As you know, right now, more that 50% of voters in Ontario generally vote for “losers” and do not receive the representation they deserve.

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/

I’ll give an specific example I could clearly see happening (and yes I know it’s Federal MPs I’m using, but it’s a situation). Recent ousted from the Liberals MP Joe Comuzzi has now joined the Conservatives. I’m from Thunder Bay, and the Conservatives are always last with little votes. It’s between the Liberals and NDP. I could see the Conservatives putting Comuzzi on their list because of his experience despite the fact he’ll never be reelected in his riding again.

At the core I guess I’m not a big fan of the party system. Some real reform would be elected PM and Cabinet and have no parties…but money will keep that from happening.

I also see parties using this as a form of employment equity to have a “diverse” caucus. I oppose employment equity because I think only the best candidate should win. (Which in elections doesn’t always happen unfortunately).

Either way, that was a few thoughts…sorry for the delay, I was in the hospital for pneumonia for a few days.

-Jeff

With two-vote MMP you can vote for the government you want — which is the point of our parliamentary system — and vote for the candidate you like best, while still holding your party accountable: the best of both worlds. In New Zealand’s last election 20% of locally elected MPs were of a party different from the party that carried that riding.

Can you really see the Liberal Party upping a candidate on the party list in a back room deal to bring in a long time supporter who just could never be elected? First, why would they do that? How will that attract voters to cast a vote for the Liberal Party?

Second, with MMP the list MPPs are to compensate for local results not matching the overall party vote, so if a party wins lots of local seats — as Liberals quite often do — they will rate only a handful of list seats. Maybe someone from the Barrie area, where the Liberals were blanked in 2003, will be the top person on the list who hasn’t already been elected locally. And maybe a woman who was nominated in a safe Tory seat, as too often happens to women. When you, as a party member, are voting in the nomination process for list candidates, aren’t those the kind of people you’d want to nominate?

I followed the entire process for the Citizens Assembly (I even received a letter to participate but was not chosen for my region) and have read all the literature that has come from it (and have seen that video previously). The Assembly was to bring up a solution, but it is still in the hands of the voters to decide if that it the preferred solution.

I generally vote for candidates as opposed to parties, as they are the people who will actually represent me. While I am a member of the Liberal Party (both Ontario and Canada), I have voted for candidates for the NDP in the past (when I disagreed with the decision of my party nomination and thought the NDP candidate was better).

It’s my impression that the majority of citizens prefer not to affiliate with a party (maybe you guys, as members of Fair Vote Canada can provide me with the percentage of voters who are members of parties), especially young voters. Very few of my friends are members of political parties or will identify with one if you ask which they fit in with.

FPTP is simple, that is what has kept it for so long. MMPR is complex in comparison. It’s going to be hard to convince the public that it’s better, along with perceived notion that it will allow parties to select part of their caucus without true voter say. I can foresee back room deals of upping a candidate on the party list to bring in long time supporters who just could never be elected. When I vote for someone, I want to know who my vote will be going to. At least with STV I can see them all on my ballot and rank them.

-Jeff

You should watch the Citizens’ video at:
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/OCA%20eng%20web_MASTER-001.wmv

And read their reports on why, after designing an STV model for Ontario, they voted 75/25 to prefer MMP.

Thanks for weighing in. My point was that I think there are better ways to empower the voters and change the electoral system in a positive way. I agree that electoral reform is needed. The lists that exist in MMPR are what bother me, as opposed to a different system like STV. BC has been working on a variation of STV and while I’m just a lowly citizen with one vote without a formal political science education, my research is swaying my opinion to disagree with MMPR. A No vote in the referendum is not a No vote for electoral reform.

I also have problems with the referendum being held with the election. Parties will politicize it and there will be so many items in the air that the topic won’t be given full attention.

-Jeff

MMP does NOT put more power in the hands of parties. It puts power in the hands of VOTERS by giving us a vote that counts, that actually helps to elect somebody.

This allows us to finally hold political parties accountable. By getting rid of phony-majority, single-party monopoly governments, it also allows the government to be held accountable to the Legislature.

Wayne