[Hydrogen]

Well, it's not an assumption, but a fact... Ok, not everyone, not all the time... Just almost everyone. Care to guess how many people know their MP or MPPs name (or God forbid, anything about them)? I'll give two tries... Surely this should be common knowledge if people are voting for the person.

So is it fact or isn't it? You seem undecided. And just how many people can rattle off the election platform of their favoured party? How many actually grasp the implications of what the read in a party platform?

So, wait... Parties can control their lists... Just like they control the riding nominations process; why does John and not Jane get to be on that ballot for our great plurality system? Oh, because John got nominated by the party and Jane didn't. Hmmmm... I could perhaps be forgiven if I do not see what is SO different with what we have now.

That's my point to you!

MMP amplifies the centrality of the parties. If you find the party control over nominations annoying now, then MMP is even more controlling in that respect.

Please provide me with statistics on how often the party member breaks ranks in the current system, so that we can once and for all actually banish this idea that MMP will radically change the system.

If you cannot find the stats, I'll find them for you at my earliest convenience. And if you do favour that we move towards a 'strong individual' 'weak party' system, please explain why that is more democratic, especially given the very tangible reality of the lobbying industry in such a system (one just needs to look over to our neighbour).

And finally, please explain in what way would you argue the CURRENT system is MORE or EQUALLY democratic than the alternative. I am very interested.

Let me hit it right back to you; how many of the party-appointed reps in MMP will break ranks? Who do they have to answer to? If you don't like the present system for this reason, then how you can you like the MMP version better?

At the basic level, every person running as an MPP faces the electorate in a given jurisdiction in a direct vote. In MMP, the parties gain ever greater control over selecting potential candidates. Being political parties, I have little doubt that they will use this control to further reduce the influence of local ridings to an even greater degree. Local direct representation will be further diminished.

Is this more equal democracy? What do you mean by "more equal democracy?" What measures of equality are you attempting to invoke here? Do you believe that equality is the sole force that drives political activity?

You have a vote, I have a vote. You exercise the ballot in the way you see fit, as do I. But then, maybe you confuse the idea of voting as being synonymous with democracy. In fact, voting is the lowest order of participation. This proposed system makes parties ever more central and more controlling with respect to representation.

 

[Hydrogen]

Here's a thought: the fact that at large MPPs aren't tied to a local riding could actually be a good thing. They won't be occupied by minor local concerns, so they'll have time to concentrate on larger issues.

Presently, MPP's are occupied by local issues because they represent local constituencies of people. What issue is there other than the well-being of the people of they represent?

As for MPP's focussing on larger issues; like what? Are they going to go to Queen's Park to mine the platonic realm for ideas? Maybe they'll just up being party lap dogs.


Once again, you seem to be attempting to suggest the promise of unrealized value to MMP that can't be known.

 

[unimaginative2]

MMP amplifies the centrality of the parties. If you find the party control over nominations annoying now, then MMP is even more controlling in that respect.

Exactly! If you want to change your local party candidate, any voter in the province can join their political party of choice and nominate whomever they want. They can even knock off an incumbent who doesn't accurately represent their views. That's why, for example, many federal Liberal MPs voted against gun control, and the Liberal Brampton MPPs voted against the Peel restructuring. Under the MMP system, nobody but the party leadership has any voice in who is placed on the party list and the order in which they appear. Obviously just about everybody will have some issues with their party list, but that will likely not be enough to change their vote. The same is true for a person voting for a local MP, but at least you can democratically change your party's local candidate.

Under the MMP system, a very large number of the proportional seats would likely go to the NDP. They would make up the large majority of that party's caucus. One man in the province -- Howard Hampton -- would be choosing over twenty of our MPPs. Howard Hampton would personally choose more MPPs than the entire City of Toronto.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

MMP is so contradictory in a democratic sense.

 

[MisterF]

Presently, MPP's are occupied by local issues because they represent local constituencies of people. What issue is there other than the well-being of the people of they represent?

None. Which is exactly my point. The at large MPPs represent the people of Ontario, not just the people in local consituencies. It seems logical that their focus would be on province-wide issues instead of local issues.

Once again, you seem to be attempting to suggest the promise of unrealized value to MMP that can't be known.

Once again, you seem to be attempting to suggest the unrealized drawbacks of MMP that can't be known. We're both doing the same thing so you calling me out on it does nothing but draw attention to the holes in your own argument.

Under the MMP system, a very large number of the proportional seats would likely go to the NDP. They would make up the large majority of that party's caucus. One man in the province -- Howard Hampton -- would be choosing over twenty of our MPPs. Howard Hampton would personally choose more MPPs than the entire City of Toronto.

Only if the party gets the votes. If people don't like the list candidates, they won't vote for them.

If the party members chose the list candidates, would you find that a better solution? That's a detail that could always be changed in the future.

 

[cacruden]

None. Which is exactly my point. The at large MPPs represent the people of Ontario, not just the people in local consituencies. It seems logical that their focus would be on province-wide issues instead of local issues.

