MMP Referendum >> Can someone explain this?

[Schwa.]

What does this mean, oh politically wise friends of the Skank?

Just trying to get my shit together here, she's been a looooong summer.

[Birdy]

We're voting to bring in a new electoral system. You have two choices:

1 - The Old Way - The candidate with the most votes wins. Ontario is split up into 107 constituencies. Voters in any particular district get one vote to elect their MPP and whoever gets the most votes goes down to Toronto. Whichever political party gets the most MPPs elected, wins.

2 - The new proposed way - Ontario would be split up into 90 different areas, and the provincial legislature would now have 129 seats. Local MPPs would take up 90 of those seats and leave the other 39 for "List Members". When you go to vote you then have two votes to cast. One for your local MPP, the other for the political party of your choice. The MPP vote is calculated just like the old way (most votes), and the second vote would determine how many 'list' members any party can appoint seats. The idea being that this system offers a greater representation of actual votes cast.

Hope this helps!

[Schwa.]

HA!!! How do you like that?! As soon as i check the old morning email i find this.....very weird morning.

Check it:

Help to Make History Happen

The Most Important Political Event in my Lifetime

By Jim Harris, Former Leader, Green Party of Canada

Historic Referendum on October 10

In Ontario we have once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the way we elect our politicians. On October 10 when every Ontario voter cast their ballot in the provincial election they will also get to vote in a referendum to change our electoral system. This is the only time since confederation in 1867 that all Ontario voters have had the opportunity to change our voting system.

Winning this referendum will create a cascading drive across Canadian provinces for democratic reform. Having the largest Canadian province adopt a fair electoral system will do more for democratic reform than anything else in Canada’s history (with the exception of women being granted the right to vote in 1917).

The campaign desperately needs your help. We need your financial help. Donating to the Vote for MMP campaign will ensure all future Green Party donations have an even greater impact! To donate go to www.voteformmp.ca/fair_for_all.

Individuals outside Ontario can donate!

Imagine a day when every electoral system in Canada is fair for Green Party voters – so that when the Green Party gets 10% wins of the votes it gets 10% of the seats in the legislature!

All we’re asking for is $10.10 – because the referendum is on October 10 – the 10th day of the 10th month. $10.10. Ten ten to change the world. Ten ten to bring a better democracy to Ontario – the largest province in Canada and begin the cascading effect of democratic reform all across Canada. Ten ten just for fun. Ten ten because your pissed of at politicians. Ten ten for your kids. Your grandkids. $10.10 – to change the world. Literally.

My donation of $10.10 – isn’t going to change anything – but if we all close our eyes –and we all just believe that it will happen – and we all do it – then we will change the world. There are 80,000 people on this GPC list. If all of us just donate $10.10 it would make a huge difference. To donate go to www.voteformmp.ca/fair_for_all.

If we had MMP the old-line political parties would not be able to get away with doing nothing about the threat of climate change. It’s because we have an unresponsive, uncompetitive electoral system that we don’t have most vigorous public policy discussion on this issue. With climate change threatening the future of the planet, winning this referendum is all the more urgent.

How to Donate

1) Go to www.voteformmp.ca/fair_for_all – and donate by Visa, Mastercard or AMEX;

or

2) Mail a cheque made out to Vote for MMP to:

The Vote for MMP

26 Maryland Blvd

Toronto, Ontario M4C 5C9

The "Vote for MMP" is not a political party and so has different rules for donations.

Individuals, corporations and trade unions can also make donations – and there are no limits on the amount that can be donated.

Individuals, corporations and trade unions outside Ontario can only donate to the admin budget for this campaign.

Individuals, corporations and trade unions inside Ontario can donate to support either the admin of this campaign or the advertising. All advertising donations of $100 or more will be published by Elections Ontario.

For more Information

Go to www.greenparty.ca/en/node/2464 or you can listen to a GPRadio interview on MMP at www.greenerpolitics.com/2007/08/02/gp-radio-july-31/

MMP System Used Around the World

The Mixed Member Proportional system being proposed in Ontario is the same system that is used in Germany that saw the initial success of the Green Party in the late 1970s. Winning this referendum in Ontario will help win the BC STV referendum that will be re-voted in 2009.

