with the largest number of seats in the legislature, including ‘Local Members’ and ‘List Members’, is asked to form a government.
In each electoral district, one vote would be used to elect a 'Local Member' using a First-Past-the-Post system. The candidate with the most votes in an electoral district wins.The other vote would be for a political party. Votes for parties will be used to determine the number of 'List Members' each party gets. This is the proportional representation part.
If a political party is entitled to more seats than it won locally, 'List Members' are elected to make up the difference. 'List Members' can only be elected from a political party that received more than 3% of these votes.
In the end, a political party's overall share of seats will roughly equal its share of the total votes for parties in the province.
Anyone who meets the rules for eligibility can become a candidate for election as a ‘Local Member’. Some candidates are called “independents” while others represent a political party.
‘List Members’ are candidates from any registered political party. Before an election each political party prepares an ordered list of candidates they would like considered as ‘List Members’.
These lists, and the way they are created, would be made public well in advance of any election in a Mixed Member Proportional system.
I also like the idea that members can be elected from the lists. While the fear is that this will favor party hacks, the fear is outweighed by the major benefit in my opinion. People who would be excellent additions to the legislature could be elected even if they are not good campaigners. Leaders and cabinet members/critics, if elected from the list, would not have to divide their time between government business and constituency business.
Perhaps some of you who have experienced this system first hand could comment on the benefits and drawbacks? In order to pass the referendum has to be accepted by 60 per cent of all votes cast across Ontario and 50 per cent or more of the ballots cast in at least 64 of 107 ridings. There's a poll running at Mixed Member Proportional. As of today the new system has 60% of the votes.
New Zealand introduced the MMP system a few years back, to replace the old "First Past the Post" system, which is what it sounds like you've currently got in Ontario. While in theory I much prefer the proportional voting system, because the older system ended up massively favouring the major parties, I'm not so sure how it works in practice.
ReplyDeletePluses of MMP:
(1) The final proportion of parties is probably more representative of the diversity of opinions in the country as a whole. It also reduces the potential problem when there's, say, two major left-wing parties and one major right-wing, and the right-wing party ends up winning most of the electorates because the left wing vote gets split.
(2)There's a lot to be said for the separate electorate and list seats (as opposed to, say, just having a completely proportional voting system where you only vote for a party and there's not separate electorates). It's possible to have an excellent candidate whom you believe would do the best job of promoting your electorate, but who belongs to a party you don't favour overall. The previous system forced you to choose whether to support the favoured local candidate and therefore end up tacitly supporting the evil party, or avoid supporting the undesirable party and vote for the incompetent troll that your favoured party has chosen for the electorate. MMP gives more ability to have it both ways. (Example: A few years ago, the collapsing major right-wing party in New Zealand ended up doing abysmally in the party votes, but their electorate representatives mostly retained their seats).
Negatives of MMP:
(1): Personality politics and disorganisation. Because it is very unlikely for one party to have a clear majority, most things have to work through coalitions. Coalition parties then often engage in foul tactics such as demanding that other parties in the coalition vote for their favoured bill if the other parties want the first party to vote for anything of theirs, and other skullduggery. This can lead to minor parties holding a disproportionate amount of influence. It also means things tend to take longer to be done because the parties have to work through their deals.
(2) I suspect that MMP favours minor parties slightly at the election, too. In many ways it's easier to be a minor party - you can campaign on one or two major points, while the major parties are forced to canvas on everything. This can lead to minor parties getting a large chunk of votes through their stance on the current 'hot topic', despite not really having any good policy in less populist areas.
Apologies for the lengthy comment - as I said, MMP is a fine idea in theory, but if used unwisely, it can make things difficult. Still, I'm not sure it doesn't fall under the old saying about being the worst possible system, but better than all the alternatives.
As someone who regularly has to choose between wasting my vote or voting strategically, I intend to vote Yes on the MMP referendum.
ReplyDeleteAlso: I listened to the leaders' debate tonight. Amazing to hear John Tory spout off about "bringing all students together" when what he really means is "let them stay in their religious ghettos, only now we'll all help pay for it". Does he actually believe his own BS?
...my vote will no longer be wasted if I don't like the candidate who is going to win in my riding.
ReplyDeleteThis is often stated ... but it's wrong. Your vote for a losing constituency candidate under MMP will be "wasted" in exactly the same way as it is today.
Your other vote under MMP (for the party of your choice) will not be wasted, of course.
Today, a voter has one vote, which may or may not be "wasted" in the sense you describe. Under MMP, a voter will have 2 votes, 1 of which may be wasted in the same manner as today.
In other words, under MMP some will still have one more "non-wasted" vote than others, just as today.
Leaders and cabinet members/critics, if elected from the list, would not have to divide their time between government business and constituency business.
ReplyDeleteActually, this is probably not going to turn out to be true. Any party politician I've heard mention this point says that the list MP's will share in constituency duties, with a common idea being as a contact point for people who are not of the party of the constituency MPP.
The FAQ at the Referendum Ontario site (http://yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/faq.aspx) address the question as follows:
How will the additional 39 'List Members' represent me if they are not from a specific electoral district?
39 'List Members' would be elected from the lists developed by political parties. The other 90 MPPs would be locally elected.
As proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly, you’ll have an option of contacting the local member for your district or any of the list members for the province. You can choose to contact a list member from a particular party, or one who is knowledgeable about your region or about a specific issue that interests you. http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/One%20Ballot,%20Two%20Votes.pdf
I've also seen it suggested that any list MPP (cabinet member or not) who bails out of constituency duties entirely will be accused of being elitist and non-accountable so quickly it'll make your head spin.
And I find it tough to believe that an expected premier would run as a list candidate.
Your vote for a losing constituency candidate under MMP will be "wasted" in exactly the same way as it is today.
ReplyDeleteMaybe not: the MMP system will make me less reluctant to vote strategically in the constituency race, given that I can still support my preferred party platform through my list vote.
The problem with stratifying systems is that it gives stratified outcomes. The advantage with stratifying systems is that it gives stratified outcomes.
ReplyDeleteIn politics, as apart from most of economics, there are advantages in a localizing stratification. It has been tried here too [Sweden], but it didn't make as much impact and revitalization as was intended. Reading this suggestion I can but suspect that was because while a few local actors could be marked up there were no reserved local seats.
I'm looking forward to see how it works out.
Christopher Taylor says,
ReplyDeleteApologies for the lengthy comment - as I said, MMP is a fine idea in theory, but if used unwisely, it can make things difficult. Still, I'm not sure it doesn't fall under the old saying about being the worst possible system, but better than all the alternatives.
Don't apologize. Since we're contemplating a switch to the New Zealand system, it's important to hear from you.
We always listen to and respect our friends in New Zealand. It's the ones from Australia we don't like. :-)
Scott says it is probably not going to turn out to be true that Leaders and cabinet members/critics, if elected from the list, would not have to divide their time between government business and constituency business.
ReplyDeleteThis has no universal answer. In the 2002 New Zealand election, 84% of MPs elected on the List had also run locally, open constituency offices, work as shadow MPs competing with the directly-elected local MP, and work as "Buddy MPs" for the other nearby ridings that his or her party did not win.
But the other 16% filled a range of gaps.
In the current Labour government caucus you find a leading international scientist, and New Zealand's first Muslim MP, Dr. Ashraf Choudhary, elected as a list-only candidate -- although even he has adopted a riding as its "Buddy MP" though he did not run there.
Margaret Wilson was Dean of Law at the University of Waikato when she was recruited as a star candidate, ran on the list only, and became Attorney-General; she is now their first woman Speaker.