Proportional Representation - MMP

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

More Ontario politics, though this discussion is relevant to plenty of other places as well.

In conjunction with the general election on Wednesday, Ontario will be holding a referendum on whether to adopt Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting.

Under the proposal, on your ballot, you would cast votes for both your individual riding candidate, and for a political party.  Once all the riding representatives have been decided, each party (provided they receive at least 3% of the vote) would also get "party" representatives so that each party's representation in the legislature would be proportional to their share of the popular vote.  Party representatives would be taken from an ordered list provided and made public by each party before the election.

This is a first for Canada, but similar systems are used in other places.  What do fellow Toadfish think of these types of voting systems?  Anyone live where one is used now?  How well does it work?

More information on what's being proposed in Ontario:

The System at a Glance - a guide to MMP from the body that proposed it

MMP Guide - Toronto Star

Vote for MMP - campaign for the "yes" side

NO MMP - campaign for the "no" side

[Griffin NoName]

I'm in favour. It's probably the nearest we can get to anarchy !!

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Although the idea makes sense, I do have some misgivings about the 'faceless' list of would be representatives. Back home, while the system is 'participative' (favors small groups or candidates, the downside is that a person can get elected with too few votes which falls into the hands of the guys that buy votes) we do have lists and what end up happening is they are less accountable to the public because nobody voted for them directly. Too frequently I hear that the most outrageous legislation is often proposed by those individuals.

In my cynic view of the world most legislators everywhere are shady b**tards and I don't know a system able to manage that fact. 

[anthrobabe]

Sounds interesting -- I need to do more reserch.
Of course here in the USA we have the - "I'm the decider." thing going on.

Can we put W on your list up there-- he's going to need a new gig soon and he might just fill an interesting slot for you

[beagle]

I'm not a huge fan of the idea. For one thing it can give disproportionate power to extreme small groups. For another, the people who get on the automatic "list" are likely to be chosen for their loyalty to the party leader rather than their determination to defend their constituents (Sibling Zono's point).  The ability to throw your MP out is the root of all accountability.

I suspect critics will point at what happened in Israel. For me the biggest argument against is that supporting it would make me a Liberal Democrat, which means a beard and a duffel coat.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

I'm not a huge fan of the idea. For one thing it can give disproportionate power to extreme small groups.

How so?

I realize that it may let more fringe candidates get seats, but seeing how they would only get in if people actually vote for them, isn't that just democracy?  Is there some other implication that I'm missing?

For another, the people who get on the automatic "list" are likely to be chosen for their loyalty to the party leader rather than their determination to defend their constituents (Sibling Zono's point).

I agree... and this is my main misgiving about the proposed situation.

In our political tradition, sometimes MPs or MPPs vote against their party and get booted out from their party as a consequence.  When this happens now, the person sits as an independent.  I could only assume that if a list member is booted out of the party for reasons of conscience, the member would lose his or her seat in the legislature as well.

In the end, though, I'm not sure how much weight I put on the worry that list members will just end up being "rubber stamp" votes for the party, warm bodies to stand up and say "yea" or "nay" when directed by the leader of their party, since I think this happens now anyway with riding-based representatives in the vast majority of situations.

The ability to throw your MP out is the root of all accountability.

Though we don't have that power now, really.  Canadian voters don't have the right to recall elected officials.

I suspect critics will point at what happened in Israel. For me the biggest argument against is that supporting it would make me a Liberal Democrat, which means a beard and a duffel coat.

Beard and a duffel coat?   

In Canada, we've seen a fair bit of the other side of the coin as well: the Ontario provincial election in 1990 saw the New Democratic Party elected to a majority with less than 38% of the popular vote. 

Also, at the Federal level, the first-past-the-post system hasn't so much resulted in fewer "fringe party" representatives, but just a greater emphasis on regionally-based loopiness than spread-out loopiness.  The worst example of this in popular memory was the 1993 federal election: the Conservatives, who were the incumbent party, got 16% of the vote and won only two seats.  The Reform Party (right-wing, support based primarily in Alberta) got 19% and won 52 seats.  The Bloc Quebecois (separatist, do not run candidates outside of Quebec) got 14% (less than the Conservatives!) and became the Official Opposition with 54 seats.

This regional voting tends to happen less often provincially, but one hope that I have is that if MMP works in Ontario, it can be used as an example to point to before it is implemented federally.

I do have problems with the proposed system that's up for referendum, but when I consider whether it's better than our current system, I'm inclined to think that it is.

[Griffin NoName]

I suspect critics will point at what happened in Israel. For me the biggest argument against is that supporting it would make me a Liberal Democrat, which means a beard and a duffel coat.

Beard and a duffel coat?   

Beagle may be a little out of date here.

On extreme small groups - why shouldn't they be represented - more democratic and preferable to the system where a huge number of voters are completely unrepresented. All we have now is centre ground. But I refer you back to my post above

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Ooo, a beagle shedding his tory credentials to become a LibDem? That sounds interesting!  

[beagle]

I'm not a huge fan of the idea. For one thing it can give disproportionate power to extreme small groups.

How so?