Benefits of the MMP System

* Better geographic representation

* Fairer Elections

* Better government

* More Accountable government

* Stronger representation

* More women in the legislature

* Recommended by 92% of the Citizens Assembly members in Ontario

* A system devised by average people not political insiders

* Building support across Canada with this campaign which will be needed for electoral reform referendums in other provinces in the future.

Additional Ways You can Help

Are you upset by the way politics works? Or rather how it doesn’t work? Then take action! Get involved. Volunteer. Canvass. Join. Blog. Email friends. Come to Toronto to help with the central campaign.

* Pledge to support MMP www.voteformmp.ca/pledge

* Volunteer www.voteformmp.ca/volunteer

* Sign up for the newsletter www.voteformmp.ca

* Move to Toronto to volunteer. A number of people have moved to Toronto to work on this campaign. If you’d like to we’ll find you a place to stay in Toronto. Come live in Toronto for the final exciting 28 days of the campaign.

Background

Average Citizens Rejected Current Voting System

The Ontario Government appointed a Citizens Assembly (www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/default.asp) – a group of average Ontario voters who were randomly selected representing every riding in Ontario. These citizens weren’t political party insiders – they were average citizens. After studying all the problems with the current voting system these average citizens overwhelmingly rejected the first-past-the-post system. These average citizens were upset with politicians and political parties. They were upset at distorted election results. They were upset at the strategic voting.

After studying electoral systems for seven months, the Citizens Assembly members voted 92% to recommend to their fellow Ontario citizens to vote for a mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system. The Citizens Assembly members wanted fair elections.

A Broken Voting System

Imagine five parties running in all provincial ridings – and all five parties get 20% of the vote. But one party gets one more vote in all ridings that party would have 100% of the seats at Queen’s Park with only 20% of the vote. Would you call that fair?

Let’s look at the other four parties that collectively won 80% of the vote but didn’t win a single seat. Would you call that fair? I have yet to meet any Canadian who does.

How the system will work in Ontario: Imagine the Green Party wins 12% of the vote across Ontario but no one directly in one of the 90 ridings. Twelve per cent of the final legislature (129 seats) would be 15 – so the party would elect the first 15 MPPs from its’ list. These 15 list MPPs would divide up the province’s 90 local ridings so that each MPP represented six ridings. Local residents that needed help could then approach either their local MPP or the list MPP representing their riding. So the MMP system mean that politicians will be more responsive to local constituents concerns and problems. Local electors will have more choice.

Good News/Bad News

The polls that I’ve seen so far have good news and bad news. The good news is that the MMP referendum has the support to pass – but the bad news is that support and the opposition is very shallow – in other words, people don’t know much about the issue. And there are a high number of undecided voters.

The old-line traditional parties, not wanting so see electoral reform have set the threshold for the referendum to "pass" at 60% plus getting 50% in at least 60% of the ridings in Ontario. Why Quebec can separate at 50% + one vote but to change the electoral system requires a higher threshold is beyond me.

Good News

The good news is that in British Columbia in the referendum in 2005 the referendum won 57.6% of the vote across BC and a staggering 77 out of the 79 ridings in BC passed it by more than 50% -- the only two ridings that didn’t had 49.75% and 49.25% support – so the desire for change was overwhelming in BC. But according to the politicians it didn’t pass because it didn’t achieve 60%.

Here’s the great news: the more people learn about this MMP more they like it.. So the more literature we are able to get to every household the more likely this referendum will be to pass.

But this is why it is all the more important to have your support we need your financial support to get info out about this referendum.

Jim Harris

Former Leader, Green Party of Canada

Ancien chef du Parti vert du Canada

Comments?

[boiler]

I think we would end up with 39 MPP's who are accountable to nobody but their political party, having no actual consituients of their own. So if the MPP's have no accountablity to the population, they have to gain their agenda strictly by what is told to them by their party bosses, who are influenced by big business. I believe we call that fascism.

Business would be able to stack the deck with people they feel will serve them better, because lets face it, they won't throw any hippies in there.

Edited September 13, 2007 by Guest

[Birdy]

That isn't fascism.

[SmoothedShredder]

She's got you there BR.

