Bloggers from a group called Liberal for MMP, whoever they may be, got pretty upset because The Toronto Star carried a report that referred to “appointed” MPPs, i.e.-the 1/3 of the Ontario Legislature seats that would be allocated to political parties under the proposed Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) electoral system. They deemed use of the term “appointed” the “big lie” from opponents to MMP and argued that argued MPPs would be elected by a larger number of voters even than the 17 fewer local MPPs that would remain to represent communities and voters ratter than political parties.
Elected? Hardly. Ontario voters will not get to choose these MPPs in any general election. Each political party will devise its own procedure for determining the names and their order on its lists. There is no requirement or guarantee that even the limited number of Ontarians who are members of political parties will have a significant role in making-up the lists. Most seasoned observers of partisan politics know the process will be tightly controlled by each parties’ leadership.
Under MMP, Ontario voters would be able to vote for a party and for a local MPP. They would not be able to vote for the so-called list candidates.
Under MMP, there would be 17 fewer local representatives but 39 MMPs would sail into the Legislature without the benefit of having received s single vote in a general election. For 1/3 of the provincial legislature, the coveted universal franchise would be dead.
Moreover, a party that receives 40% or more of the popular vote would probably not be entitled to appoint any of its list candidates if its deemed share of the Legislature was already filled with local MPPs. How is it fair or democratic that a minor party with 5% of the popular vote would get to appoint a dozen candidates from its list while another party with 45% support gets to appoint none?
The federal government has just released a report suggesting 80% of Canadians prefer an elected federal Senate. A group in Ontario is proposing rolling back provincial democracy by appointing 1/3 of the Legislature. Only in Canada, eh?
Elected? Hardly. Ontario voters will not get to choose these MPPs in any general election. Each political party will devise its own procedure for determining the names and their order on its lists. There is no requirement or guarantee that even the limited number of Ontarians who are members of political parties will have a significant role in making-up the lists. Most seasoned observers of partisan politics know the process will be tightly controlled by each parties’ leadership.
Under MMP, Ontario voters would be able to vote for a party and for a local MPP. They would not be able to vote for the so-called list candidates.
Under MMP, there would be 17 fewer local representatives but 39 MMPs would sail into the Legislature without the benefit of having received s single vote in a general election. For 1/3 of the provincial legislature, the coveted universal franchise would be dead.
Moreover, a party that receives 40% or more of the popular vote would probably not be entitled to appoint any of its list candidates if its deemed share of the Legislature was already filled with local MPPs. How is it fair or democratic that a minor party with 5% of the popular vote would get to appoint a dozen candidates from its list while another party with 45% support gets to appoint none?
The federal government has just released a report suggesting 80% of Canadians prefer an elected federal Senate. A group in Ontario is proposing rolling back provincial democracy by appointing 1/3 of the Legislature. Only in Canada, eh?
