[fvc-wat-disc] [Fwd: Waterloo Record | negative letter| August 17/07]

[Paul Nijjar]

This letter could use some local responses, as it is on our turf.

June runs a media list that updates us with information around the
province. To join it contact her at the address below.

- Paul

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Waterloo Record | negative letter| August 17/07
From:    "Letters and Media--Vote for MMP"
<june.macdonald at fairvotecanada.org>
Date:    Fri, August 17, 2007 4:03 pm
To:      june.macdonald at fairvotecanada.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[re this Waterloo record letter demonstrates the writer’s lack of knowledge
how MMP systems work in real life situations. Much of what he describes is
not how it works in New Zealand. Previous letters of this nature in other
papers have been neatly countered by Steve Withers who has lived over ten
years under MMP and has come home to Canada to work on the referendum.

No system is perfect but some are better than others and the fact remains
MMP is a definite improvement over the existing system. Some points to
consider:

*	The majority of the world’s countries use a PR system
*	Only three major democracies still retain it (U.S., India and
England—within the UK, Scotland, Wales and Ireland use a form of PR) Even
England uses PR for EU elections.
*	No newly formed country chooses our system.
*	Most of the top 15 countries in the world in representation of women are
PR-based countries.
*	Parties when forming lists in MMP countries consult widely and
democratically. Much more so than they do when selecting candidates for
riding nominations under PFTP which are often non transparent, quixotic and,
on average, only 200-300 people have input into selecting our
representatives under FPTP—even the leader.
*	On the other hand nominations for the list will be closely scrutinized
since they will be published in advance and good balance of regions and
demographics will be critical for the party’s ability to compete for votes.
The balance that parties work hard to achieve in forming a cabinet is
similar to that of forming a party list.
*	The parties are held responsible for list composition: it would be
political suicide if they were to nominate political hacks—no one would vote
for their party—one wonders is that what these parties intend for their
list?

Knowledge of how this works on the ground is critical for debate.

The following FAQ is useful:
http://www.voteformmp.ca/files/FAQ%20-%20v%201.3.pdf
<http://www.voteformmp.ca/files/FAQ%20-%20v%201.3.pdf>

No system is perfect but some are more than others. Perhaps the letter
writers may want to focus on the problems of FPTP and ask writers to explain
why the present system is better.]

*************************************

  Proposed electoral reform would bring host of problems
   http://news.therecord.com/Opinions/article/229571

Waterloo Record, August 17, 2007  JOSEPH ANGOLANO
Donna Reid's Aug. 14 Second Opinion article, It's Time To Change How Ontario
Elects Its Politicians, did not mention any of the several drawbacks of the
mixed member proportional electoral reform proposal to be decided in the
Oct. 10 referendum.
If Reid thinks that the proposed voting system will empower citizens,
eliminate strategic voting, and make political parties co-operate to find
the common good, she is sorely mistaken.
Reid talks about the increased number of members of provincial parliament in
this proposal, however, it is up to the party leaders to determine where the
39 MPPs from the party list will set up their constituency office. They
could go anywhere -- from Cornwall, Waterloo, Ottawa, or even Toronto. No
one knows. This decision is entirely up to the party leaders.
Perhaps Reid thinks a fair system should allow voters in Kenora to
potentially elect another MPP in Toronto. Perhaps she also thinks it is fair
to have a system where 39 Ontario ridings get two MPPs while the other 90
only get one. Most Ontarians, I think, will not agree with this view.
And let us not forget that the number of ridings in this mixed member
proportional scheme decreases to 90. This will make ridings bigger and make
MPPs responsible for more voters. As if rural Ontario were not poorly
represented as it is, mixed member proportional makes things worse.
Under mixed member proportional, it is entirely up to the political parties
to solve the issue of gender diversity.
Since this system has a closed list, non-aligned voters, who make up the
vast majority of the population, get no say in the order of the list. That
is entirely up to the politicians. And if their past behaviour with the
nomination process is any indication of the future, the party list will be
stacked with party hacks who have the most influence within a political
party.
The most laughable claim from Reid is that mixed member proportional will
eliminate strategic voting. It is a fact that there is no electoral system
that can eliminate strategic voting.
Kenneth Arrow's theorem --which was published in 1951 and won a Nobel prize
in 1972 -- along with the Gibbard-Sattherwaite Theorem proved this.
(Arrow's theorem showed that no voting system can translate a set of
individual preferences into a coherent group preference if there are two or
more options to choose from. The Gibbard-Sattherwaite Theorem showed that if
there is any voting system that eliminates strategic voting it must either
prevent a candidate from winning under its rules or be a dictatorship.)
Strategic voting occurs often in mixed member proportional countries, such
as Germany. According to a study by Hans-Dieter Klingemann and Bernhard
Wessels, strategic voting increased in Germany from 2.4 per cent in 1976 to
7.4 per cent in 1998. Far from eliminating strategic voting, this system
seems to encourage it.
I also don't understand how a mixed member proportional system solves Reid's
dilemma. Under this system, if you generally vote Conservative and don't
like who is at the top of their list, what do you do? Do you vote for the
party whose policies you like or for a party whose lists you like? The
proposed system doesn't solve this dilemma.
Reid also talks about the benefits of coalitions. What she calls a coalition
I call a backroom deal. Ontarians, I hope, will not stand for party leaders
locking themselves in a room and wheeling and dealing on key issues like
education, health care and the environment with no public input.
Moreover, the proposed system would not make politicians work together for
the common good. New Zealand has mixed member proportional, and Prime
Minister Helen Clark has recently complained that this system is making it
quite hard for tough decisions to be taken which may be in the public
interest. A lack of majorities will not make parties co-operate, if the
current rancour in the past few years at the federal level is any
indication.
Mixed member proportional will do nothing to eliminate negative politics.
Far from it, it will further entrench power in the hands of political
elites.
Democracy in Ontario is in need of change and reform, but implementing a
scheme that will cause more harm than good is not the solution we need.
Joseph Angolano is completing his PhD on democratic reform at the London
School of Economics and is assisting in the No MMP non-partisan campaign
against the proposed mixed member proportional voting.