[timouse]

I think we would end up with 39 MPP's who are accountable to nobody but their political party, having no actual consituients of their own. So if the MPP's have no accountablity to the population, they have to gain their agenda strictly by what is told to them by their party bosses, who are influenced by big business. I believe we call that fascism.

Business would be able to stack the deck with people they feel will serve them better, because lets face it, they won't throw any hippies in there.

but the flipside of that coin is the possibilty that the greens or the ndp who score a good chunk of the popular vote but few or no seats now have a very real chance to broaden the agenda of the ruling party.

the german green party example gets tossed around a lot as an example of this system working.

see this link for a thumbnail sketch.

it seems as though green party members in germany who were elected based on popular vote had a tremendous influence on the coalition government that they were part of. as far as corporate imnterests controlling the shots, look at the guys in charge at the moment. how much worse could things get?

[phishtaper]

i agree that accountability becomes a big issue. it leaves open the possibility of an MPP royally screwing over their riding, and never having a hope in hell of being re-elected, and yet still making it back into the legislature as one of the gang of 39. sh!tty cabinet ministers could almost become invincible if the party is re-elected.

[boiler]

That isn't fascism.

He's not specifically talking about this system of course, but this is what Ralph Nader has to say on the U.S. government.

AMY GOODMAN: Would you call it fascism?

RALPH NADER: Yeah. The clinical definition is what he was saying. It was obviously colored in a different context in World War II, but the clinical definition of “fascism†is when private concentrated economic power takes government away from the people, turns government into a guarantor, a subsidizer, a covering of corporate power. And corporations now have their executives in high government positions. They have 35,000 full-time lobbies here, like the drug companies getting all kinds of subsidies from Congress. And they have 10,000 political action committees.

With this system, the lobbyists will actually get to sit on the legislature.

[Schwa.]

That is how i saw it Timouse. I voted Green in the last Federal and signed up for the newsletter and sure enough that's who my email came from.

Would like to see the party i vote for grab some influence.

Schwa.'s Vote = YES!

[ollie]

I'm down with this.

[d_rawk]

i agree that accountability becomes a big issue. it leaves open the possibility of an MPP royally screwing over their riding, and never having a hope in hell of being re-elected, and yet still making it back into the legislature as one of the gang of 39. sh!tty cabinet ministers could almost become invincible if the party is re-elected.

That doesn't add up. The list becomes a part of the party platform. If an individual is so toxic that they couldn't be re-elected, a party isn't going to want them on their list of topping up candidates, or if they are so hard up for members (unlikely) that they should need to put them somewhere, you could be assured they would be at the very bottom and unreachable without a yet-unheard-of popular vote (outside of 'democratic' wink-wink authoritarian states with support levels of 90%+ for the incumbents)

[phishtaper]

well, is that even clear yet? is each party required a priori to post a list of those who would be chosen within their topping list? i wasnt under the impression that they would have to. but even if they did, they would just post the winnable names (to attract the general 'party' vote), but those same names would probably win their own ridings, so the party would then have to choose among those who didn't win their own ridings - including toxic defeated cabinet ministers.

sorry, did that make sense?

[d_rawk]

is each party required a priori to post a list of those who would be chosen within their topping list?

Yes. 'Well in advance' of an election is the official proclamation, I'm not sure if it has been nailed down to an actual day-from-election timeframe yet. I imagine it would be the same as when regular candidates need to declare their candidacy.

but even if they did, they would just post the winnable names (to attract the general 'party' vote), but those same names would probably win their own ridings, so the party would then have to choose among those who didn't win their own ridings - including toxic defeated cabinet ministers.

No, no. The entire list is to be published, in descending order. If 2% needs to come off the list, the top 2% of individuals make it in. If 6% needs to come off the list, the top 6% of individuals make it in. The party doesn't get to 'choose' after the fact, they get to choose when composing the list as part of the platform they present to the public in the campaign running up to the election. Toxic names will be toxic to the party. They won't make the list.

[phishtaper]

so, if a candidate loses in a very close race, they are ineligble to go in via the topping list? sucks to be them?

so, the party is essentially running two completely separate slates? one as per normal via individual ridings? and the other via the list? and 'ner the twain shall meet?

that seems to kinda defeat part of the purpose in my mind, and would suggest that perhaps the Green Party should not run any of their good candidates in any riding, but just put them on the list.

