This year’s provincial election confirms again that Ontarianada continues to define the nation but still is shy of itself. The issues here are the issues of the land but no one is really talking about them. The laws created here will be copied, the wealth will support schools and hospitals nationwide – with nary a peep of reluctance or, reciprocally, gratitude.
There is a new idea that has barely registered with an acronym that I honestly do not know the meaning of – though I will in about 14 seconds when I go read what brother #1 wrote over the weekend about MMP or “Mixed Member Proportional” voting. He points out some valid concerns but I will likely vote for it as the present concerns are too obvious. Anything to get a new voice or two into the public mindset and, hey, minority legislative assemblies work. In fact if there was a referendum allowing us to cap the seats of the biggest party at a majority or minority of the seats, I know which way I would be voting.
All of which leads me to the fact that I have not apparently written anything on this blog or the beer blog about the PPPP or Polska Partia Przyjaciół Piwathe Polish beer drinkers party of the early 90s that won seats in that country’s legislative assembly in the early elections after the fall of Communism. Sort of their Rhino party or the revived Neorhinos. I had to figure out why the kids in my class kept saying “pa-pa-pa-pa!” – not to mention why they always quoted Scandinavian heavy metal. I am sure I wrote about the PPPP. You know, it’s probably a vestigial memory of the world pre-blog when I actually emailed people I knew before the internet.
But whatever it was, now I say “MMP for the PPPP.”
Hans – October 1, 2007 10:07 AM
http://www.electoralboundaries.pe.ca/submissions/pdf/connor.pdf
I would urge you to listen to your brother and vote No for MMP. While I speak from my (ahem, considerable) experience in PEI with the question of electoral reform and things may be quite different in the setting of Ontario, MMP is a poor solution to a poorly defined problem. Or as Murray Campbell of the Globe & Mail says “a solution looking for a problem”.
Alan – October 1, 2007 10:35 AM
MMP failed in PEI due to that other unique factor, the power of the parties to control job allocation as a campaign pressure tactic. Hence the collapse of the famous love of democracy and high voter turn out – after all, few come to the dinner table when the meal is not set out. MMP threw one wild card too many into the mix. Here, with a dynamic active population, it will provide a more reasonable representative of the diverse population.
Paul of Kingston – October 1, 2007 11:03 AM
I am not convinced that MMP will solve anything except to get the Greens a seat or five. Don’t get me wrong – I like the policy platform of the Greens and would be thrilled if they managed to get seats under the current electoral system.
Bad: We have to pay the salary for an extra 22 politicians.
Bad: The creation of a two tier heirarchy of politicians – those who were legitimately elected by the people and those who were rewarded (read patronage) with an appointment by party bosses. This, in my mind, makes them democratically illegitimate, non-starters for ministerial consideration and fair game for shouting down if they were ever so bold to open their mouths in parliament. In effect they become immasculated “almost real” MPPs.
Bad: Politicians being selected by party bosses using some form of quasi-open process that ultimately becomes a process of patronage appointment.
Bad: A post-election night process (who knows how long it will take) of naming non-elected winners that leaves you and me scratching our heads as we wait for news to come out of some black box in some party HQ office.
Good: The chronically politically disenfrachised get to cheer that they have finally gained a seat or five in parliament – but… their victory will be perpetually tainted by the shadow of illegitimacy of their men and women at Queens Park.
Listen for this 18 months from now: “She/he turned out to be such a well liked MPP that she/he is being urged to run as a “real candidate” in the next election.
Alan – October 1, 2007 11:05 AM
If we had a primary system like in the states, I would accept the notion that the current process of picking cadidates has a relationship to democracy.
Paul of Kingston – October 1, 2007 11:40 AM
I agree that the candidate selection process here is less than democratic but I don’t want to dilute the democratic element further by adding another layer of party-controlled representation through MMP.
Alan – October 1, 2007 11:44 AM
I am happy to trade what is effectively the status quo (parties already cherry pick) for the prospect of more parties. Best would be a primary system so that I can over ride the hierarchy of any party I might join.
Hans – October 1, 2007 11:51 AM
The questions really are: What are democratic values or what are the elements of a democracy that make one system more democratice than another? Why is it good to have a diversity of political parties in a legislative assembly? Will the society have a better government because of that? The answer, of course, is you can’t prove that it would which, in my opinion is not sufficiently positive to outweigh the proven downside of Proportional Representation, which is that it entrenches a political class into the legislative branch of government who lose touch with not only the populace but also their own parties. Nothin could be less democratic than that.
Hans – October 1, 2007 11:53 AM
…While I detest MMP, I could live with STV which is like having run-offs or primaries, but all on one ballot. But I should really stop interfering in Ontario politics and let you lads and lasses sort it out….
Ryan – October 1, 2007 3:08 PM
http://ryanchen-wing.com
Paul of Kingston: “Bad: A post-election night process (who knows how long it will take) of naming non-elected winners that leaves you and me scratching our heads as we wait for news to come out of some black box in some party HQ office.”
The list candidates are selected before the election:
Temujin – October 1, 2007 9:18 PM
Don’t vote, Alan. You know you don’t really want to. It won’t any difference who you choose. 🙂
Jay Currie – October 3, 2007 3:18 AM
http://jaycurrie.info-syn.com
My less admirable side is all for MMP simply because, along with Greens, there might be all manner of splinter parties able to have a voice in Parliament.
How about an Orange (as in Lodge) party, or a smokers rights party, or a no tax party, or an Indian (or Native)(or aboriginal) or all three in different parties?
How about a Kingston Party and one for London and one for Thunder Bay?
We could have a Muslim party or two and perhaps the folks at Jane and Finch will tire of shooting each other and offer up a posse party (or a party posse).
The flea can run and win as the sole candidate of the educated, slightly right, UrBan GoTh party.
Naomi Klein and Avi can run as Red Diaper Babies and Conrad Black can run to clear his name in the font of the people’s choice.
We might have a Bankers and Brokers party and, of course, about a dozen lawyers’ parties (or do we already have those?)
Perhaps Leah McLaren will run her panties up the pole and see who salutes. (Or at least recognizes them.)
And let us not forget the exciting possibility of the Zerb, fresh from blogging infamy, running as a complete independent, untethered to even Mother Earth. John Fraser could set up the middle aged fogeys party, while assorted children with unpronounceable last names can run as a last, lame, attempt for the CBC to find the youth market.
Moses Znaimer can run as the flow candidate and Margaret Atwood can join Judy Rebick on the Really Annoying Nasal Voice ticket.
Perhaps, in the near future, Lady Black, with time on her hands, could join the fray promising a…but, alas, this is a family blog.
Oh, the things you will do and the things you’ll see,
I can’t help but think, better you than me.
Alan – October 3, 2007 8:30 AM
What is wrong with any of that? Surely you do not suggest our natural masters have already been anointed.