This elections boring. I mean from my area, I got an Indian woman who stands up every single year from the Conservative party and loses. We have Bob Delany who I get at the Ligar Go station opening day, and didn't impress me, and I got tons of blank faced candidates running.
Man, I should just vote for one of the fringe parties with the coolest names, like the Canadian Communist Party or something. I am seriously bored with this elections.
I'm not living in Ontario anymore so I won't be voting in this election, but what do you guys think? Normally I'm inclined to vote conservative... but I kinda like McGuinty. I haven't familiarized myself with whats been going on lately though.
Also, the conservative guy seems like an idiot with his faith-based funding ideas. Not winning my vote with talk like that.
Al_wat on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
Yea...I think John Tory may be shooting himself in the foot with that entire faith-based funding idea thing (though his stance on allowing Intelligent Design to be taught in schools is O_o to me). Personally I like the idea of either funding them all, or funding none of them, but I don't think he's managed to avoid the perception that he wants segregation based upon religion (as I keep hearing McGuinty categorize it whenever he talks about it). While not true, it doesn't help that more than 70% oppose the idea.
Personally, its either Liberal or NDP for me. Not terribly interested in Conservaties as I've never been aligned with much of their priorities and I'm not voting for the Greens until they change their position on Nuclear energy. I figure McGuinty will stay in the job, but possibly just a minority. His credibility's taken a bit of a hit with his actions (even if justified or needed) right after getting elected last time.
I'd like for one fucking year to go by where no party has to sling shit about another party. I'm goddamn sick of hearing of what the other guy did or didn't do, I want to know what the hell they are going to do if they get into power. I wish more than anything that so sort of law or guide lines were put into place. It makes me sad that high school and college/university elections are more mature than the one's for our government.
At current point the only one I know anything about it Mr McGuinty because he's the only one who has ever bothered to actually say anything about what he wants to do.
So I just came back from hearing the debate. I'm still opposed to the idea of MMP.
The pro-guy didn't make a good argument. He started off complaining that the anti-side makes a lot of misrepresentation of the issues, then throughout his argumentation he made misrepresentations of the facts, and even of the arguments the anti-guy had made 5 minutes earlier! I mean, geez. A lot of his argumentation also seemed dedicated to opposing FPTP rather than supporting MMP, a typical false dichotomy. The few arguments he had actually for MMP were weak - it works well in some countries (never mind political/social/cultural/historical differences) and it will increase the proportion of women in politics (by 5%).
The anti-guy was more convincing. As he pointed out, while FPTP does have flaws, that's not reason enough to change it. We should take a good hard look at what we're changing it for first, and only change if the new system is better than the old one. And in this case, it's not. The flaws he pointed out in MMP were the ones already discussed in this thread, that it will lead to an increase in whipped votes by adding MPPs that are not accountable to the people but only to their parties, that there is no framework on how to put MPPs on the list, and that 3% is a ridiculously low threshold to have your list MPPs elected, which will lead to a lot of minority governments with as much as a dozen small/single-issue/regional parties holding 1-3 seats and having a disproportionate amount of power. The pro-guy never addressed any of these issues in his counter-comments.
So I just came back from hearing the debate. I'm still opposed to the idea of MMP.
The pro-guy didn't make a good argument. He started off complaining that the anti-side makes a lot of misrepresentation of the issues, then throughout his argumentation he made misrepresentations of the facts, and even of the arguments the anti-guy had made 5 minutes earlier! I mean, geez. A lot of his argumentation also seemed dedicated to opposing FPTP rather than supporting MMP, a typical false dichotomy. The few arguments he had actually for MMP were weak - it works well in some countries (never mind political/social/cultural/historical differences) and it will increase the proportion of women in politics (by 5%).
The anti-guy was more convincing. As he pointed out, while FPTP does have flaws, that's not reason enough to change it. We should take a good hard look at what we're changing it for first, and only change if the new system is better than the old one. And in this case, it's not. The flaws he pointed out in MMP were the ones already discussed in this thread, that it will lead to an increase in whipped votes by adding MPPs that are not accountable to the people but only to their parties, that there is no framework on how to put MPPs on the list, and that 3% is a ridiculously low threshold to have your list MPPs elected, which will lead to a lot of minority governments with as much as a dozen small/single-issue/regional parties holding 1-3 seats and having a disproportionate amount of power. The pro-guy never addressed any of these issues in his counter-comments.
You think that having a party with 40% support get over 50% of the seats and 100% of the power is proportionate?
You think that having a party with 40% support get over 50% of the seats and 100% of the power is proportionate?
I think that having a party with 3% support and 1-3 seats being courted for their vote by the big parties in a minority government by funnelling billions of dollars into the single-issue they care about to be a much worse problem.
MMP (Mixed Member Proportional) isn't a bad system, back home in NZ we've used it since 1996, after adopting from Germany. Basically it works on a proportional representation basis as opposed to a simple majority basis. In slightly more detail it shifts the electoral importance from the electorate level to the party level - as the determining factor for who gets which proportion of seats in parliament is based upon how well their party did in the party vote.