[d_rawk]

Hmm, I think maybe we're talking past each other a bit .. let me try to get on the same page ..

If a candidate loses in that election, tight race or not, they couldn't have been elible to be on the list in the first place. The list can not include those running in a riding. Is that what you meant?

I don't think the Greens, say, would want to withhold their good candidates for any reason whatsoever, least of all to put them on a top-up list. First, there is a 3% minimum vote needed for eligibility for any list action to take place .. so you wouldn't want to minimize your chances of breaking the threshhold by running mediocre candidates (particularly for an underdog party with marginal support). Second, your seats are going to allocated in relationship to the percentage of votes you receive (the point of the proposed change), so running less than par candidates is really shooting yourself in the foot. What is the point of having top tier candidates on a list that will never be used? Parties still need to win ridings for any of this to be of any benefit to them .. I don't see any reason why they would give up the possibility of winning those ridings.

[Kanada Kev]

Elections Ontario dropped a pamphlet in our mailbox today. There's a website that should answer all questions, etc.

http://yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/default.aspx

[phishtaper]

ok, I now get that candidates either run locally in individual ridings and are elected as Local Members, or provincially by being on the party list and are elected as List Members.

my point - and perhaps its more strategy than logistics - was that for the Green Party, for example, they would have a better chance of electing a List Member than a Local Member and should therefore field superstar candidates on the List (to attract provincial support via the Party/List vote), rather than fielding those superstars locally where they might not stand a great chance of winning. (In 2003, Green candidates only garnered 3rd place in 2 ridings ... although, presumably they would do better today as evidenced by the recent federal election).

my hypothesis is based on the assumption that voters would split their two votes, ie., vote Liberal for their local candidate (in order to prevent the Tory from winning, old story) but also vote Green for their Party vote. so, regardless of how any party does locally, they could still pick up List Member seats.

and of course, this will wreak havoc on pollsters' predictions. especially in close elections, where the List Member numbers could dictate who forms the government.

i'd love to see this pass the referendum, it would be fascinating to see an electiin run using these rules. im not hopeful in it passing though, because people generally dont like change. although, a lot of people dont like the status quo now either.

ps, thnx for the link, Kev. now we can use the correct terms.

[hamilton]

I think we would end up with 39 MPP's who are accountable to nobody but their political party, having no actual consituients of their own. So if the MPP's have no accountablity to the population, they have to gain their agenda strictly by what is told to them by their party bosses, who are influenced by big business. I believe we call that fascism.

Business would be able to stack the deck with people they feel will serve them better, because lets face it, they won't throw any hippies in there.

Do you really think that's much different from the way that it is right now? Most of the time, MPPs toe the party line anyway, or else risk facing expulsion. Sure there are some completely free votes, but not on the important issues. Additionally, I think many people are only thinking about the party when they cast votes anyway - not about the individual candidate; they're holding the party leader accountable moreso than they are the local candidate.

Besides, this system is most likely to benefit the NDP and the Green Party, the two parties least beholden to business interests. So... that would be better, wouldn't it?

[boiler]

Besides, this system is most likely to benefit the NDP and the Green Party, the two parties least beholden to business interests. So... that would be better, wouldn't it?

Idealistically it would, in reality I doubt it. I would prefer to see the total abolishment of political parties, where all politicians run as independents, running strictly on a platform as set forth from their constituents. What's the real point of a party anyway?

[phishtaper]

What's the real point of a party anyway?

Constitutional academics have been debating this for decades.

[Birdy]

I think we would end up with 39 MPP's who are accountable to nobody but their political party, having no actual consituients of their own. So if the MPP's have no accountablity to the population, they have to gain their agenda strictly by what is told to them by their party bosses, who are influenced by big business. I believe we call that fascism.

Business would be able to stack the deck with people they feel will serve them better, because lets face it, they won't throw any hippies in there.

I think Nader’s definition of fascism is a bit stretched and the result of his own bitter struggles with what US courts deem constitutional or not.

Is it fair that we bitch about the lobby efforts of say… drug companies and then applaud the same of say… women’s groups? In a forum big on equality, can you not agree that both should have the right to pitch a case? Lobby groups are a persuasive force and have influenced a lot of government policy for better or worse, but they aren’t the party and they don’t have the power the voting public does.

