Will MMP Increase Number of Female MPPs

Two Osprey Media papers, The Orillia Packet and The Sarnia Observer have published letters to the editor that express different view on whether MMP would mean more women and minorities in government. The Sarnia-Lambton Green Party MPP candidate and MMP supporter says that since the proportional list must be published in advance if the list is an all or predominantly male list, don’t vote for it. The person opposing MMP cities figures to show that this does not happen as men still get predominantly elected. They write:

In Scotland, which introduced a type of proportional representation earlier this year, the proportion of women in the parliament decreased in the election which followed. In Italy and Greece, which have used proportional representation for decades, the proportion of women in parliament is only 11 and nine per cent respectively.
Germany used a system similar to the one proposed for Ontario for decades, and yet the number of women in parliament remained low until after the unification of Germany.

Canadian Federation of Students Backs MMP

Canadian Federation of Students has announced that it is endorsing MMP following a vote by 80 representatives from over 30 students’ unions across the province at the recent Annual General Meeting of Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario. From the news release:

“It’s time to change the system,” said Jen Hassum, Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario. “For far too long, our votes on Election Day have not been properly reflected in the number of seats assigned to each party by the current, outdated system.”
The growing support among students for changing the voting system to MMP is based on results that similar systems have yielded in other jurisdictions, including greater voter choice, fairer election results, and stronger representation for traditionally under-represented groups.

No Side Fears Single Issue Parties

In a column earlier this month Toronto Star columnist and architecture critic Christopher Hume proposes the creation of an Urban Party focusing on the issues of cities in Ontario. While the column suggests that the people of Toronto and other cities could elect MPPs from this party under the current system, Michael Ufford, Chair of the NO MMP Campaign writes that under MMP such an Urban Party could more easily gain seats via MMP:

“The trouble is that the system, which makes it possible for new regional and single-issue parties to gain a few seats, may very well also spawn a “905 Party” or a “Northern Ontario Party.” The splintered Legislature that would result would be less able to deal with serious urban issues.”

Is the potential emergence of single-issue parties under the MMP list mechanism good or bad? For example, the Bloc Québécois in federal politics is basically a single-issue party – promoting Quebec interests and seems to be doing quite well at it.

Elections Ontario Issues Advertising Rules

Elections Ontario has started to run ads informing citizens and groups of the rules concerning using advertising to promote a particular result during the referendum period of September 10, 2007 to October 10, 2007. See YourBigDecision.ca for details.

New Brunswick Waits For Further Studies on MMP

In December 2003 the New Brunswick government established the Commission on Legislative Democracy to examine ways of enhancing citizen-centred democracy in New Brunswick. It released its final report (PDF summary) in January 2006 that proposed a number of changes including a switch to MMP, fixed election dates, and independent redrawing of electoral ridings following censuses.

The proposed MMP system would include 36 FPTP single-member riding seats and four multi-member regional districts in which voters would use a second ballot to elect five MLAs from closed party lists on the basis of the party vote received within the region. As a result there would be 20 list seats.

The commission also proposed various rules concerning the list MLAs:

• Parties be required to reach a minimum five per cent threshold in the separate party vote on a province-wide basis in order to be eligible to win any list PR seats.
• Candidates be required to choose to run either as a single member riding candidate or as a candidate on a regional PR list, but not both.
• Parties be required to nominate list PR candidates in open conventions based on clear party nomination, financing, and disclosure rules, as recommended by the Commission.

The June 2007 government response accepted a number of recommendations such as fixed election dates however a move to MMP was rejected (PDF response). In the response the government stated:

• There will be a thorough review of relevant electoral reform initiatives occurring in other jurisdictions, both across Canada and internationally, in an effort to make further improvements to New Brunswick’s current Single-Member Plurality electoral system.
• The case for changing our electoral system to include elements of proportional representation has not yet been made. Therefore, there will not be a referendum on any new form of electoral representation during the 2008 Municipal Elections.

Other Alternatives To FPTP: STV

In a comment in response to a previous post, Richard Lung stated his opposition to both the FPTP and MMP systems and expressed his support for the Single Transferable Vote (SVT) system. A move to this system was the subject of a similar referendum in British Columbia on May 17, 2005. While a majority of voters approved the move to the new system neither the required 60% supermajority of total votes and electoral district wins was reached. Elections BC has a recap including the creation and work of the Citizen’s Assembly that recommended a move to “BC-STV” (British Columbia Single Transferable Vote), the referendum question and results.

MMP Supporters Say It Gives More Choice

The Cambridge Records has an editorial by MMP supporter Donna Reid who discusses the implications of having two ballots:

Under a mixed-member-proportional system, Ontario voters will have two votes on the ballot. One is to select your constituency choice and the other is for the party of your choice.

This allows you to vote for the person you feel best represents your interests locally as well as a second vote for the party of your choice even if the two votes represent differing parties.

For instance, I might feel that Jane Doe is a great member of the provincial parliament and I want to support her but she belongs to a different party than the one I support.

Under a mixed-member-proportional system, I can vote for Jane Doe and also vote for my party. Voter choice means the end of strategic voting to keep out a party and the beginning of voters using a positive approach to the selection of their preferred candidates.

Is this a valid reason for MMP, the ability to vote for a person for MMP while they are not a member of your preferred political party? In a government in which most votes are party-line votes is a local candidate’s background, education or other qualifications more important than their party? If the answer is no, why have two ballots under the MMP proposal?

In a letter to the editor of the Orillia Packet, Dr. Dennis Pilon, Political Science Department, University of Victoria, B.C. clearly believes that people vote for the party not the candidate. He states:

First, voters vote for the party, not for a local ombudsperson. Countless studies have demonstrated that the party label is the key information that voters use in making their choice in the voting booth.
Anyone who looks at election results know this – candidates who are not nominated by one of Ontario’s three major parties almost never get elected. And there is a good reason for this: parties represent different policies and approaches to politics and these roughly match the differences of opinion amongst Ontarians themselves.

As a result Pilon supports MMP:

This is why the proposed MMP system is far superior to Ontario’s present all or nothing voting system. It will represent fairly what voters really do vote for – party representation and the policy differences they represent.

More Background

Simcoe.com and the Fort Frances Times Online have summaries of MMP, the referendum, the requirements for a MMP victory, and Elections Ontario’s education campaign.

University of Toronto Student’s Union Supports MMP

The University of Toronto Student’s Union is in favour of MMP through their description of the process and referendum is quite spotty, for example its website states:

Under the MPP system, the Ontario government would have 90 traditional ridings with one Member of Provincial Parliament each, and 39 at-large seats, decided by a second ballot where Ontarians vote for the party of their choice. The parties would submit a public list of candidates, ranking them by priority.

This misses the actually means by which the list MPPs are selected, comparing the province-wide list vote to that of the riding results. The UTSU needs to update their site. The UTSU’s reason for supporting MMP is:

This system would help to alleviate the lack of representation of certain regions, women, youth, people of colour, aboriginals and other marginalized peoples.

In Germany, where this system is currently in use, there are a series of successful and stable coalition governments. They have a far greater number of women in the legislature and consistently higher voter turnouts.

Does anyone know if other student unions have a position?

Fringe Parties

The impact of fringe parties receiving seats via the list mechanism is a concern to some. Matt Watson of Burlington describes his experiences in Australia in a letter to the editor in which the pro-firearms Shooter’s Party and nationalist and protectionist One Nation Party gained seats.

In the 2007 New South Wales state election, the Shooters Party received 2.8% of the primary vote for the Legislative Council and the One Nation Party once received 8% of Australian federal votes.