Say what you will, but everyone I've talked to about it has had the same sort of impression. They don't like the sound of a system where an MPP is not directly beholden to voters.
Alot of people just didn't like the sound of the system.
Agreed.
At first, my attitude was a lot like Page's. ANY change is better than what we have. But after I educated myself and realized the added potential for corruption and complication that a new system would have, I decided "better the evil we know than the one we don't".
If more was said on the actual benefits of MMP over FPtP, I might have been convinced otherwise, but, as it stood, I don't recall anyone actually ASKING for this referrendum, or HOW exactly it was better than what he already had besides "but it gives you more choice"!
This. Same thought process when I began looking into MPP: hey, its new, it'll get more parties into power that might change things. But then, questions kept coming up on how it couldn't just result in more corruption/party-line-mentality weren't being answered by MMP proponents. Every time I seen MMP discussed in a positive like, it was always framed in such a way to simply highlight how FPtP is bad/horrible/outdated but very rarely were any actual merits of MMP discussed and when they were, it was always in the vein of "More minority/female politicians will be elected." Which is great and all, but with only 29 new seats that could possibly be affected directly through MPP, you're looking at (generously) a 7-8% increase in representation. And a single issue like that doesn't justify changing an entire electoral system.
This. Same thought process when I began looking into MPP: hey, its new, it'll get more parties into power that might change things. But then, questions kept coming up on how it couldn't just result in more corruption/party-line-mentality weren't being answered by MMP proponents. Every time I seen MMP discussed in a positive like, it was always framed in such a way to simply highlight how FPtP is bad/horrible/outdated but very rarely were any actual merits of MMP discussed and when they were, it was always in the vein of "More minority/female politicians will be elected." Which is great and all, but with only 29 new seats that could possibly be affected directly through MPP, you're looking at (generously) a 7-8% increase in representation. And a single issue like that doesn't justify changing an entire electoral system.
I've had exactly the same experience. I've been to a MMP debate, and the pro-side did not support MMP, it simply opposed FPtP. The only pro was, as you mentioned, the fact that there might be an increase in women MPPs, and the figure the pro side gave was a 5% increase if we get up to the international average of nations with MMP. Amusingly, this was also an argument used by the anti-MMP side.
"MMP will increase women MPPs by 5%, wow!!!"
"MMP will increase women MPPs by 5%, which is statistically insignificant, and a pretty weak reason to change our entire electoral system."
I just wanted to say that the conversations I have had during the lead-up to this last election have proved one thing to me:
It is absolutely possible, by the power of rhetoric, to change someone's mind on important issues.
I just wanted to say that because I often see some trolls come into these forums (namely here in D&D) who say "do you really think you'll convince someone to change to your way of thinking just by posting on a silly message board?"
Posts
This. Same thought process when I began looking into MPP: hey, its new, it'll get more parties into power that might change things. But then, questions kept coming up on how it couldn't just result in more corruption/party-line-mentality weren't being answered by MMP proponents. Every time I seen MMP discussed in a positive like, it was always framed in such a way to simply highlight how FPtP is bad/horrible/outdated but very rarely were any actual merits of MMP discussed and when they were, it was always in the vein of "More minority/female politicians will be elected." Which is great and all, but with only 29 new seats that could possibly be affected directly through MPP, you're looking at (generously) a 7-8% increase in representation. And a single issue like that doesn't justify changing an entire electoral system.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
"MMP will increase women MPPs by 5%, wow!!!"
"MMP will increase women MPPs by 5%, which is statistically insignificant, and a pretty weak reason to change our entire electoral system."
I mean, at most it would do it because parties would fill their List seats with token minority candidates. and I can't see how that's a GOOD thing.
I just wanted to say that the conversations I have had during the lead-up to this last election have proved one thing to me:
It is absolutely possible, by the power of rhetoric, to change someone's mind on important issues.
I just wanted to say that because I often see some trolls come into these forums (namely here in D&D) who say "do you really think you'll convince someone to change to your way of thinking just by posting on a silly message board?"
To them I say: "Yes, yes I do."