I realize that it may let more fringe candidates get seats, but seeing how they would only get in if people actually vote for them, isn't that just democracy?  Is there some other implication that I'm missing?

It was so long ago now I can't find the reference, but, AFAICR, in Israel small extreme religious groups could push through policies that bigger parties didn't want as a bargaining chip for holding the balance of power and supporting them on issues they desperately wanted to push through.  Banning flights on the Jewish sabbath was one issue if I remember correctly.

In the end, though, I'm not sure how much weight I put on the worry that list members will just end up being "rubber stamp" votes for the party, warm bodies to stand up and say "yea" or "nay" when directed by the leader of their party, since I think this happens now anyway with riding-based representatives in the vast majority of situations.

Vote for old MPs. Once they're past the ministerial ambition stage fear overtakes greed and they are more afraid of losing their existing job than optimistic about getting the Treasury post, with consequent focus on constituency issues. 

Ooo, a beagle shedding his tory credentials to become a LibDem? That sounds interesting!

Don't hold your breath.  Incidentally, I knew a Liberal Democrat council candidate and he really did go round with a beard and in a duffel coat. Only about five years ago, but they may have had a makeover since then. 

On extreme small groups - why shouldn't they be represented - more democratic and preferable to the system where a huge number of voters are completely unrepresented. All we have now is centre ground.

Consider the down side. An unpopular government that knows it would lose more seats if it held an election, being forced to court the BNP or an extreme Islamic party to get its policies through. After GB's "British jobs for British workers" speech would you rule it out as a possibility?  (No Tory would have dared make that speech BTW, IMHO).

Also consider Italy, 61 governments in 62 years.

[Swatopluk]

Sounds like the system used over here (we have a 5% threshold and a special rule that any party getting 3 direct mandates receives a bonus even while missing the 5%).
It does indeed shift the power to the party leadership through the "list mandates" selcetion process but that is not that big a problem here as it would be e.g. in the USA. German MPs tend not to be crazy and/or millionaires but are usually "boring" public servants (schoolteachers and the like) or lawyers (and that's a normal job over here, not a licence to print money).
Also gerrymandering has no tradition over here, so "job security" has to be provided by other means.

[Griffin NoName]

On extreme small groups - why shouldn't they be represented - more democratic and preferable to the system where a huge number of voters are completely unrepresented. All we have now is centre ground.

Consider the down side. An unpopular government that knows it would lose more seats if it held an election, being forced to court the BNP or an extreme Islamic party to get its policies through. After GB's "British jobs for British workers" speech would you rule it out as a possibility?  (No Tory would have dared make that speech BTW, IMHO).

Also consider Italy, 61 governments in 62 years.

If the government is unpopular,  it should fail to get it's policies through, prevented by the possibly more popular groups, extremist or otherwise. All MPs should stick to their elected mandate instead of running around making alliances.

On the British question, perhaps GB believes jobs such as plumbing are not British?   

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

It was so long ago now I can't find the reference, but, AFAICR, in Israel small extreme religious groups could push through policies that bigger parties didn't want as a bargaining chip for holding the balance of power and supporting them on issues they desperately wanted to push through.  Banning flights on the Jewish sabbath was one issue if I remember correctly.

Considering other rules that I've heard of in Israel (e.g. apparently their Building Code tries very hard to incorporate a modern interpretation of Mosaic Law... to the extent that they have to do something funny with their elevators, because otherwise the power created by the motor as the elevator descends could be considered "starting a fire on the Sabbath"), I don't think a ban on airling flights on the Sabbath wouldn't be too big a leap.

Like I mentioned before, Canada has had a history of fringe parties with "interesting" ideas getting elected, but they tend to be regionally based... and ruling parties do tend to cater to them.  The Conservatives (centre/right) eventually merged with Reform (significantly further right), since they both recognized they were splitting the right wing vote... but this pulled the party more to the right than ever.  The separatist Bloc Quebecois has also held the balance of power and got many concessions over the years from the ruling party.

Vote for old MPs. Once they're past the ministerial ambition stage fear overtakes greed and they are more afraid of losing their existing job than optimistic about getting the Treasury post, with consequent focus on constituency issues. 

Even old MPs are vulnerable to "parachuting", where the party head office overrides the local riding association's candidate choice in favour of their own... this does happen, usually a few times each election.  Actually, this election is the first time I can recall not hearing of this happening.

And at the Federal level, when old MPs start worrying about job security, they set their eye on the senate, and start pandering to the party even more.   

[beagle]

I think Labour's going rate for a seat in our "senate" is about £1m, putting it out of the reach of most backbench MPs.

[Swatopluk]

In olden times that was known as simony and an especially grave sin (at least, if it involved church sinecures)

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

In olden times that was known as simony and an especially grave sin (at least, if it involved church sinecures)

I believe that the definition of simony restricts it to only matters relating to the church and its blessings.

Update: the referendum was held last night. MMP lost in a big way.  It got 36.8% of the popular vote and a majority in 5 of 107 electoral districts.  To pass, it would have needed 60% overall and a majority in 64 districts.  It's First-past-the-post for Ontario for the foreseeable future, it seems.