I disagree, the people did not elect those individuals, the leader of a losing party appointed them to the list. They are getting into parliament through the back-door.

Most people vote for the LEADER of the party that they most identify with -- to a much lesser extent, if they did not make up their mind based on the leader - the local candidate -- very few people will even look at the list -- which will likely made up of yahoo's that are either beholden to the leader (not the people).

Your dreaming if you think they will be representing "the people".

 

[unimaginative2]

Only if the party gets the votes. If people don't like the list candidates, they won't vote for them.

On one hand, you say that local candidates under the current system are pointless because people only vote for the party, and yet you suggest that people won't vote for the party that they've always supported because they don't like a few names on their list? Clearly NDPers will still vote NDP, and Liberals will still vote Liberal, with a little shifting on the margins. That means that the NDP, the primary beneficiary of this system, will get more than 20 seats every time. And every one of those people will be personally chosen by the leader of that party -- Howard Hampton. With our current system, party members can at least turf out an undesirable local candidate. That option doesn't exist with list-based proportional representation, and there's no workable mechanism to provide it.

 

[ShonTron]

MPP candidates are chosen either by backroom politics at the constituency association level, sometimes subject to instant-membership to stack the constituency association. Or they can be picked by the leader directly, by-passing the process. That is with the current first-past-the-post system. Look at Etobicoke-Lakeshore for one example of this.

I agree - many people vote for the leader of the party and/or the party itself, at least MMP allows this, as well as selecting a candidate you like the most or can stomach.

I've been torn before - in Brampton West, I wanted to vote Liberal, but the Liberal MPP there is a complete moron (which is probably why it might go Tory), and Tony Clement was the incumbant. I voted NDP, though I didn't know that candidate at all.

Federally, I voted Liberal because I liked the local Liberal MP, but didn't like Martin and preferred Layton. But Tony Clement came back and ran federally after being turfed by the Liberal idiot, making my choice to vote Liberal easier. But under MMP, I'd vote for the Liberal candidate, and vote NDP for the party list.

 

[Hydrogen]

None. Which is exactly my point. The at large MPPs represent the people of Ontario, not just the people in local consituencies. It seems logical that their focus would be on province-wide issues instead of local issues.

The fact that these MPP's will represent all the people of Ontario is because they will represent no one in particular. Their allegiance will be to the party; they don't have to think about the impact of specific issues on constituents because they won't have any.

Once again, you seem to be attempting to suggest the unrealized drawbacks of MMP that can't be known. We're both doing the same thing so you calling me out on it does nothing but draw attention to the holes in your own argument.

Pointing out holes is different from proving why they are holes. It strikes me as almost comical that people would want to resort to giving parties extra control over representation because they are concerned about the concentration of party power in the present system, and then go on to define that as being more democratic.

Presenting a wish list of what MMP will do for government, and offering it up as a fact of what is to come, is nothing more than imagination at work. No party has made any written-in-stone promises of what they would do with their select representatives. But one can make an assumption that since party needs will drive the selection of such potential members, party allegiance will stand out first and foremost.

Since we are talking about altering the electoral system, I, as a voter and a citizen, want to to make damn sure that my interests are not reduced to satisfy excessive concentrations of party power.

 

[salvius]

So is it fact or isn't it? You seem undecided. And just how many people can rattle off the election platform of their favoured party? How many actually grasp the implications of what the read in a party platform?

Yes, it is a fact. Generally, less than 20% of the electorate claims to vote for their candidate as opposed to the party. What does this tell us? People generally vote for parties, and few vote for candidates.

MMP allows people to do BOTH instead of continuing the illusion that most people vote for their candidates. Very FEW do. And maybe, in fact, more would vote for candidates themselves if they knew they could do this but still also have their preferred party have a say.

That's my point to you!

MMP amplifies the centrality of the parties. If you find the party control over nominations annoying now, then MMP is even more controlling in that respect.

How is it 'even more controlling?' What is this great difference in nominating candidates on a per riding level and doing a province-wide nomination? How does this radically change anything?

Let me hit it right back to you; how many of the party-appointed reps in MMP will break ranks? Who do they have to answer to? If you don't like the present system for this reason, then how you can you like the MMP version better?

I actually do not have a problem with the present system because of this. Party discipline is problematic, but weak party discipline drastically increases the power of lobby groups, which are generally completely unaccountable to the electorate. The party is, however, in a very real way accountable.

At the basic level, every person running as an MPP faces the electorate in a given jurisdiction in a direct vote. In MMP, the parties gain ever greater control over selecting potential candidates. Being political parties, I have little doubt that they will use this control to further reduce the influence of local ridings to an even greater degree. Local direct representation will be further diminished.

An assumption. In what way could they further reduce the influence of local ridings (as if there was any real influence at the moment) and has this been borne out in countries utilising MMP? The only reduction in influence would be the slight increase in the size of local ridings; on the other hand, people can vote for their local candidate even if they prefer another party.