So in NZ each voter gets two votes, one for the electorate (like we used to do), and one for the party. We have 120 seats (give or take, it can vary) in parliament, and if Party X gets 50% of the party vote they are entitled to 50% of the seats. So if they say won only 25 electorate seats that means they get to appoint 25 off their published list of ranked candidates.
What it has meant is that every government since MMP has been adopted has ruled in a coalition, whether formal or informal (formal meaning a proper, agreed programme of policy and division of Cabinet roles). In NZ's case I think this has been worthwhile, as we don't have the same type of constitutional protections that say Canada has relating to human rights or w/e, Parliament being supreme.
But the down side is that it can be a little confusing getting used to the two votes, the party list and all that jazz. Plus since NZ wasn't used to coalition government a lot of people have a problem with the concept. They seem to think that any time a small coalition party gets its programme agreed to that its unjust, because small parties are influencing the larger party - one will often hear the comment "tail wagging the dog" in reference to this. However, despite this, and a couple of minor scandals, NZ has been very stable and economically successful this last decade. So adopting MMP has not driven us into chaos or anything stupid.
If I had the choice between our old system of simple majority/FPP or MMP, it would be the latter, despite its flaws.
I never caught the answer to Senjutsu's point that the votes are already more or less whipped anyway. I believe you yourself Richy once said to me that it didn't matter who the person was, what matter was the party.
I never caught the answer to Senjutsu's point that the votes are already more or less whipped anyway. I believe you yourself Richy once said to me that it didn't matter who the person was, what matter was the party.
It is true, votes in Canada are very whipped.
That is however not a good thing. In a representative democratic system, the MPP should represent his riding and vote accordingly, not be forced to toe the party line even if it goes against his riding's best interests. Proper electoral reform should address this problem by reducing it, making MPPs freer to vote following their constituents' wishes and best interests.
The current MMP reform does exactly the opposite. It reduces the number of MPPs that represent ridings, thus making the ridings bigger in terms of population, and therefore making each person less represented in the Legislature. It then introduces three dozen new MPPs that are selected by the parties and are not representing anyone. They are only loyal and accountable to the party, and have no incentive whatsoever to not vote the party line. This will increase whipped votes, not decrease them.
EDIT: That was actually a question I asked during the debate, and one I stayed discussing with the anti-guy after the debate. The pro-guy couldn't stay because he had to go teach a class.
It doesn't necessarily follow that each person is less represented, it just changes the kind of representation. Is 1 Riding/Electorate MP now = X + 25% worse than plain old X? Maybe. But now Voter has two different types of MP - Electorate and Party/List - which reflects that most voters vote for a party not a person. How many MPs actually get elected on their own personality not the party appeal? How many independent MPs do you have in the federal Canadian Lower House?
I'd wager fuck all, if you are anything like any other ex Inner Commonwealth country.
I never caught the answer to Senjutsu's point that the votes are already more or less whipped anyway. I believe you yourself Richy once said to me that it didn't matter who the person was, what matter was the party.
It is true, votes in Canada are very whipped.
That is however not a good thing. In a representative democratic system, the MPP should represent his riding and vote accordingly, not be forced to toe the party line even if it goes against his riding's best interests. Proper electoral reform should address this problem by reducing it, making MPPs freer to vote following their constituents' wishes and best interests.
The current MMP reform does exactly the opposite. It reduces the number of MPPs that represent ridings, thus making the ridings bigger in terms of population, and therefore making each person less represented in the Legislature. It then introduces three dozen new MPPs that are selected by the parties and are not representing anyone. They are only loyal and accountable to the party, and have no incentive whatsoever to not vote the party line. This will increase whipped votes, not decrease them.
EDIT: That was actually a question I asked during the debate, and one I stayed discussing with the anti-guy after the debate. The pro-guy couldn't stay because he had to go teach a class.
Richy, it sounds like this change only increases the accountability of the government, and the clarity of the people's directions to it.
Unless you have a pretty good alternative proposal to suddenly alter the political culture of the office holders, this sounds like the better choice. You aren't holding out for something better, you're just contributing to non-motion.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
What's wrong with thinking first past the post isn't a better system than MPP?
I'm trying to figure out how this increases accountability, Shinto. Care to explain that one?
If your office holders are already whipped and individual personalities only have a marginal input, you might as well fight your elections clearly as one party against the other without letting personalities come in the way. Then the party is accountable and you can punish it.
If your representatives are just coming back to you right now and shrugging a little about how they fall into line behind the party, but everyone likes them and they have a local accent, that is only muddying the waters of democratic policy making.
Have you ever analysed how often your MPs break whip under your current system? Because it seems you think that a change to MPP will make that worse, but is that actually true? Are your provincial MPs actually using their supposed freedom to represent their ridings/people/etc or are they toeing the line? Are your parties strong controlling Westminster types or are they weaker? Do the MPS have more freedom, like in the US?
