News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

With MMP the smaller parties have nothing to gain by threatening the bigger parties.

They also have nothing to lose if they know that they can never form a government.
 
Well then why hasn't the federal NDP brought down the government yet? By your logic they'd be bringing down the government and causing an election every six months just for the hell of it. But they're not. The prospect of perpetual minority government is forcing the parties to make the current parliament work.
 
Probably because the federal NDP have worked with the Conservatives more often than not in order to keep the Liberals out of power. The federal NDP has no interest in governing; they have an interest in being the official opposition.

If you take a careful look, their battle is with the Liberals not with the Conservatives. The Liberals are the greatest threat to them.

By the way, I don't view the NDP provincially as a "small" party. They have governed, so in my opinion they are a big party.
 
You're right, they should get 3 seats at least.

Well go ahead and vote for the referendum if you think multiple Christian Heritage, Marijuana Party, the white supremacist Confederation of Regions and other such MPPs representing a minuscule protest vote is a good thing. I personally think that's crazy.
 
^ except for the problem that none of those get anywhere near 3% of the vote. Christian Heretige and similar parties get between 0.05-0.2% vote. Any cap is by nature anti-democratic, but 3% can be excused for the sake of efficiency.
 
Yep, I figure only serious parties like the Greens will be able to get in for now, I believe the 3 percent cap is reasonable. The Greens would have a tough time cracking 7 percent as Unimaginative suggests. There will likely end up being token representation of regional parties (say Toronto or farmer's parties) once people get a hang of it, but it would have to take a lot of support for a strictly one-issue or small region party to get anywhere.

While I think there's some flaws with MMP (Party lists, non-geographic representatives), I'm likely to vote for it. Actually, one of the reasons I will more likely vote for it is the skewed vote threshold of 60%, plus a 50% majority in a super-majority of the ridings.
 
Well go ahead and vote for the referendum if you think multiple Christian Heritage, Marijuana Party, the white supremacist Confederation of Regions and other such MPPs representing a minuscule protest vote is a good thing. I personally think that's crazy.

The only thing that is crazy is you thinking that a white supremecist party can actually get 3% of the vote.
 
Confederation of Regions isn't "white supremacist"; it's English-rights. And besides, its time in the sun (when it really might have hit 3%) was around 1990. It's a spent force.

Though remember that when it comes to voting for parties at large rather than per constituency, minor parties can "gain" (i.e. in a seat where a Green candidate might get 3%, the "at large" ballot might double or triple that mandate)
 
I'm sorry adma, but look at those CoR candidates.

Doady, they got 2% of the vote. Don't you think they might get more if they could actually win a seat in the legislature? They might just get the multiple members you wish for.
 
Probably because the federal NDP have worked with the Conservatives more often than not in order to keep the Liberals out of power. The federal NDP has no interest in governing; they have an interest in being the official opposition.

If you take a careful look, their battle is with the Liberals not with the Conservatives. The Liberals are the greatest threat to them.

By the way, I don't view the NDP provincially as a "small" party. They have governed, so in my opinion they are a big party.
How do you know they wouldn't want to be part of a coalition government? They could just as easily team up with the liberals in an MMP parliament as with the conservatives if that's what suits their interests. The provincial NDP is a small party that won an election by fluke. The Green party is polling within 1% of the NDP right now, and only the Conservatives and Liberals stand any chance of winning the election.
 
How do you know they wouldn't want to be part of a coalition government? They could just as easily team up with the liberals in an MMP parliament as with the conservatives if that's what suits their interests. The provincial NDP is a small party that won an election by fluke. The Green party is polling within 1% of the NDP right now, and only the Conservatives and Liberals stand any chance of winning the election.

I think that what you are forgetting is that political parties identify themsleves by way of their differences from other political parties. Coalitions can be quite threatening because there is always a risk of losing your party identity when forming such a government. There is always a risk that certain party members would come to view their respective party as a sell-out should it form a coalition with another party of distinct ideology.

Sure, parties can team up any different way; there's just no guarantee about how they may do so, or to what ends. That means no guarantee to you, the voter. So your concern that the NDP will never see status as a government may be offset by them teaming with Greens, or cobbling together smaller parties with some limited set of platforms that match their own. You might not be getting the whole NDP platform, and the Greens may identified as king-makers who are more worthy of respect because they were given respect through forming a coalition. In other words, changing the voting system could easily alter the party landscape simply because fringe or protest parties would then have a chance of acquiring a seat and being courted by vote-hungry coalitions.

Nice that you mentioned the Liberals in an era of a Liberal majority. It was not too long ago when such an event seemed like an alien idea in Ontario.
 

Back
Top