[unimaginative2]

when you talk about percentage, are you talking about percentage of seats or the vote?

Now that it's finally been explained to me, I can explain that the system is designed to make the percentage of seats as close as possible to the percentage of the party vote. Those extra 39 seats will be allocated to rebalance the legislature to make it match the party vote. For example, last election the Liberals would have gotten none of the seats, the NDP most, and the Tories some as well.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

list members?

who picks them?

 

[unimaginative2]

The party leadership, so it's also rather likely that they'll be extremely pliable to the leader.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

The party leadership, so it's also rather likely that they'll be extremely pliable to the leader.

so this is more democratic how exactly

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

so if "crazy party" gets no local seats but 2% of the party vote, "crazy party" gets 2% of the seats in the form of list members who nobody voted for and are chosen by "crazy party" ??

sounds kinda crazy

 

[unimaginative2]

Now you've got it! Though it would have to be 3%, not 2%.

 

[MisterF]

Interesting that most of votes in the poll support MMP, but it's the critics that are the most vocal.

Where parties who get 3% of the vote can hold the whole government of the province hostage? That's what happens in Israel and Italy, and it's a disaster. I don't want my government having to make deals with the Christian Heritage party to get its legislation through.

Israel? Come on, that country isn't even remotely comparable to Ontario. And we have more in common with stable democracies like Germany or New Zealand (which use MMP successfully) than Italy. Even Italy's government has been functioning better recently from what I've heard. But yes, if a party wins with 49% of the vote, they don't have a majority, so giving them a majority is undemocratic. They should have to form a coalition or cooperate with another party to govern.

so if "crazy party" gets no local seats but 2% of the party vote, "crazy party" gets 2% of the seats in the form of list members who nobody voted for and are chosen by "crazy party" ??

sounds kinda crazy

If a party has 3% of the vote then they absolutely should get seats, regardless of where their voters live. The Green party is basically as popular as the NDP right now but their support isn't concentrated. Does that make them less worthy of representation? It's not like the party lists would be secret, when you vote for a party you know exactly who you're voting for. Those candidates are voted in just like any other, it's just that they're representing the province at large instead of a specific riding. I see no reason why parties whose votes are widespread instead of localized shouldn't get seats. Isn't support from all over the province what we want from a political party?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

If a party has 3% of the vote then they absolutely should get seats, regardless of where their voters live.

my concern is with the list member part.

 

[CDL.TO]

But he is talking about the list member part.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

But he is talking about the list member part.

i know, but the party chooses these list members, not the people. this is what i don't like.

 

[CDL.TO]

Do you like the "party's power in the legislature is equal to their percentage of the vote" part? If so, what other way would you prefer to choose the people who hold that power?

Under the MMP proposal, parties are required to submit their lists before the election, including an explanation of how the party list members were chosen. This information will be publicly accessible. If a party list is simply full of party bootlickers, we'll be able to see that and the party will be thoroughly criticized for it. If you don't like the party list, you don't have to vote for it even if you prefer that party's local candidate.

 

[MisterF]

That's the way I see it too. The people still vote for the "list" candidates, they're just voted in at large instead of in ridings.

i know, but the party chooses these list members, not the people. this is what i don't like.

The people don't choose local candidates either. The parties do.

 

[unimaginative2]

But yes, if a party wins with 49% of the vote, they don't have a majority, so giving them a majority is undemocratic. They should have to form a coalition or cooperate with another party to govern.

I think it's quite undemocratic to force parties supported by a very large plurality of the electorate to co-operate and make concessions to fringe parties in order to get a majority. Why should a party with 3% of the vote have the same power as a party supported by 30% or more? We'll still have big parties left out in the cold of opposition. The only beneficiaries here are the fringe.

The people do choose the local candidate. For one thing, you're marking a ballot with that person's name on it. Moreover, if you're just voting for the party, you can join that party very easily and nominate anyone you like. Even longtime party members won't have a say in choosing the list members -- that will be done purely from the party's leader's office.

Oh, and Germany and Italy aren't such great models. Germany has a higher percentage requirement for a party to enter the Bundestag, so it's harder for fringe parties than it would be in Ontario. Even so, their system allows the ex-Communists into the Bundestag and neo-Nazis into the state legislatures. I can't quite see how that's a good thing. In Italy, politics are a mess, and they're even worse than they were in the past when at least the Christian Democrats had a unifying role. Now, elections are contests between vast and unwieldy coalitions of tiny parties, many of which are based around the personality of one leader. As you might imagine, people who decide to create parties around themselves have rather large egos, and they hold the government hostage for every single decision. Urgent reform is almost impossible in Italy. For example, cracking down on crime is extremely difficult because many of the small parties have been penetrated by criminal elements, and they threaten to leave the coalitions and bring down the government if any tough laws are passed. Same goes for labour reform, tax reform, etc. etc.

 

[rbt]

I think it's quite undemocratic to force parties supported by a very large plurality of the electorate to co-operate and make concessions to fringe parties in order to get a majority. Why should a party with 3% of the vote have the same power as a party supported by 30% or more? We'll still have big parties left out in the cold of opposition. The only beneficiaries here are the fringe.

There will likely be several fringe parties to work with one of which will offer something pretty small to work with.

The better question is why should 45% of the electorate be able to push around 55% of the electorate? Surely a 45% party + support/input from a 6% party would produce something that a larger portion of the population is happy with.

 

[Roy G Biv]

I think it's quite undemocratic to force parties supported by a very large plurality of the electorate to co-operate and make concessions to fringe parties in order to get a majority.

You have a point, but I hope you're not arguing that the MMP system is less democratic than the current one.

Minority governments aren't the devil. Pearson accomplished quite a bit, didn't he?

Concessions will be made to "fringe" parties. Will the impact of said concessions be proportional to the respresentation of those parties? That is the question. If they are, and even if the concession advances the agenda of a party we might find disgusting (NPD in the Bundestag), the process is quite democratic.

You can't say "Well, everyone's vote should count... except for ...".