I know in NZ we had a very strong whip pre MMP, and we still do today. MPs didn't exert their supposed freedom often, outside of conscience votes, and they are, as before, rare. It hasn't made an appreciable difference either way, when it comes to freedom of action. In fact often List MPs tend to be more outspoken, as they are either a)important party types who are powerful enough to speak, or b)important outside of politics.
Have you ever analysed how often your MPs break whip under your current system? Because it seems you think that a change to MPP will make that worse, but is that actually true? Are your provincial MPs actually using their supposed freedom to represent their ridings/people/etc or are they toeing the line? Are your parties strong controlling Westminster types or are they weaker? Do the MPS have more freedom, like in the US?
I know in NZ we had a very strong whip pre MMP, and we still do today. MPs didn't exert their supposed freedom often, outside of conscience votes, and they are, as before, rare. It hasn't made an appreciable difference either way, when it comes to freedom of action. In fact often List MPs tend to be more outspoken, as they are either a)important party types who are powerful enough to speak, or b)important outside of politics.
The problem people have is that the MPP system only makes the problem worse. It's like driving and car off a cliff, and then setting youself on fire. Sure, your already in deep shit and it may not matter, but why make things worse. I think a system that further encourages whipped MPPs is not a good thing.
shryke on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Have you ever analysed how often your MPs break whip under your current system? Because it seems you think that a change to MPP will make that worse, but is that actually true? Are your provincial MPs actually using their supposed freedom to represent their ridings/people/etc or are they toeing the line? Are your parties strong controlling Westminster types or are they weaker? Do the MPS have more freedom, like in the US?
I'm only aware of a major one happening (recently) in the case I mentioned in regards to Joe Commuzzi voting against his party when the party was being whipped to vote the other way. It worked for his riding, sure, but after voting the way he wanted the Liberal party kicked him from the party, so he now sat as an Independent.
So, while MPs might have freedom to vote how they choose, whenever they choose, they will still probably end up facing consequences from their party (which is a shame).
The problem people have is that the MPP system only makes the problem worse. It's like driving and car off a cliff, and then setting youself on fire. Sure, your already in deep shit and it may not matter, but why make things worse. I think a system that further encourages whipped MPPs is not a good thing.
I see it more as accepting that the problem exists and then accepting the realistic solution.
There is no move on the horizon to address what he feels is the problem. Such a move materializing in the future does not seem substantially more or less likely no matter which way he goes. Therefore it seems to me he should vote for the mediocre remedy.
Like Kalkino said, most people vote for the party anyway, not the person. There are some exceptions of course, most seem to be from long standing MPPs who have inspired loyalty because of how they have represented their riding over the years.
Short of removing the party system, I don't see a way to stop this from happening.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I'm really not sure if this would actually help anything. I mean, sure it would make things more proportionate (which seems to fit the Canadian philosophy of "help everyone") but would it make the government function any better? I mean, a minority government in power is a joke. If someone is leading I want them to have the ability to steer the province in some direction. This will more than likely benefit the minority parties, weakening the hold any majority party will have over the province. While it is being "nice" to everyone else, will it help the provincial government function any better?
You think that having a party with 40% support get over 50% of the seats and 100% of the power is proportionate?
I think that having a party with 3% support and 1-3 seats being courted for their vote by the big parties in a minority government by funnelling billions of dollars into the single-issue they care about to be a much worse problem.
First of all, do you actually have any sort of proof that that would happen? I know very little about the national politics of either Germany or New Zealand - has this been a huge problem? Second, what we have right now is a system (speaking federally for a moment) where a majority - 60% - of voters voted against the government. Yet they have absolutely no representation in Cabinet or even in the ruling party's caucus. At least under a PR system, the percentage of the vote a party gets actually corresponds to the members that they will elect.
That is however not a good thing. In a representative democratic system, the MPP should represent his riding and vote accordingly, not be forced to toe the party line even if it goes against his riding's best interests. Proper electoral reform should address this problem by reducing it, making MPPs freer to vote following their constituents' wishes and best interests.
Electoral reform has absolutely nothing to do with party discipline. It would be better if legislation (or at the very least convention) were established that limited the number of whipped votes in the legislature. When Martin was in power (once again speaking federally; I know fuck all about Ontario provincial politics), he actually instituted a 'three line' system for votes. One line was a free vote, all members and Ministers could vote whatever way they wanted. Two lines, Cabinet would have to vote with the government (cabinet solidarity and all that), while regular back benchers could vote whatever way. Three lines were for confidence votes, where all members of the governing caucus would be whipped.
I don't know if the Tories kept up with it, but it was at least a start. And the reform had absolutely nothing to do with our electoral system.
I mean, a minority government in power is a joke. If someone is leading I want them to have the ability to steer the province in some direction.
