Electoral reform? Chill the beer, pass the ketchup
PRINT EDITION
Electoral reform? Chill the beer, pass the ketchup
By JEFFREY SIMPSON
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 – Page A21
Canada, being essentially a political creation, instinctively fusses over political arrangements.
Fortunately, we have stopped gnawing, at least for a while, on constitutional reform. Federal-provincial relations, however, are always good for a palaver, a task force, or an outburst from an irate premier.
A thousand shelves groan with the weight of unread tomes on Senate reform. Some day, we'll chew over the monarchy's future as a harmless diversion. A national contest could be held to answer the question: Which is the most boring subject, Senate reform, federal-provincial fiscal relations, or constitutional amending formulas?
Trouble is, no one may vote.
To these robust perennials of induced somnolence has been added electoral reform. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario all launched studies into new ways of electing politicians.
In Ontario, not one citizen in a thousand - no, in ten thousand, maybe a hundred thousand, quite possibly, a million - had ever thought about electoral reform, outside university seminars for undergraduate students of political science.
Yet, for no publicly identified reason, Premier Dalton McGuinty promised to establish a process to review the province's voting system. Thus was born the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform - modelled on a similar institutional creature in British Columbia - that offered its final report yesterday.
When this assembly began, it was obvious the existing electoral system would take a beating. After all, gathering 104 people together, asking that they spend many months in each other's company, meant, almost by definition, that they would recommend change. How else could they justify, to themselves, if not to others, all that time and effort?
The status quo, therefore, didn't stand a chance. The only issue was which new system the assembly would recommend for Ontario.
Fortunately, they rejected the Single Transferable Vote (STV) procedure proposed by the assembly in British Columbia. Instead, they opted for something called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), a system used in Germany and, more recently, New Zealand.
This new system will now be on the ballot for Ontarians to support or reject on provincial election day, Oct. 10. The threshold Mr. McGuinty established for change is 60 per cent, in at least 60 per cent of the constituencies. It is to be hoped Ontarians will say No.
Debates about electoral reform run in many directions, but a core question remains: Do you like majority governments? If you do, reject all forms of proportional representation (PR), such as STV or MMP. If you don't, vote for PR, because in a multiparty world, it will produce minorities or coalitions.
PR is the dream of little parties, which is why the NDP likes it so much, as do the Greens. PR gives them a chance to be part of a coalition with a larger party. The existing system usually punishes smaller parties; PR helps them. Nor surprisingly, PR usually leads to more parties.
(New Zealand had two parties, the number grew to five or six after introducing a form of MMP.)
PR is definitely more representative in matching votes to seats. People get exactly what they vote for - sometimes. Because in some countries with PR systems, elections are followed by weeks of closed-door deal-making among parties to form a government, exactly the reverse of the transparency PR is supposed to bring.
The proposed system for Ontario would produce two classes of politicians: those elected locally and those from a list. Any politician worth his or her salt would want to be near the top of the party list, so PR systems usually feature intense intraparty struggles for list positions. No grubby constituency work, after all, for those elected from the lists.
MMP works in Germany. It could certainly work in Ontario. It's not the best system for making really hard decisions; it's better for making relatively easy ones.
Voters in PEI turned down PR in a provincial vote. Recommendations for MMP in New Brunswick and Quebec have gone nowhere. The STV suggestion in B.C. got 57 per cent support, falling just short of the necessary 60 per cent.
Give yourself a test. Raise electoral reform around the barbecue this summer. If friends even know what it means, let alone start discussing it, MMP has a chance. If people ask for the ketchup or a beer, the status quo will win.
Electoral reform? Chill the beer, pass the ketchup
By JEFFREY SIMPSON
Wednesday, May 16, 2007 – Page A21
Canada, being essentially a political creation, instinctively fusses over political arrangements.
Fortunately, we have stopped gnawing, at least for a while, on constitutional reform. Federal-provincial relations, however, are always good for a palaver, a task force, or an outburst from an irate premier.
A thousand shelves groan with the weight of unread tomes on Senate reform. Some day, we'll chew over the monarchy's future as a harmless diversion. A national contest could be held to answer the question: Which is the most boring subject, Senate reform, federal-provincial fiscal relations, or constitutional amending formulas?
Trouble is, no one may vote.
To these robust perennials of induced somnolence has been added electoral reform. New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario all launched studies into new ways of electing politicians.
In Ontario, not one citizen in a thousand - no, in ten thousand, maybe a hundred thousand, quite possibly, a million - had ever thought about electoral reform, outside university seminars for undergraduate students of political science.
Yet, for no publicly identified reason, Premier Dalton McGuinty promised to establish a process to review the province's voting system. Thus was born the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform - modelled on a similar institutional creature in British Columbia - that offered its final report yesterday.
When this assembly began, it was obvious the existing electoral system would take a beating. After all, gathering 104 people together, asking that they spend many months in each other's company, meant, almost by definition, that they would recommend change. How else could they justify, to themselves, if not to others, all that time and effort?
The status quo, therefore, didn't stand a chance. The only issue was which new system the assembly would recommend for Ontario.
Fortunately, they rejected the Single Transferable Vote (STV) procedure proposed by the assembly in British Columbia. Instead, they opted for something called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), a system used in Germany and, more recently, New Zealand.
This new system will now be on the ballot for Ontarians to support or reject on provincial election day, Oct. 10. The threshold Mr. McGuinty established for change is 60 per cent, in at least 60 per cent of the constituencies. It is to be hoped Ontarians will say No.
Debates about electoral reform run in many directions, but a core question remains: Do you like majority governments? If you do, reject all forms of proportional representation (PR), such as STV or MMP. If you don't, vote for PR, because in a multiparty world, it will produce minorities or coalitions.
PR is the dream of little parties, which is why the NDP likes it so much, as do the Greens. PR gives them a chance to be part of a coalition with a larger party. The existing system usually punishes smaller parties; PR helps them. Nor surprisingly, PR usually leads to more parties.
(New Zealand had two parties, the number grew to five or six after introducing a form of MMP.)
PR is definitely more representative in matching votes to seats. People get exactly what they vote for - sometimes. Because in some countries with PR systems, elections are followed by weeks of closed-door deal-making among parties to form a government, exactly the reverse of the transparency PR is supposed to bring.
The proposed system for Ontario would produce two classes of politicians: those elected locally and those from a list. Any politician worth his or her salt would want to be near the top of the party list, so PR systems usually feature intense intraparty struggles for list positions. No grubby constituency work, after all, for those elected from the lists.
MMP works in Germany. It could certainly work in Ontario. It's not the best system for making really hard decisions; it's better for making relatively easy ones.
Voters in PEI turned down PR in a provincial vote. Recommendations for MMP in New Brunswick and Quebec have gone nowhere. The STV suggestion in B.C. got 57 per cent support, falling just short of the necessary 60 per cent.
Give yourself a test. Raise electoral reform around the barbecue this summer. If friends even know what it means, let alone start discussing it, MMP has a chance. If people ask for the ketchup or a beer, the status quo will win.
posted by PDO at
6:55 AM
1 Comments:
One thing that MMPR does not address is vote dilution, which results in unbalanced parity for urban populations.
More importantly, it severely hinders the proportional representation of minority groups that are often centered in urban areas.
See: http://lawiscool.com/2007/07/29/vote-dilution-means-minorities-have-less-voice/
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home