HawthorneVillager.com

I am not fully understanding the new system.

(for your reference)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_el ... ndum,_2007

What if... everyone voted for there local candidates, the big three... but then everyone votes for the Green Party as the political party winner....
What happens in that scenario?

Also
In your opinion, is the new system better?

(and no hi-jacking my thread please :p )

_________________
Pain is Temporary Pride is forever

I agree with you - I think I understand the system, however some of its mechanics aren't 100% clear to me, as you've noted. I think the organizers of this referendum would have been smart to display some examples of various scenarios of how it would work in reality.

I like the concept, particularly for more locel-level politics like this. For example, in my riding, I happen to like one candidate over the other, however the candidate I prefer is not a member of the party I want in power. As such, I'm going to end up voting for a "party", as opposed to the person/candidate I prefer from a local level. Under the new proposed system, I could potentially mitigate some of that dilemma by voting both for the candidate I prefer, and the party I prefer.

I think this new system would be great, as it allows for greater representation of parties that would otherwise not get a voice even though their policies are popular. If everyone voted for the big three in their ridings but all really liked the green party, then there would be about 90 candidates from the big three and 39 Green Party members. This would actually give the green party a voice and a chance, and perhaps even leadership.

The only dis-advantage I see is that there would be greater chances of minority governments, but hey, if the people are so divided in their votes, then that should be represented in the government.

The big three candidates do not support this new method (the MMP)...so in my opinion it MUST be a good idea because they're pretty much scared to bring it up or support it at all (anything a politician doesn't like has to be good right?)

what other countries are using the system? does it work for them?

_________________
Pain is Temporary Pride is forever

i think its used in America

_________________

There is a big difference on how the MMP and the whole system works in other countries that already implement it (such as Germany, Italy, Belgium) and how it is being proposed for Ontario:

1. Direct election - in those countries, the candidate with most votes does not get automatically elected, unless he got more than 50% of the votes. If no candidate gets more than 50%, the two candidates with most votes face-off in a second round of voting, mostly in two weeks, and the one with most votes here wins.

2. Mionority government - in those countries there are no minority governments, there are coalition governments. Several parties could get togather in a coalition and form a government. The government then gets voted in the parliament. Every party that is not in the coalition always votes en-bloc against the government. If a party withdraws from the coalition and the coalition has less than 50% of votes in the Parliament, the governemnt falls. However that does not mean necessary an election. The leader of the patry holding majority in the parliament tries to create a new coalition.

3. Prime minister - in those countries, the leader of the party that holds most of the seats does not automatically become PM. The PM election is part of coalition talk and could also come from a minority party. However, he has less power than the PM in Ontario or Canada.

4. Ministers - members of the government are not necessarly MPs, they can be other people and their selection is part of the coalition talks. A minister can be called up by the Parliament at any time to answer questions, even if he is not an MP.

my concern is x number of parties getting 3% of the popular vote (approx 150,000) and thus getting 4 seats in the legislature...with all these parties there then NOTHING will really get done!

All these parties?

Green and the Nut Job Family Party both didn't make that threshold in the last election, so I wouldn't worry so much about that,

And I'd contrast to the federal government where we have an effective working minority government.

_________________
14C - Lot 82 - Upland B
Roleplaying Game Software for your iPhone: RPGTouch

Some thoughts on issues raised throughout this thread (although I'll state up front I'm very biased toward adopting this system). Mostly I'm glad we can debate this issue because it deserves attention.

1. For the 39 MPPs elected under the portional part of the MMP - they are elected using a portportional system. Political parties are responsbile for nominating these people, just as they are responsible for nominting those who stand for election in our current system, but they are only elected when people vote for them directly or for the party they represent. The MMP system requires that all candidates for election be published widely in advance of the election with the selection criteria used to select them. Most western democracies use a part or fully propotional system today.

2. Although there are 13 fewer local ridings, the proposed system tries to balance adding porportionality to the system without sacrificing too many local ridings. This means that each riding will grow by approximately 14%. On top of the 90 representatives elected under the direct or FPTP system, there will be 39 other representatives to take on local issues as well, creating the potential for representing votes in riding where no member of their preferred party is elected under the old system. Yeas - elected, list-based MPPs will certainly have a broader consituency than one riding, parties will have the option to use them in any way they see fit though, one would assume that if parties did not use them appropriately and give them local responsibilities they would not get may votes the next time around.