Minority governments are a really good thing. They very effectively diminish the otherwise overwhelming dominance that the Premier or Prime Minister have when it comes to policy and legislation. It forces the government to seek and maintain the confidence of the House. Which is a very good thing, especially when certain governments are prone to secrecy and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is a fucking joke at the moment.
and that 3% is a ridiculously low threshold to have your list MPPs elected, which will lead to a lot of minority governments with as much as a dozen small/single-issue/regional parties holding 1-3 seats and having a disproportionate amount of power. The pro-guy never addressed any of these issues in his counter-comments.
Why would this happen? The Libs, PC, and NDP were well over 3% last election, the Greens were close with 2.8. The rest were under 1.
By my calculations, 3% would be ~130,000 votes. Which is way more then what it takes to get elected in any riding you can name. So if they can get 130,000 don't they deserve a seat?
You think all these fringe parties are going to all of a sudden start pulling huge numbers? Wouldn't that mean that the existing parties would fracture?
Interesting...
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
I'll be throwing my lot in with the new system, mainly for the points Senj has already posted. I'd be more afraid of the idea of an MPP not being tied to a riding, but the lists need to be published well in advance, with the mechanics used to derive it in tow.
First of all, do you actually have any sort of proof that that would happen? I know very little about the national politics of either Germany or New Zealand - has this been a huge problem?
I don't know much about it myself, but an old friend from Germany bitched a lot about this. Apparently pandering to minor parts of a coalition government was a very common practice and problem. He made frequent references to a Capitalist-Communist-Christian-Satanist coalition or other such random combinations. As for the reality of the situation, I can't really say.
Second, what we have right now is a system (speaking federally for a moment) where a majority - 60% - of voters voted against the government. Yet they have absolutely no representation in Cabinet or even in the ruling party's caucus. At least under a PR system, the percentage of the vote a party gets actually corresponds to the members that they will elect.
Whenever you have more than two parties, there's a pretty good chance that a majority will have voted against the ruling party. That's not really shocking, is it?
Electoral reform has absolutely nothing to do with party discipline. It would be better if legislation (or at the very least convention) were established that limited the number of whipped votes in the legislature. When Martin was in power (once again speaking federally; I know fuck all about Ontario provincial politics), he actually instituted a 'three line' system for votes. One line was a free vote, all members and Ministers could vote whatever way they wanted. Two lines, Cabinet would have to vote with the government (cabinet solidarity and all that), while regular back benchers could vote whatever way. Three lines were for confidence votes, where all members of the governing caucus would be whipped.
I don't know if the Tories kept up with it, but it was at least a start. And the reform had absolutely nothing to do with our electoral system.
Google didn't help me much, but I remember reading an article in either the G&M or NP about the percentage of free votes being higher than anytime in past X number of years, where X was a fairly large number. If I can dig that up, I'll post a link. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have taken a number of pages out of the Liberal playbook like the one voice, party unity, etc bullshit. It may have won them an election, but I liked the party better when disagreement wasn't seen as a bad thing. Hopefully, votes will remain fairly free.
Ooh - actual quote "A Conservative Government will restore democratic accountability in the House of Commons by allowing free votes. A Conservative Government will make all votes free, except for the budget and main estimates."
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Richy, it sounds like this change only increases the accountability of the government, and the clarity of the people's directions to it.
Unless you have a pretty good alternative proposal to suddenly alter the political culture of the office holders, this sounds like the better choice. You aren't holding out for something better, you're just contributing to non-motion.
I'd rather have non-motion and hold out for the (however small) hope of positive change further down the road, then change right now for something as bad or worse than what we currently have.
The fact is, a lot of the problems quoted for the need to change away from FPTP are either not really problems (as an_alt pointed out, having parties govern with < 50% of the votes is a mathematical consequence of a multi-party system), or will not be fixed in any meaningful way ("FPTP holds women in politics down to 30%, but MMP will bring it up, on average in nations where it is used, to a new high of 35%! Yay women rights!"), or will be made worse (party whipping will be much stronger when a significant proportion of the legislature will actually be there to represent the party and not any constituency).
So yeah, I'd rather have status quo than move sideways or backwards.
I'll be throwing my lot in with the new system, mainly for the points Senj has already posted. I'd be more afraid of the idea of an MPP not being tied to a riding, but the lists need to be published well in advance, with the mechanics used to derive it in tow.
That would be a good check against abuse, if you assume that people will actually read the lists (and the mechanics? That's the first time I hear those have to be public). But let's be realistic here. A significant proportion of Ontarians are so disinterested in politics that they don't even know there's a referendum coming up. Do you really expect these people to scrutinize party lists?
I can see some consequences if some party is stupid enough to put someone truly outrageous in their list, and the media catches it and publishes it in headlines, and people pay attention and care. But that would be an exception case. The rule would be that most lists will be unread and unknown except to a handful of extremely politically dedicated people. It won't be a check against list abuse except in its most extreme form.
and that 3% is a ridiculously low threshold to have your list MPPs elected, which will lead to a lot of minority governments with as much as a dozen small/single-issue/regional parties holding 1-3 seats and having a disproportionate amount of power. The pro-guy never addressed any of these issues in his counter-comments.
