« September 11thThe City Mouse and the Country Mouse »


Comment from: Gary [Visitor]  

Excellent post. If only all bloggers and voters were as informed as you!

For the critics who think that MMP gives too much power to the backroom bosses, they might be asked why the backroom bosses and operators are opposed to MMP?

09/10/07 @ 18:51
Comment from: Jody [Member]  

This is what my partner, Fabian, had
to say about MMP:

“Less populated areas have less voters and therefore, fewer votes. MMP seems to mean that there will be more seats attributed to the largest number of votes, which will obviously come from the GTA and Ottawa and other major centres. Where does this leave rural Ontario? I don’t understand how this could be fair. Urban dwellers and country peoples have very different needs. MMP looks like it would be a great benefit to the city folk. Whichever party kisses up to the voters in big centres will win. Looks like that’s where elections will be won… where does it leave us country folks?”

Bear in mind, Fabian is a self-confessed red-neck.

09/10/07 @ 20:41
Comment from: Gary [Visitor]  

Fabian’s views raise a couple of issues. First, about MMP. It has the potential to improve representation for all voters. If voters of a party in a region of the province have no MPPs, as is the case with all three parties - e.g. Conservatives in Toronto or the north, NDP in Eastern Ontario - parties can address that by ensuring that candidates from those areas are nominated and placed higher up on the list.

Having some Northerners or other rural Ontarians placed prominently on a parties list is not going to turn off urban voters. Of course, just like now, it will be up to the parties to nominate their candidates.

The second point, of course, is that while there are special needs in all parts of the province - not just urban areas - why should the majority of voters be denied representation for living in urban areas?

09/11/07 @ 00:29
Comment from: Wayne Smith [Visitor]  
Wayne Smith

Under MMP, every vote will count, no matter where you vote or how you vote. Every party will elect MPPs in every region, and every voter will have not just one MPP, but MPPs from every party. Every voter and every region will have stronger representation.

The idea that MMP is somehow bad for rural areas is bafflegab. Don’t fall for it.

Ditto with the idea that MMP will somehow give power to party bosses. They’ve already got it. MMP will give power to voters by giving every voter a party vote that actually helps to elect someone, every time.

This will give voters the power to hold political parties accountable. The end of phony majority governments will also mean that government is truly accountable to Parliament.

Vote for MMP on October 10.

09/11/07 @ 06:01
Paul McKeever, Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario

A correction: Freedom Party is on the record as NOT supporting the adoption of the MMP.


Paul McKeever
Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario

09/11/07 @ 11:20
Comment from: Jody [Member]  

I apologize, Paul, and have amended my posting.

09/11/07 @ 11:29
Comment from: Richard Lung [Visitor]  
Richard Lung

Re: *The political party with the largest number of seats… is asked to form a government.*
This is a consequence of the inadequate X-vote, instead of a preference vote for individual representatives perhaps across party lines, by which voters, not politicians, can decide the coalition.
Failure to preferentially reform the vote degrades representative democracy to partisan patronage in a proportional system.

09/11/07 @ 16:19
Comment from: George Alexander [Visitor]  
George Alexander

Under MMP Any of the major political parties may present a stellar list of candidates to the voter, and it maybe overwhelming be accepted . In 2003 over two million voters voted for the Liberals, -However - if the percentage of seats won in the ridings is equal to or in excess of the percentage of seats won by the party vote. The party does not receive any of the 39 seats and the over two million votes are wasted. All votes count?

09/20/07 @ 13:57
Comment from: discobbles [Visitor]  

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. So now I have to chose what is more important to me: 1) clarity of intent provided by MMP or 2) clarity of responsibilities of the current FPTP.

10/06/07 @ 11:29
Comment from: Paul Jeffery [Visitor]  
Paul Jeffery

What happened with the referendum?
They didn’t publish that result in The International Herald Tribune…
As a matter of fact, they hardly knew that Canada existed until the Canadian dollar was suddenly worth more than the US.

10/28/07 @ 10:59
Comment from: Jody [Member]  

Hi Paul,

It was defeated… I think it was a
very confusing concept for many and
I also believe that change is so
rampant an issue in this world that
a lot of us dig our heels in, when given
the opportunity!

Other, more educated folks, may have
other insight.


12/21/07 @ 12:51