[fvc-wat-disc] redtory blog post

[Derek Kraan]

http://community.livejournal.com/redtory/1466.html

I thought this was interesting because he gives his actual reasons for
deciding that he does in fact like MMP better than FPTP. I'll post it down
below:

*Posts about Ontario's electoral reform from my journal*
> *Post 1:*
> As we all should know, there is a provincial election<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election%2C_2007>coming up October 10, 2007. During said election, we, the people, will be
> voting in a referendum<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_electoral_reform_referendum%2C_2007>to determine whether Ontario should keep the current First-past-the-post
> system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post> or use the Mixed
> Member Proportional Representation system<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation>as proposed by the Ontario Citizens Assembly.
>
> From Wikipedia: *In this system, a voter casts two votes - one for a
> candidate (or 'local member') and one for a political party. The local
> member is elected in a first-past-the-post style election and represents the
> electoral district, while the political party vote would determine how many
> list members a party receives. A list member is a candidate on an ordered
> list that a party issues before the election; if a party is entitled to more
> seats than it won locally, it receives the according number of list seats.
> Under this new system, the Legislature would have 129 seats: 90 local
> members (70% of the Legislature) and 39 list members (30% of the
> Legislature).*
>
> *After local and list members are assigned a political party's overall
> share of seats will roughly equal the popular vote, thus the results are
> proportional. The party with a majority of votes, or a coalition with a
> majority of votes (as is the likely case), will form a government.*
>
> While this does make the seat distribution more or less equal to the
> popular support numbers, I find too many draw backs to want to support it.
> First, there's more members (129 compared to the current 107), which means
> more tax money to pay their salaries (I'm not a fan of big government).
> Second, only 90 of the members answer directly to a constituency, with the
> other 39 answering only to their party, meaning they are not accountable to
> anyone else.
>
> While I don't like the current system, I find the proposed system just as
> flawed. Personally, I'd prefer the Preferential voting system<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting>known as the
> Borda count <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borda_count>. With the Borda
> count system, the candidates are ranked by preference. My preference is you
> only choose your first and second choice, though it can go higher. The
> choices are then assigned points, where a candidate gets so many point as a
> first choice, so many points as a second choice, and so on. The person with
> the most points wins that riding. So while one person is still elected like
> the current system, it will usually turn out to be someone more widely
> accepted and not always someone who would have won under the current system.
> So while people mostly vote either Conservative or Liberal, the Borda count
> preferential system might actually give the NDP and even Greens more seats.
> Plus it might easily prevent what happened last provincial election, people
> abandoning the NDP to vote Liberal to get the PC's out. With this system,
> people would still feel comfortable voting NDP as first choice because they
> are allowed a second choice, which in this case would be the Liberal
> candidate, meaning the Conservatives would have still been voted out of
> office, but the NDP would have gotten more seats.
>
> *Post 2:*
> In browsing Facebook, I have come across a few groups that help better
> explain the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system that is being proposed
> in the upcoming provincial election. I mentioned how 90 MPPs will be elected
> the tradional way, but that an additional 39 MPPs will be chosen from a list
> to bring the proportion of party seats as equal as possible to the popular
> vote percentages. I also thought that these list people would basically be
> Yes men/women to their party. However, as was pointed out to me, the list
> (or lists) will likely be regional based. So in an area, like, say, Northern
> Ontario, MPP's from only two parties were elected, but a third party got 20%
> of the vote, then that third party would appoint someone from their list
> from that region, giving their supports from that region a voice in
> parliament (so your vote does count more).
>
> It was also pointed out that in Germany and New Zealand, where MMP is
> used, that the list people actually work harder for constituents and strive
> to become an elected representative instead of a list choice since the
> elected seats are actually more secure, as the proportion could easily
> change. Not too sure about that last bit myself, but whatever.
>
> Another thing MMP could cause is the Big Tent parties to break up into
> smaller, ideology based parties, so you know where you stand within the
> party system and won't have to compromise some beliefs to support any party.
> I know that Red Tories like this idea.
>
> So all in all, I do like it better than the current system, and I think it
> could work on a provincial level, but might be too complicated on a national
> level, where I'd like to see the Borda count preferential system. And from
> what I've read from New Zealand's experience with MMP, the first term will
> be a transition period as coalitions will be formed for the first time and
> people jump parties to better align their political beliefs, but once that
> settles down it will be smooth sailing, as support for MMP has actually gone
> up recently in NZ.
>
> Hope it makes sense.
>
> James
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.thinkers.org/pipermail/fvc-wat-disc_listserv.thinkers.org/attachments/20070829/eb8a9d4c/attachment-0001.htm>