Why would this happen? The Libs, PC, and NDP were well over 3% last election, the Greens were close with 2.8. The rest were under 1.
By my calculations, 3% would be ~130,000 votes. Which is way more then what it takes to get elected in any riding you can name. So if they can get 130,000 don't they deserve a seat?
Most people won't vote for a candidate that has no chance of being elected, which is the case of small party candidates. For the list part of the MMP system, getting elected is not an issue. So people are free to vote for smaller parties. This can only lead to the smaller parties polling stronger.
What's worse, you can vote for a smaller party even if they are not running a candidate in your riding. So parties with one or two candidates running will be included on the ballots throughout the province and might get the required 3%. That will effectively eliminate one important barrier to having MPPs in the legislature in the current system: the requirement of running candidates and getting them elected somewhere.
You think all these fringe parties are going to all of a sudden start pulling huge numbers? Wouldn't that mean that the existing parties would fracture?
Interesting...
They wouldn't fracture, they would still be elected in ridings and would be the ones actually representing the people. They would just have to share their power with fringe parties that got a minuscule percentage of the vote by running a handful of candidates that didn't get elected anywhere.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fracturing the big parties. Hell, I'm from Québec, and a lifetime of the Liberal-PQ-Liberal-PQ-Liberal-PQ dance left me with nothing but contempt for big parties that have a stranglehold on power and block smaller parties in any way they legally can. But this MMP proposition is not a good way of solving the problem.
That would be a good check against abuse, if you assume that people will actually read the lists (and the mechanics? That's the first time I hear those have to be public). But let's be realistic here. A significant proportion of Ontarians are so disinterested in politics that they don't even know there's a referendum coming up. Do you really expect these people to scrutinize party lists?
I can see some consequences if some party is stupid enough to put someone truly outrageous in their list, and the media catches it and publishes it in headlines, and people pay attention and care. But that would be an exception case. The rule would be that most lists will be unread and unknown except to a handful of extremely politically dedicated people. It won't be a check against list abuse except in its most extreme form.
I think what's more likely to happen is that the party will make the list first, then write the mechanics to fit. It's a nice idea, but I don't think detailing the mechanics will actually do anything in reality.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Most people won't vote for a candidate that has no chance of being elected, which is the case of small party candidates. For the list part of the MMP system, getting elected is not an issue. So people are free to vote for smaller parties. This can only lead to the smaller parties polling stronger.
What's worse, you can vote for a smaller party even if they are not running a candidate in your riding. So parties with one or two candidates running will be included on the ballots throughout the province and might get the required 3%. That will effectively eliminate one important barrier to having MPPs in the legislature in the current system: the requirement of running candidates and getting them elected somewhere.
I still fail to see how some smaller parties getting seats is a bad thing. Don't forget that getting a seat would mean a substantial number of voters backing you. So obviously some people want this party to have a say in how things are run.
And if the parties then have to compromise on things, I think that's a good thing.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Most people won't vote for a candidate that has no chance of being elected, which is the case of small party candidates. For the list part of the MMP system, getting elected is not an issue. So people are free to vote for smaller parties. This can only lead to the smaller parties polling stronger.
What's worse, you can vote for a smaller party even if they are not running a candidate in your riding. So parties with one or two candidates running will be included on the ballots throughout the province and might get the required 3%. That will effectively eliminate one important barrier to having MPPs in the legislature in the current system: the requirement of running candidates and getting them elected somewhere.
I still fail to see how some smaller parties getting seats is a bad thing. Don't forget that getting a seat would mean a substantial number of voters backing you. So obviously some people want this party to have a say in how things are run.
And if the parties then have to compromise on things, I think that's a good thing.
Oh I agree that smaller parties getting seats is a good thing. In theory. My problem is with the actual way they get seats in MMP. I love to see smaller parties run candidates and get them elected. I don't agree with smaller parties only running one or two candidates but getting included in the "party" ballot province-wide, then appointing MPPs from a list without having a single member actually get elected.
And compromise is of course a good thing. But you don't know that's what's going to happen; you're just hoping for the best. It's entirely likely (and happens that way both here in minority governments and elsewhere in MMP countries) that the official governing party will simply buy off some of the smaller ones by blindly funnelling money and resources into the small parties' key issues. That's not compromising, that's vote-buying.
Moreover, you're also assuming that the smaller parties will want to negotiate. While that's certainly the case of real parties like the NDP or the Green, that's won't be the case of the single-issue parties that will undoubtedly crop up. These parties simply cannot negotiate because they have no points to negotiate on. They have only one issue which they are pushing, and will either be bought (if the official governing party needs their support and can afford to have that issue pass) or ignored (otherwise).
I have a few things going through my mind right now in regards to MMP.
