Ontario PC Party Rejects MMP

The Toronto Star reports that an email from the Progressive Conservative Party is urging party members to reject MMP. From the article:

In an email sent to “tens of thousands” of supporters, the Tories warn the proposed mixed-member proportional representation system (MMP) would further empower parties’ backroom insiders.
“It is felt that the alternative proposed system known as MMP will increase the influence and power of the political party and its leader while decreasing the independence of MPPs,” the missive states.

VoteForMMP.ca was issued a press release rejecting the claims.

Globe and Mail Rejects MMP and Citizens’ Assembly

The Globe and Mail calls the referendum a missed opportunity arguing the timing of the referendum and major flaws in the new model of government being proposed make it impossible to endorse.

The first concern is that by being scheduled together with the provincial election too little attention was paid to the referendum leading to an uninformed public potentially reshaping the entire system of government. Secondly the editorial raises questions with MMP’s allocation of list seats and the selection of the candidates. It suggests raising the minimum percent of the vote to win list seats to 5%, creating a clear-cut nomination system by which parties pick their list nominees and assigning the seats on the basis of the direct proportion to the popular vote, independent of how many ridings each party won.

Finally the editorial urges rejection of MMP and bringing in experts to do the job of designing an alternative to FPTP

All of these are shortcomings that could easily be overcome. Rather than abandon electoral reform altogether if Ontarians correctly reject the current proposal, Ontario’s next government should take a more serious stab at it. Instead of the populist pandering of “citizens’ assemblies,” a smaller panel of experts should be tasked with designing a more workable MMP model. The matter should then be put to voters between elections, ensuring that the referendum receives the attention it deserves.
As for what is currently on the table, sadly, the proportionate response is to reject it.

National Post Rejects Coyne’s Pro-MMP Stance

While National Post columnist Andrew Coyne is an ardent supporter of mixed-member proportional representation (MMP), the National Post has taken the position that proportional representation (PR) does not work. It opposing MMP on the grounds that it stops majority governments from being formed – resulting in political trading, parties may fill list seats with party favourites, and finally it is simply more complicated that first-past-the-post.

Toronto Star Opposes MMP

The Toronto Star editoral board positions the newspaper against MMP citing the fear of unstable governments dependent on smaller parties for their support:

Some see this as a “fairer” system in which every vote counts. The New Democrats would gain, as would the Greens, Family Coalition or other small parties that aspire to break the 3 per cent threshold.

But whatever its merits, it has one notorious drawback.

Jurisdictions that have adopted some form or other of proportional representation – think of Italy, Israel, Germany, Belgium – have become notorious for chaotic politics and legislative gridlock.

While the occasional minority or coalition government beats the odds and performs well, far more commonly they are bitterly divisive, short-lived and paralyzed by conflict. Routinely, whoever heads the leading party is forced to cater to the demands of small, sometimes radical special-interest parties that enjoy no wide support, just to stay in power. That in itself is a distortion of the voters’ will.

Here in Ontario, a Liberal or Conservative premier with a shaky minority might have to cut deals with the Greens, who would ban new nuclear reactors and raise hydro rates. Or they may make alliances with the pro-life, anti-gay marriage Family Coalition party. Or with another fringe party that might be pro-gun or anti-medicare.

Who knows what obnoxious deals premiers might be forced to consider, to prevent their weak governments from collapsing.

MMP vs. FPTP Debate on TVO

Last Thursday’s episode of The Agenda With Steve Paikin on TVO covered MMP vs. FPTP with a live debate at the Munk Centre for International Studies at Trinity College, University of Toronto.

On the pro-MMP Side

• Rick Anderson – the chair of the Vote for MMP campaign.
• Marilyn Churley – former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Registrar General in the Ontario NDP government from 1990-1995. She served as a New Democratic Member of Provincial Parliament for 15 years and two years as a Toronto City Councilor.
• Dennis Pilon – professor of Political Science at the University of Victoria.

On the anti-MMP Side

• Sheila Copps – columnist with Sun Media. She is a former Liberal MP, deputy prime minister and minister of the environment.
• David Fleet – director of the No MMP campaign.

There was a post-show video chat with featuring the guests taking viewer questions.

Previously The Agenda With Steve Paikin’s Election Battle Blog had a debate been bloggers.

Update: October 5, 2007

This episode of The Agenda with Steve Paikin covering the debate will be rebroadcasted on Monday 08 October 2007 8:00 PM

A Political Science Case Against MMP

Three political science professors, Peter Woolstencroft at the University of Waterloo, Rob Leone at Wilfrid Laurier University and Mark Yaniszewski at the University of Western Ontario have an editorial in the National Post arguing that MMP will only create more problems in how governments are formed and parties interact.