Is this more equal democracy? What do you mean by "more equal democracy?" What measures of equality are you attempting to invoke here? Do you believe that equality is the sole force that drives political activity?

If more than 80% of people vote for political parties, but have their votes filtered down through local candidates, then something is amiss between how we vote and how the electoral system works.

I am asking for a system that is more in tune with how people vote and that doesn't consider the majority of the vote worthless.

You have a vote, I have a vote. You exercise the ballot in the way you see fit, as do I. But then, maybe you confuse the idea of voting as being synonymous with democracy. In fact, voting is the lowest order of participation. This proposed system makes parties ever more central and more controlling with respect to representation.

Indeed, you have a vote, I have a vote. But if the candidate in my riding doesn't win--even if they got 33% vs. your 34%--my vote is worth 0%, and the 34% of your vote is worth 100%. And of course, this result creates completely phony majorities in parliament in which the party that the minority voted calls the shots as if they received majority vote. I'm still boggled that someone would consider this preferable to MMP which by and large eliminates these flaws.

Voting is not synonymous with democracy, but it's obviously an important component of one. Arguing that, hey, this isn't all that important anyway is a confession that our system is far from the best.

 

[cacruden]

I actually do not have a problem with the present system because of this. Party discipline is problematic, but weak party discipline drastically increases the power of lobby groups, which are generally completely unaccountable to the electorate. The party is, however, in a very real way accountable.

The power of lobby groups has very little to do with party discipline (strong or weak), it has to do with money. It is a combination of weak election regulations, and money that determines how much a lobby group can exert influence (assuming the influence being exerted is counter to public opinion).

Getting elected costs money, lots of money. Lobby groups have money. Given enough money, and access (lack of regulation of contacts), you can buy yourself support in the government. You can buy that support when it is centralized (i.e. strong party discipline & small group of powerful people), or you can buy yourself support when it is not centralized (i.e. weak party discipline & a relative large group of relatively powerful people). In fact it might actually cost the lobby group more money when the party discipline is weak since you have to spread the money around more widely.

For that reason, I believe your argument visa vie weak party discipline being a lobby groups dream is erroneous.

 

[unimaginative2]

How is it 'even more controlling?' What is this great difference in nominating candidates on a per riding level and doing a province-wide nomination? How does this radically change anything?

The difference is that the province-wide candidates are not nominated. They're selected by the leader. This is the case in every jurisdiction that uses proportional representation. Local candidates in our present system are selected by the party members. Even if, as SeanTrans said, you stack the riding association with certain groups, those are still voters in the riding and if they care enough to sign up and show up, why shouldn't their chosen candidate be selected? Moreover, a sufficiently unpopular candidate can be thrown out quite easily, as has happened time and time again. None of this will be possible with these list candidates.

 

[salvius]

The power of lobby groups has very little to do with party discipline (strong or weak), it has to do with money. It is a combination of weak election regulations, and money that determines how much a lobby group can exert influence (assuming the influence being exerted is counter to public opinion).

Getting elected costs money, lots of money. Lobby groups have money. Given enough money, and access (lack of regulation of contacts), you can buy yourself support in the government. You can buy that support when it is centralized (i.e. strong party discipline & small group of powerful people), or you can buy yourself support when it is not centralized (i.e. weak party discipline & a relative large group of relatively powerful people). In fact it might actually cost the lobby group more money when the party discipline is weak since you have to spread the money around more widely.

For that reason, I believe your argument visa vie weak party discipline being a lobby groups dream is erroneous.

Eh... I can't agree.

Since party discipline is weak, you do not need to 'twist the arms' of everyone in the party. Lobby groups routinely pull out 'feelers' designed to gage how particular members will vote; in the example of US, whether they be Republican or Democrat is completely irrelevant. They go after the people whose votes they need changed, obviously not after the House of Congress/Senate as a whole.

BUT, that doesn't mean that the lobby industry STOPS somehow funding Democrats/Republicans on a party level--they still do that too (and quite often, the interest groups fund both parties). It's not without a reason the US has the largest number of lobby groups registered in the world.

Curbing personal lobbying in the US is a huge issue, something you surely know about (given your avatar).

 

[salvius]

The difference is that the province-wide candidates are not nominated. They're selected by the leader. This is the case in every jurisdiction that uses proportional representation. Local candidates in our present system are selected by the party members. Even if, as SeanTrans said, you stack the riding association with certain groups, those are still voters in the riding and if they care enough to sign up and show up, why shouldn't their chosen candidate be selected? Moreover, a sufficiently unpopular candidate can be thrown out quite easily, as has happened time and time again. None of this will be possible with these list candidates.

The list of candidates is generated by a party and doesn't just come from the dark corners of the universe. If the MPPs at large are making very unpopular decisions, you can always punish the party.

 

[unimaginative2]

The only way to punish just one or two list members who are behaving badly is to vote against the whole party that you support, and instead vote for a party that you don't agree with. That doesn't sound more democratic than the current system, where you can join the party and remove the candidate.