First: I don't see small, single-issue parties getting more than 3% of the vote unless they actually deserve it. For instance, if there was a guy running in Markham calling himself the "Markham Party" with the intention of representing just that area then he isn't going to be getting votes in the Beaches or North York or Thunder Bay. The chances of him getting in without actually winning his ridding are pretty small, I think. Unless. . .
Second: There is a pronounced voter's apathy right now. The actual turnouts for elections are pathetic, and I'm willing to bet that more people would vote if they though it would actually do something. I vote Green with the firm knowledge that there is zero chance of my local Green candidate winning against the Liberal incumbent. Now, at the same time I'd rather the Liberal win than the Tory or NDP, and I know there are other people in my neighbourhood who feel the same way. Do we just go with the lesser of 3 evils because we know voting what we want to will absolutely fuck all? Most of them will just stay home and watch a movie.
Third: This is more radical, but as I've said, I support the Greens. I believe global warming is a very serious problem, but what's the major issue in this election? Funding for religious schools. What. The. Fuck. There aren't very many things that seem less relevant right now, and if Mr. Tory wants to fuck over his party by making that his issue then why should I be forced to vote about that? The plans that the Green party has are radical and workable and ensure that they will NEVER, EVER win, or even get a seat, under the FPTP system. Fuck that. I want to vote about something I actually give a crap about, and MMP looks like the best way to get that done for me.
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
Well, according to the CBC tonight (though they're still in process of counting the votes), MMP has not gathered enough votes & ridings to pass. A number that just showed up on the screen is showing that at least 56 ridings (they needed around 60 to pass) have voted down the idea of switching to MMP.
Posts
Yeah, it's Germany. That's how the Greens got into the Bundestag.
Man, I should just vote for one of the fringe parties with the coolest names, like the Canadian Communist Party or something. I am seriously bored with this elections.
Also, the conservative guy seems like an idiot with his faith-based funding ideas. Not winning my vote with talk like that.
Personally, its either Liberal or NDP for me. Not terribly interested in Conservaties as I've never been aligned with much of their priorities and I'm not voting for the Greens until they change their position on Nuclear energy. I figure McGuinty will stay in the job, but possibly just a minority. His credibility's taken a bit of a hit with his actions (even if justified or needed) right after getting elected last time.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yes. Like I said earlier.
http://uwaterloo.facebook.com/event.php?eid=6218446313
At current point the only one I know anything about it Mr McGuinty because he's the only one who has ever bothered to actually say anything about what he wants to do.
The pro-guy didn't make a good argument. He started off complaining that the anti-side makes a lot of misrepresentation of the issues, then throughout his argumentation he made misrepresentations of the facts, and even of the arguments the anti-guy had made 5 minutes earlier! I mean, geez. A lot of his argumentation also seemed dedicated to opposing FPTP rather than supporting MMP, a typical false dichotomy. The few arguments he had actually for MMP were weak - it works well in some countries (never mind political/social/cultural/historical differences) and it will increase the proportion of women in politics (by 5%).
The anti-guy was more convincing. As he pointed out, while FPTP does have flaws, that's not reason enough to change it. We should take a good hard look at what we're changing it for first, and only change if the new system is better than the old one. And in this case, it's not. The flaws he pointed out in MMP were the ones already discussed in this thread, that it will lead to an increase in whipped votes by adding MPPs that are not accountable to the people but only to their parties, that there is no framework on how to put MPPs on the list, and that 3% is a ridiculously low threshold to have your list MPPs elected, which will lead to a lot of minority governments with as much as a dozen small/single-issue/regional parties holding 1-3 seats and having a disproportionate amount of power. The pro-guy never addressed any of these issues in his counter-comments.
You think that having a party with 40% support get over 50% of the seats and 100% of the power is proportionate?
So in NZ each voter gets two votes, one for the electorate (like we used to do), and one for the party. We have 120 seats (give or take, it can vary) in parliament, and if Party X gets 50% of the party vote they are entitled to 50% of the seats. So if they say won only 25 electorate seats that means they get to appoint 25 off their published list of ranked candidates.
What it has meant is that every government since MMP has been adopted has ruled in a coalition, whether formal or informal (formal meaning a proper, agreed programme of policy and division of Cabinet roles). In NZ's case I think this has been worthwhile, as we don't have the same type of constitutional protections that say Canada has relating to human rights or w/e, Parliament being supreme.
But the down side is that it can be a little confusing getting used to the two votes, the party list and all that jazz. Plus since NZ wasn't used to coalition government a lot of people have a problem with the concept. They seem to think that any time a small coalition party gets its programme agreed to that its unjust, because small parties are influencing the larger party - one will often hear the comment "tail wagging the dog" in reference to this. However, despite this, and a couple of minor scandals, NZ has been very stable and economically successful this last decade. So adopting MMP has not driven us into chaos or anything stupid.
If I had the choice between our old system of simple majority/FPP or MMP, it would be the latter, despite its flaws.
That is however not a good thing. In a representative democratic system, the MPP should represent his riding and vote accordingly, not be forced to toe the party line even if it goes against his riding's best interests. Proper electoral reform should address this problem by reducing it, making MPPs freer to vote following their constituents' wishes and best interests.
