With less than 10 days to go until election and referendum day, Ontario voters have shown little interest in or knowledge of the issues involved in the referendum on electoral reform. Elections Ontario and the “yes” and “no” campaigns have been valiant in attempting to raise awareness, but the question hardly seems to be capturing the public’s attention.
While opposed to the mixed member proportional (MMP) electoral system proposed by the Commission on Electoral Reform since it was revealed earlier this year, my own thinking on the issue has been informed by what little debate has occurred. Further consideration of the matter has served only to reaffirm my original conclusion that MMP would be a step-back for democracy in Ontario and a serious mistake.
MMP would result in continuing minority governments. Its supporters acknowledge this. And then they invent absurd arguments about “stable minority” – really, I have heard that argued. Minority governments are by nature unstable and any temporary stability which occurs comes only after months and years of negotiations and compromise. Meanwhile, the government is weak and ineffectual and impotent when dealing with anything but the most mundane administrative issues.
Moreover, minor parties enjoy totally disproportional power over minority governments. With the constant threat of defeat, governments are forced to compromise on their policies to satisfy a small number of voters. In the current Ontario campaign we have heard the NDP leader brag that he will control the agenda in a minority legislature. Put another way, with potentially 15-20% of the vote, he would decide what laws are enacted, what is the budget, etc. in arrogant disregard for twice as many voters who supported another party. This is not responsible government.
MMP would replace 17 elected local representatives with 39 party appointed MPPs. The pro-MMP side goes apoplectic every time someone says “appointed”, calling it a big lie, since they know it is their opposition’s strongest argument and they know appointed is just what the 39 new MPPs will be. No party, not even the NDP and Greens which support MMP, has stated how their candidate lists would be developed or made any commitment to public consultation. No doubt this is because the party leadership knows it will want and need to control who is on the lists to give it electoral appeal. Renegades or self-interested individuals could spell disaster for a party list, just as they sometimes do in local constituencies. That’s why party leaders retain the right to veto locally chosen candidates. You can be assured they will not relinquish this right when it comes to the provincial lists. If there was a chance they would, someone would have said something already. The fact is, under MMP, 39 MPPs will sail into the legislature without a single vote having been cast for them in a general election.
A further insidious flaw in MMP is its “top-up” procedure. It is designed to give seats in the legislature, and power, to parties that were rejected by local voters. If 95% of the voters in a riding don’t want the XYZ party to represent them in the legislature, why should that party be given a seat? Meanwhile, a party could win 50% and more of the popular vote and be denied any appointees if that party had already elected its quota of local MPPs. This is not democratic by any reasonable definition.
Two classes of MPPs would result from MMP. The first would be the current local representatives who, if they want to be re-elected, must be responsive to local issues and concerns and spend a great deal of time helping local constituents access government services, problem solve, etc. There would also be a new class of provincial MPPs with no mandate but to serve their party leader. And ti would be a class with a false claim to seniority or superiority because its “provincial” rather than local, It would also be a class free of local constituency work and free to work full-time to prepare for the next election. The 39 new MPPs would be paid party workers with a more generous salary and pension plan than is now available. But they would have the votes and power to frustrate the locally elected members.
In the real world, there are winners and losers. MMP proponents seems to fit into a class of persons who think there should not be winners and losers, everyone should be equal, etc., etc. It is a notion that is as unnatural as it is absurd. Strong provinces need strong and decisive governments. These will not happen with MMP.
The current system may be imperfect, but MMP would definitely make things worse. I urge all Ontario readers to vote NO in the referendum quesiton on October 10.
While opposed to the mixed member proportional (MMP) electoral system proposed by the Commission on Electoral Reform since it was revealed earlier this year, my own thinking on the issue has been informed by what little debate has occurred. Further consideration of the matter has served only to reaffirm my original conclusion that MMP would be a step-back for democracy in Ontario and a serious mistake.
MMP would result in continuing minority governments. Its supporters acknowledge this. And then they invent absurd arguments about “stable minority” – really, I have heard that argued. Minority governments are by nature unstable and any temporary stability which occurs comes only after months and years of negotiations and compromise. Meanwhile, the government is weak and ineffectual and impotent when dealing with anything but the most mundane administrative issues.
Moreover, minor parties enjoy totally disproportional power over minority governments. With the constant threat of defeat, governments are forced to compromise on their policies to satisfy a small number of voters. In the current Ontario campaign we have heard the NDP leader brag that he will control the agenda in a minority legislature. Put another way, with potentially 15-20% of the vote, he would decide what laws are enacted, what is the budget, etc. in arrogant disregard for twice as many voters who supported another party. This is not responsible government.
MMP would replace 17 elected local representatives with 39 party appointed MPPs. The pro-MMP side goes apoplectic every time someone says “appointed”, calling it a big lie, since they know it is their opposition’s strongest argument and they know appointed is just what the 39 new MPPs will be. No party, not even the NDP and Greens which support MMP, has stated how their candidate lists would be developed or made any commitment to public consultation. No doubt this is because the party leadership knows it will want and need to control who is on the lists to give it electoral appeal. Renegades or self-interested individuals could spell disaster for a party list, just as they sometimes do in local constituencies. That’s why party leaders retain the right to veto locally chosen candidates. You can be assured they will not relinquish this right when it comes to the provincial lists. If there was a chance they would, someone would have said something already. The fact is, under MMP, 39 MPPs will sail into the legislature without a single vote having been cast for them in a general election.
A further insidious flaw in MMP is its “top-up” procedure. It is designed to give seats in the legislature, and power, to parties that were rejected by local voters. If 95% of the voters in a riding don’t want the XYZ party to represent them in the legislature, why should that party be given a seat? Meanwhile, a party could win 50% and more of the popular vote and be denied any appointees if that party had already elected its quota of local MPPs. This is not democratic by any reasonable definition.
Two classes of MPPs would result from MMP. The first would be the current local representatives who, if they want to be re-elected, must be responsive to local issues and concerns and spend a great deal of time helping local constituents access government services, problem solve, etc. There would also be a new class of provincial MPPs with no mandate but to serve their party leader. And ti would be a class with a false claim to seniority or superiority because its “provincial” rather than local, It would also be a class free of local constituency work and free to work full-time to prepare for the next election. The 39 new MPPs would be paid party workers with a more generous salary and pension plan than is now available. But they would have the votes and power to frustrate the locally elected members.
In the real world, there are winners and losers. MMP proponents seems to fit into a class of persons who think there should not be winners and losers, everyone should be equal, etc., etc. It is a notion that is as unnatural as it is absurd. Strong provinces need strong and decisive governments. These will not happen with MMP.
The current system may be imperfect, but MMP would definitely make things worse. I urge all Ontario readers to vote NO in the referendum quesiton on October 10.