3. Under our current system a party with less than a majority of popular support can get a majority of the seats in parliament. (Generally speaking 40% of the vote will get you between 50 and 60% of the seats, depending on distribution). In fact the NDP was elected to a majority government in Ontario in 1996 with only 37% of the vote (and were generally regarded as one of the worst government of recent times). Further, the NDP actually received less votes than the Liberals in that election. In fact since 1921, there have been 16 majority federal governments in Canada, only 2 of which had the support of a majority of the population.

4. Under our current system a party with less than about 15% of the vote normally gets no seats at all, denying representation to 15% of the vote. In this scenario a party like the Green Party has little or no chance at ever getting a seat. Under the propsed system they can (assuming they get at least 3% of the popular votre which historically excludes fringe parties like Leninists, Marijuanna etc).

5. In individual ridings (i.e. the only form of voting under the current system), the winner is not the candidate with the majority of votes, just the first place candidate, this candidate sometimes gets as little as 25% of the vote, disenfranchising the other 75% of the riding.

5. Under the current system, highly regionalized parties succeed over those with broad-based support. Consider the federal election of 1993. The conservative party attracted 16.5% of the vote but received only 2 seats, while the WC based reform party scored 52 seats with only 18.7%. The inequity of this was exceeded only by the fact that the Bloc Quebecois received 54 seats in the same election with just 13.5% of the national vote.

6. Under the current system, not every vote is equal. Using the 2006 Federal election as an example the NDP received 19 seats for 2.6 Million votes nationally, the Bloc received 51 seats one 1.6 Million votes nationally. This made each Bloc vote worth more than 4 times each NDP vote.

that basically answered my question!

And i hope, (like me) you have helped someone make a decision

Thank you Traddles !!

_________________
Pain is Temporary Pride is forever

politicians will always make promises, lie and break promises - that is the nature of the beast. why do you think so many of them are lawyers .

i am not sold on mmp. i view the whole referendum on electrol reform as a way of compensating for declining voter turnout. why not just mandate that EVERY individual has to vote. it is our right, it is our priviledge. after all, isn't that why so many immigrants make canada their home?

Here is a copy of an e-mail I received. I know it is obviously anti-MMP but it definately brings up some valid points. Big enough points in my mind that I am voting to stay with what we have...

As many of you know there is a referendum AND an election on Oct 10th. The Referendum is a vote on a proposal to change the way we vote in Ontario.


We will have two choices.


One is the present system called "First Past the Post" (FPTP) where the candidate in each riding who gets the most votes is elected to represent the voters of that riding in the Provincial Parliament.


The second proposal is a new system called "Mixed Member Proportional."(MMP) In this case you would vote twice, once for the Candidate and once for the Party. A candidate would be elected to the provincial Parliament in each riding and in addition, 39 members would be selected from lists of candidates selected by their party to balance the party membership of the Provincial Parliament in a ratio related to the overall Provincial popular vote.


ON THE OTHER HAND----


To achieve the single goal of proportionality, the proposed MMP system shifts power from the local voter in ridings across Ontario to the political power brokers at Queen's Park.

Specifically MMP would bring:

17 fewer local ridings, covering more territory, with less contact with your local representative

39 politicians chosen by other politicians ... not you ... responsible only to their Party

Closed door party deal-making for weeks after elections, to decide who governs the province

Tax dollars paying for 22 more politicians and their staff at Queen's Park

A confusing ballot and vote-counting system

A weaker, indecisive Ontario

Fringe parties holding the balance of power with 2 or 3 seats

With MMP, the Parties select the members who will be selected to balance the government to the ratio of the popular vote. This will be a selection of the party faithful, much like the current national Senate, who will not be responsible to any voters in any riding. The party could, in the extreme, select the likes of Osama ben Laden, Saddam Hussein, George W Bush, or even Mike Harris, and no one would have actually voted for them.

It almost always assures, as in New Zealand, that there is a minority government, with the fringe parties forming coalitions and controlling the Government's agenda. (It took almost three months after the election to define the current NZ government.) Or in Germany, where a Green minority sets Federal priorities. Only the minority parties benefit.

The risk of the destruction of real representative democracy as we know and define it, is too great.

On October 10th, vote to keep our present voting system!

I agree with woodclan.