The current MMP reform does exactly the opposite. It reduces the number of MPPs that represent ridings, thus making the ridings bigger in terms of population, and therefore making each person less represented in the Legislature. It then introduces three dozen new MPPs that are selected by the parties and are not representing anyone. They are only loyal and accountable to the party, and have no incentive whatsoever to not vote the party line. This will increase whipped votes, not decrease them.
EDIT: That was actually a question I asked during the debate, and one I stayed discussing with the anti-guy after the debate. The pro-guy couldn't stay because he had to go teach a class.
I'd wager fuck all, if you are anything like any other ex Inner Commonwealth country.
Richy, it sounds like this change only increases the accountability of the government, and the clarity of the people's directions to it.
Unless you have a pretty good alternative proposal to suddenly alter the political culture of the office holders, this sounds like the better choice. You aren't holding out for something better, you're just contributing to non-motion.
I'm trying to figure out how this increases accountability, Shinto. Care to explain that one?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
If your office holders are already whipped and individual personalities only have a marginal input, you might as well fight your elections clearly as one party against the other without letting personalities come in the way. Then the party is accountable and you can punish it.
If your representatives are just coming back to you right now and shrugging a little about how they fall into line behind the party, but everyone likes them and they have a local accent, that is only muddying the waters of democratic policy making.
I know in NZ we had a very strong whip pre MMP, and we still do today. MPs didn't exert their supposed freedom often, outside of conscience votes, and they are, as before, rare. It hasn't made an appreciable difference either way, when it comes to freedom of action. In fact often List MPs tend to be more outspoken, as they are either a)important party types who are powerful enough to speak, or b)important outside of politics.
I know in NZ we had a very strong whip pre MMP, and we still do today. MPs didn't exert their supposed freedom often, outside of conscience votes, and they are, as before, rare. It hasn't made an appreciable difference either way, when it comes to freedom of action. In fact often List MPs tend to be more outspoken, as they are either a)important party types who are powerful enough to speak, or b)important outside of politics.
I'm only aware of a major one happening (recently) in the case I mentioned in regards to Joe Commuzzi voting against his party when the party was being whipped to vote the other way. It worked for his riding, sure, but after voting the way he wanted the Liberal party kicked him from the party, so he now sat as an Independent.
So, while MPs might have freedom to vote how they choose, whenever they choose, they will still probably end up facing consequences from their party (which is a shame).
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I see it more as accepting that the problem exists and then accepting the realistic solution.
There is no move on the horizon to address what he feels is the problem. Such a move materializing in the future does not seem substantially more or less likely no matter which way he goes. Therefore it seems to me he should vote for the mediocre remedy.
Short of removing the party system, I don't see a way to stop this from happening.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
First of all, do you actually have any sort of proof that that would happen? I know very little about the national politics of either Germany or New Zealand - has this been a huge problem? Second, what we have right now is a system (speaking federally for a moment) where a majority - 60% - of voters voted against the government. Yet they have absolutely no representation in Cabinet or even in the ruling party's caucus. At least under a PR system, the percentage of the vote a party gets actually corresponds to the members that they will elect.
Electoral reform has absolutely nothing to do with party discipline. It would be better if legislation (or at the very least convention) were established that limited the number of whipped votes in the legislature. When Martin was in power (once again speaking federally; I know fuck all about Ontario provincial politics), he actually instituted a 'three line' system for votes. One line was a free vote, all members and Ministers could vote whatever way they wanted. Two lines, Cabinet would have to vote with the government (cabinet solidarity and all that), while regular back benchers could vote whatever way. Three lines were for confidence votes, where all members of the governing caucus would be whipped.
I don't know if the Tories kept up with it, but it was at least a start. And the reform had absolutely nothing to do with our electoral system.
Minority governments are a really good thing. They very effectively diminish the otherwise overwhelming dominance that the Premier or Prime Minister have when it comes to policy and legislation. It forces the government to seek and maintain the confidence of the House. Which is a very good thing, especially when certain governments are prone to secrecy and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is a fucking joke at the moment.
Why would this happen? The Libs, PC, and NDP were well over 3% last election, the Greens were close with 2.8. The rest were under 1.
By my calculations, 3% would be ~130,000 votes. Which is way more then what it takes to get elected in any riding you can name. So if they can get 130,000 don't they deserve a seat?
You think all these fringe parties are going to all of a sudden start pulling huge numbers? Wouldn't that mean that the existing parties would fracture?
Interesting...
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Damn... Can't believe I missed this.
I'll be throwing my lot in with the new system, mainly for the points Senj has already posted. I'd be more afraid of the idea of an MPP not being tied to a riding, but the lists need to be published well in advance, with the mechanics used to derive it in tow.
I don't know much about it myself, but an old friend from Germany bitched a lot about this. Apparently pandering to minor parts of a coalition government was a very common practice and problem. He made frequent references to a Capitalist-Communist-Christian-Satanist coalition or other such random combinations. As for the reality of the situation, I can't really say.