The majority of seats any party will hold are elected MPPs, including the ‘party boss’. List members are still elected officials, votes are cast for them, and as such are still held accountable. What kind of party would allow a seat-holding member to run off on a tangent and smear it’s reputation? It’s not gonna happen. If ANYTHING is going to happen the votes of the Ontario public will have better representation in the legislature and more voices will be heard.

It’s a good thing.

[d_rawk]

Idealistically it would, in reality I doubt it. I would prefer to see the total abolishment of political parties, where all politicians run as independents, running strictly on a platform as set forth from their constituents. What's the real point of a party anyway?

And then individuals would lend their moral support to like minded individuals running in other ridings, and soon over the course of a couple elections alliances would begin to form, and then you would be left with .. political parties. Unless we want to make it illegal for people in whatever sector to organize themselves as they see fit (scary!), political parties will develop.

I don't see how, without changing all of the underlying fundamental mechanics and adopting something radically different from either the parliamentary or presidential system - and abandoning rights of free association - we can avoid political parties developing organically .. no matter how many times we might attempt to flush them out of the system. People are free to associate.

[bradm]

I just saw an interview/debate on A-Channel here in Ottawa, and something the proponent of MMP said struck me as interesting:

There are [MMP] systems in Europe that are working just as well as FPP systems.

First, think about this: that statement could also be phrased the other way, namely that there are FPP systems that are working just as well as MMP systems.

But this brings up a heavier point: how do you actually measure how well a government, or, even harder, an electoral system is "working"?

I'd have no problem voting for MMP if (when it actually gets implemented, assuming there aren't any snags along the way) it was put in provisionally (10 years, or three elections, or something like that), with regular evaluations of known/stated (and debated) criteria, both of the electoral system itelf, and the governments produced by it. If it passed (with a passing grade having been set before the system was implemented), it would be kept; if not, we'd go back to FPP.

Without that, I'm voting against MMP in the referendum.

Note that I'm not saying anything here about whether I'd think having MMP would be a good thing or not; I'm just questioning the process that'd be used to implement it.

Aloha,

Brad

Edited September 29, 2007 by Guest

[d_rawk]

First, think about this: that statement could also be phrased the other way, namely that there are FPP systems that are working just as well as MMP systems.

Agreed. That seems a silly statement to make. Without knowing the setup (ie. the remark that prompted it), I'm guessing she/he was trying to put across the idea that the risk is negligible if not non-existent in response to a hyperbolic assertion that everything is liable to go to shit. But I didn't see the A-Channel debate. (The one on TVO the other night was solid, though, I thought).

But it's true .. if a == b, why care whether the result is either a or b? Personally, I think the proponent's assessment, as expressed, is too conservative. Do the Europeans regret their choice? Would those states revert to FFP is given the opportunity? Why is Canada one of the lone clingers-on to FFP amongst contemporary democratic states? How does proximity to the very anemic form of democracy immediately south colour our view here of what democracy actually entails?

It won't pass anyways. A super-majority threshold essentially guarantees it, as it has elsewhere. We'll continue to bumble along, and we'll be fine. We could have been better than fine, but, the devil you know ..

I'd have no problem voting for MMP if (when it actually gets implemented, assuming there aren't any snags along the way) it was put in provisionally (10 years, or three elections, or something like that), with regular evaluations of known/stated (and debated) criteria, both of the electoral system itelf, and the governments produced by it. If it passed (with a passing grade having been set before the system was implemented), it would be kept; if not, we'd go back to FPP.

This sounds tempting, but I'm not at all clear on how this could be made concrete. I'd be open to a commitment to an opposite referendum in a, say, 5 year timeframe, if that is the sort of thing you are getting at. Every time a citizens coalition is put together in this country to take a big chunk of time out of their lives to reach consensus regarding the state of the electoral system and/or to come up with, after careful and painful deliberation, a more beneficial alternative, they come up with PR MMP. The Law Commission of Canada, given the task of doing the same, had the same result.

It will fail. It doesn't matter. I do agree that - at least taken in isolation - the MMP proponent's quote is less than compelling.