Ontario will vote on MMP
If approved, the new system would be in place during the election expected in 2011, and it would end a way of voting that has existed in Ontario since before Confederation and which generally allows parties to command strong legislative majorities without obtaining the support of at least 50 per cent of the electorate.Cheers and applause rippled through a large meeting room in a government office tower when it was announced that the group of 102 citizens, who had been selected at random by the province and volunteered to study Ontario's voting procedure, approved the referendum by 94 in favour to eight against.
Those who favoured the referendum said the existing voting regime wasn't fair because it had led to a string of majority governments without majority electoral backing. "We wanted to change that in order to get fairer results," said Mayte Darraidou, who is from Toronto and was on the so-called Citizens' Assembly that made the decision.
As with the 2005 British Columbia referendum on STV/choice voting, this referendum must achieve a 60% super-majority to pass. In addition, it must garner support from 50% of voters in each of at least 64 of 103 ridings (i.e. districts).
With MMP, voters still elect members from single-member districts. A portion of seats, however, is allocated to parties in order to make seat shares more proportional to polity-wide vote shares. This is especially beneficial when a strictly winner-take-all system otherwise would result in a "wrong winner" election - that is, where the party earning most votes ends up with fewer seats than its main rival.
Comment on Ontario will vote on MMP
Current Discussion
-
Posted by Jack, 10/09/2007 (2 years ago)
-
An advantage that I perceive with MMP is having the option to vote for the best local candidate (even against your preferred political party, where they have fielded a weak candidate) and still have the opportunity to vote for the party whose platform speaks best for your views. While a list of party-selected MMP candidates may not appeal as a concept, compare it to parties parachuting a candidate into a riding - how much different is that? MMP doesn't sound perfect, but if it is turned down, those against had better not gripe about all the Second Past the Post results that they wish had made it to first place.
Posted by Gillian, 10/09/2007 (2 years ago) -
I have a problem with our current electoral system: Our vote has no meaning. I say it has no meaning because our vote nominally asks the question "who do you want representing your riding?" not the question "Which party platform or party leader do you prefer?" Yet Cabinet and pundits have interpreted, with good reason, the vote as answering the second question. A statement with two meanings has no meaning at all. Any ballot system with two questions (two votes) is better than the current one... probably. This 2007 MMP proposal (Mixed Member Proportional) does just that: It will ask the two right questions. But it has a big flaw: Compensation. Compensation overvalues the party and blurs the responsibilities of MPPs (Members of Provincial Parliament). An example using the current party names, should a conservative citizen in a Liberal riding go to the Liberal winner of the riding or a Conservative MPP at large? For me to argue that we should vote for the current FPTP system over the 2007 MMP because we can do better is disingenuous. We don???t know if the proposal will be up for review and the proposal is better than the current system. So now I have to chose what is more important to me: 1) clarity of intent provided by MMP or 2) clarity of responsabilities of the current FPTP.
Posted by discobbles, 10/06/2007 (2 years ago) -
As I understand it, the selection processes parties use to appoint their lists will be quite transparent. To the extent voters care about that, they will be able to evaluate parties on that basis. If they do not care for the performance of a party's "unelected" list members, they will be able to toss that party out at the next election by using their list votes differently. Without the otherwise attendant cost of not being able to elect a local representative, moreover. For reasons I and other far more well educated persons have elucidated, the example of Italy simply does not generalize to, one, MMP, or two, Canada. Italy had a decade-plus experience with first-past-the-post, and it was not enough to overcome social fragmentation and divisiveness with far deeper roots.
Posted by Jack, 10/01/2007 (2 years ago) -
Yes, I want a group of MPPs who are appointed, not elected (and therefore not answerable to their public as to their individual performance in the legislature); nice to see that someone wants a provincial version of the Senate. As for proportional representation, why not go whole hog....like Italy, we could always have a porn star appointed to the legislature.
Posted by Jack R., 10/01/2007 (2 years ago) -
Yep. The list vote you'll get under MMP means: 1) Living in a non-competitive riding will not relegate you to irrlevance. 2) You have the ability to directly affect which party gets to control the provincial parliament. MMP really isn't a very fundamental change, and there's a lot of bad information circulating.
Posted by Jack, 09/22/2007 (2 years ago) -
is their logic behind this statement?
Posted by Chris, 09/22/2007 (2 years ago) -
Your vote will be relevant in 20-50 years. ;)
Posted by Jack, 09/22/2007 (2 years ago) -
of course people are excited, why shouldn't they be? It's fair right? Democracy and all? _my_ vote finally counts! Unfortunately, to me, that is not indicative of whether or not something is a good idea. without going on the defensive or ranting, i would enjoy hearing how this will benefit ontario in say 20 years, 50 years? perhaps we will change voting systems frequently?
Posted by Chris, 09/22/2007 (2 years ago) -
Does this help? I believe I have found the answer in the final report of the Ontario Citizens??? Assembly on Electoral Reform. See page 156 of the PDF aforelinked. The answer is Hare quota with largest remainders.
Posted by Jack, 09/16/2007 (2 years ago) -
Wahat is the secret formula fior apportionment? Hundreds of web sites - not one bit of hard facts!
Posted by roy rupert, 09/12/2007 (3 years ago)
It's amazing (well, not really) how much opposition has centered on unaccountable "elites" winning seats in the list tier. I wonder how much the "elite" frame is actually elite-driven. My post at TDP touches on this theme.