Whenever you have more than two parties, there's a pretty good chance that a majority will have voted against the ruling party. That's not really shocking, is it?
Google didn't help me much, but I remember reading an article in either the G&M or NP about the percentage of free votes being higher than anytime in past X number of years, where X was a fairly large number. If I can dig that up, I'll post a link. Unfortunately, the Conservatives have taken a number of pages out of the Liberal playbook like the one voice, party unity, etc bullshit. It may have won them an election, but I liked the party better when disagreement wasn't seen as a bad thing. Hopefully, votes will remain fairly free.
Ooh - actual quote "A Conservative Government will restore democratic accountability in the House of Commons by allowing free votes. A Conservative Government will make all votes free, except for the budget and main estimates."
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
The fact is, a lot of the problems quoted for the need to change away from FPTP are either not really problems (as an_alt pointed out, having parties govern with < 50% of the votes is a mathematical consequence of a multi-party system), or will not be fixed in any meaningful way ("FPTP holds women in politics down to 30%, but MMP will bring it up, on average in nations where it is used, to a new high of 35%! Yay women rights!"), or will be made worse (party whipping will be much stronger when a significant proportion of the legislature will actually be there to represent the party and not any constituency).
So yeah, I'd rather have status quo than move sideways or backwards.
I can see some consequences if some party is stupid enough to put someone truly outrageous in their list, and the media catches it and publishes it in headlines, and people pay attention and care. But that would be an exception case. The rule would be that most lists will be unread and unknown except to a handful of extremely politically dedicated people. It won't be a check against list abuse except in its most extreme form.
What's worse, you can vote for a smaller party even if they are not running a candidate in your riding. So parties with one or two candidates running will be included on the ballots throughout the province and might get the required 3%. That will effectively eliminate one important barrier to having MPPs in the legislature in the current system: the requirement of running candidates and getting them elected somewhere.
They wouldn't fracture, they would still be elected in ridings and would be the ones actually representing the people. They would just have to share their power with fringe parties that got a minuscule percentage of the vote by running a handful of candidates that didn't get elected anywhere.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fracturing the big parties. Hell, I'm from Québec, and a lifetime of the Liberal-PQ-Liberal-PQ-Liberal-PQ dance left me with nothing but contempt for big parties that have a stranglehold on power and block smaller parties in any way they legally can. But this MMP proposition is not a good way of solving the problem.
I think what's more likely to happen is that the party will make the list first, then write the mechanics to fit. It's a nice idea, but I don't think detailing the mechanics will actually do anything in reality.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I still fail to see how some smaller parties getting seats is a bad thing. Don't forget that getting a seat would mean a substantial number of voters backing you. So obviously some people want this party to have a say in how things are run.
And if the parties then have to compromise on things, I think that's a good thing.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
And compromise is of course a good thing. But you don't know that's what's going to happen; you're just hoping for the best. It's entirely likely (and happens that way both here in minority governments and elsewhere in MMP countries) that the official governing party will simply buy off some of the smaller ones by blindly funnelling money and resources into the small parties' key issues. That's not compromising, that's vote-buying.
Moreover, you're also assuming that the smaller parties will want to negotiate. While that's certainly the case of real parties like the NDP or the Green, that's won't be the case of the single-issue parties that will undoubtedly crop up. These parties simply cannot negotiate because they have no points to negotiate on. They have only one issue which they are pushing, and will either be bought (if the official governing party needs their support and can afford to have that issue pass) or ignored (otherwise).
First: I don't see small, single-issue parties getting more than 3% of the vote unless they actually deserve it. For instance, if there was a guy running in Markham calling himself the "Markham Party" with the intention of representing just that area then he isn't going to be getting votes in the Beaches or North York or Thunder Bay. The chances of him getting in without actually winning his ridding are pretty small, I think. Unless. . .
Second: There is a pronounced voter's apathy right now. The actual turnouts for elections are pathetic, and I'm willing to bet that more people would vote if they though it would actually do something. I vote Green with the firm knowledge that there is zero chance of my local Green candidate winning against the Liberal incumbent. Now, at the same time I'd rather the Liberal win than the Tory or NDP, and I know there are other people in my neighbourhood who feel the same way. Do we just go with the lesser of 3 evils because we know voting what we want to will absolutely fuck all? Most of them will just stay home and watch a movie.
Third: This is more radical, but as I've said, I support the Greens. I believe global warming is a very serious problem, but what's the major issue in this election? Funding for religious schools. What. The. Fuck. There aren't very many things that seem less relevant right now, and if Mr. Tory wants to fuck over his party by making that his issue then why should I be forced to vote about that? The plans that the Green party has are radical and workable and ensure that they will NEVER, EVER win, or even get a seat, under the FPTP system. Fuck that. I want to vote about something I actually give a crap about, and MMP looks like the best way to get that done for me.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12