Proportionality will mean the end of majority governments and create a legislature composed of many parties preoccupied with power-bargaining and gaining short-term advantage. Parties will find it hard to plan.
Consider the threshold for the election of party-list MPPs. A party needs 3% of the total vote to win a seat, a threshold at the low end of the range for MMP systems: most are at 5%. In such a diverse and large province as Ontario, this creates an incentive for people to form new parties to advance their interests. Political entrepreneurs will see that they can win seats without making a heavy effort to appeal to many voters. A multi-party legislature means that small and single-issue parties will be more important than their voting strength would otherwise warrant. The minority governments of the future will be much different from the ones of the past.

They express concern about the selection of list candidates:

In terms of promoting diversity, there are two fatal flaws in the party-list idea. First, where people are placed on the list is crucial: placed first means election, last means defeat. So, having 30 women on the list is meaningless if the top nine are men.
Second, Ontario is one constituency for the party-list candidates; parties are not required to list people from Ontario’s various regions. It is entirely possible for most party-list MPPs to hail from one region.

Finally they oppose change arguing that Ontarians simply have not enough time to understand the issue and be consulted about it.

The Great Debate: Toronto Edition – Part 1

The Great Referendum Debate: Toronto Edition organized by The Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen’s University was held yesterday, September 28, 2007 at the MaRS Complex in downtown Toronto.
For MMP were:

• Andrew Coyne – National Post political affairs columnist
• Marilyn Churley – former NDP provincial cabinet minister, nominated NDP for next federal election

Against MMP were:

• Christina Blizzard – Toronto Sun Queen’s Park columnist
• Charles Harnick – former PC provincial cabinet minister

Moderated by Tom Axworthy with introductory remarks by George Thomson, Chair of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly.

The proceedings were taped by CPAC for later broadcast. Check local listings…

George Thomson initially spoke on the selection of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly and the depth of study of the various alternative systems they looked at. He agreed with a common theme throughout the evening, too few people knew about the referendum or about MMP. He specifically criticized the rules that Elections Ontario’s education campaign was operating under – informing people that the referendum was occurring but not the pros and cons of MMP.

Following Thomson the moderator gave each speaker ten minutes to speak. This post gives my take on their positions. Part 2 will cover their answers to the moderator’s questions and questions from the floor.

Conservatives for MMP Disappointed By John Tory, Attack Anti-MMP Copps

Conservatives for MMP carefully explain why Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory comments against MMP “seem to have been expressed without a true understanding of the proposal.” In a post the group explains that Tory’s concerns about MMP increasing the number of politicians are misplaced as the additional MPPs decrease the number of people per MPP which highest in Ontario. List candidates would not be selected by party bosses but in a transparent process and if the voters don’t like the list they can reject the party but still vote for a local MPP in the FPTP portion of the vote.

The group was much less restrained in attacking former federal Liberal cabinet minister, Sheila Copps for her editorial against MMP in which she expresses concerns about the selection of the party lists and also that it will result in many of the same problems as seen in Israel’s Knesset – the government being held hostage by small religious or other single issue parties. Conservatives for MMP say that this is a misplaced comparison as Israel has pure proportional representation, not the mixed member proportional proposed.
However other than a lower 1.5% instead of 3% vote threshold the proportional representation portion of MMP is effectively the same as Israel’s pure proportional representation and I feel comparisons are valid.

MMP and Faith Based Parties Revisited

The Globe and Mail has an opinion piece by their Queen’s Park columnist Murray Campbell attacking MMP on the basis of how list MPPs would be selected by the parties, what he claims is the guarantee of minority governments, and the potential of single-issue splinter parties being formed:

New parties would spring up because the threshold is so low – just 3 per cent of the vote. (Rick Mercer passed that mark in four days with his 2000 spoof of Stockwell (Doris) Day and YouTube gamers would love the challenge of persuading 135,000 voters to support a spoof party.) MMP advocates say it’s speculation that parties based on religion or ethnicity would be formed but, equally, it’s speculation that they wouldn’t. Could Mr. McGuinty have resisted the pressure to adopt sharia law if he had needed an Islamist party to govern? The inevitable creation of single-issue splinter parties would threaten the parliamentary tradition in which people with strong views had to find compromise within big-tent political parties. Balkanization would surely follow.

John Tory Hints He Opposes MMP

The National Post reports that in an interview with its editorial board, Ontario Progressive Conservative leader John Tory hinted strongly yesterday that he will vote against MMP citing the increase in the number of MPPs under the plan and how list candidates would be selected:

Mr. Tory said he is wary of the mixed-member proportional system because some MPPs would be “appointed by party bosses and accountable to no constituents.”
“I’m very skeptical about a system that … adds more politicians to begin with,” Mr. Tory said. “I haven’t met a single voter yet who has told me they’re looking to add more politicians to the Ontario legislature, or any other place.”
“I certainly haven’t run into anybody who thinks it would be better to have MPPs, or any other kinds of politicians, who are appointed by party bosses and accountable to no constituents,” Mr. Tory said.
“The notion to me that you’d have a whole bunch of people that would be down there now who will be accountable only to party bosses who put their names on the list, to me seems to be making the place less democratic, not more, and less accountable.”