I would suggest that a legislature is not only a machine to make laws, but a machine to represent voters with input. When a machine, like the legislature, doesn't perform its function, which is to represent the will of the people, that doesn't work.

If it's a machine to make laws, which have a multi-party system?

Because it's not only a machine to make laws, it's a machine to promote ideas and views. Under the present system, the voter feels compelled to vote for one or the other large party because his vote is "wasted" if he doesn't vote for someone he thinks has a chance of winning.

Posted by: SUZANNE at August 7, 2007 10:22 PM

---

Steve,

We did not construct the system that sees the party with the most votes in a riding win that riding even if it is less than all the other votes combined. What has been constructed is a system by the major parties. That is how the Liberal machine has controlled Canadian politics (and it leaches down into the media, the judical system and business - which makes me think that someone had better remind Mr. Harper why Mulroney lost western Canada - if he is going to always cater to Quebec like Mulroney, a native son, did, he is just as likely to lose western Canada. A point obviously lost on George Bush when he ignored his base and tried to reach into other territory.) In Canada, the current system gives whoever wins the most seats 100% of the power - surely, Steve, that is not right.

Lance M. Jefferson
Richmond, British Columbia

Posted by: Lance M. Jefferson at August 8, 2007 12:47 AM

---

You've more or less this the nail on the head, perhaps without realizing.

The debate about FPTP often does boil down to "power" vs "representation". The folks who see elections as being all about electing a government (and let's be clear - one THEY approve of) aren't really democrats. They are, as far as i can tell, an echo from the days when we looked to benevolent kings or dictators to rule us.

The people who support MMP, on the other hand, see the function of a legislature in a representative democratic system as being primarily about *representing*....and governance is a by-product of representation.

The presumption in the FPTP view is that a more representative legislature must NECESSARILY deliver poorer governance. This is a false assumption.

Look at Ontario in recent years: lurching from the Conservatives, to the Liberals, to the NDP, to the Conservatives and back to the Liberals.

Dig the hole..fill it in. Dig the hole....fill it in. Literally so in the case of the abortive Eglinton Line subway system in Toronto.

FPTP has wasted billions and billions of dollars pulling the wings off by one government only to have then put back on by the next, then pulled off again by the one after that.

A more representative legislature, elected proportionally, results in more considered and evolutionary legislative change. This isn't theory. This is how it actually works. I've lived in New Zealand for the past 11 years and once MMP came in, the wild policy rides from one extreme to the other we experienced under FPTP as Left replaced Right replaced Left, came to an abrupt halt when MMP was implemented.

New Zealand now has the lowest unemployment in 35 years, a strong economy the government is trying to figure out how to cool down a little....AND a more open and transparent political system that has delivered effective government AND stable policy for more than a decade.

That's the reality. I do wish MMP critics would actually LOOK at reality instead of in the mirror of their unfounded beliefs....

Posted by: Linuxluver at August 8, 2007 05:37 AM

---

No matter FPTP or MMP, the simple fact is that once any of them are elected we have ceded the control of our lives to a group of people that rule as dictators. We have no input and they have no accountability to the
voter/taxpayer.
Tinkering with a system that is essentially broken will not accomplish anything. Just more manipulation by our great leaders. Does it matter who we elect if we then settle into the same rut we have been in for the last 100 years? Referendum and recall would help keep them honest. An alert voter population would serve to keep them honest.
We have seen how the federal Greens have crawled into bed with the Federal Liberals. One thing we have to acknowledge is that, once elected, our politicians most pressing issue is to hold onto that power--not to govern wisely and with the input of the voter. Checks and balances are the only thing that will give us better representation.

Posted by: George at August 8, 2007 05:58 AM

---

"[I]n a democracy, that power is derived from the popular will of the people."

Yup. And does FPTP deliver that? Since the 1930's, every single majority government in Ontario has been elected by a minority of electors. In the recent NB provincial election, the party that formed the majority in the legislature won fewer votes than the minority opposition. (And that happened federally as well on a couple of occasions.) How democratic is that?

And if, say, 10% of the people go unrepresented all the time because they aren't all concentrated into ridings, how democratic is that?

What is so magical about ridings anyway, even if MMP will keep them? A tiny minority of citizens ever contact their elected representatives, and the vast majority vote by party, not by candidate. Indeed, if the Liberals win in my riding, under the new system I can go to an NDP list candidate who might be more likely to represent my interests. Maybe the new system will actually strengthen the ties between the citizenry and their elected reps.

As for the effectiveness of the legislatures under MMP, take a look at Germany for the past several decades, then look me in the cyber-eye and tell me how shaky and uncertain their successive coalitions were.

Finally, establishing a voter threshold will keep the single-issue parties out. (Sorry Suzanne, although we're on the same side on this.)

The problem with the current debate, and a problem that's likely going to spell lights-out for MMP, is that the same fables are being peddled by the usual establishment suspects while public participation in the process has been kept at a minimum. That, unfortunately, spells status quo.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at August 8, 2007 08:00 AM

---

An MMP system makes majority rule by one party less likely and coalitions of parties more likely. This could be a good thing and it could be a bad thing, depends on your point of view.

My biggest problem with MMP is that we will have two types of provincial MP's; type 1 are MP's directly elected by ridings and representing and accountable to those ridings, type 2 are elected by the masses and are accountable to no-one other then whoever pays their parties bills. Type 2 never has to answer to the electorate and they have a guaranteed seat as long as their party gets xx% of the provincial vote. Anyone who thinks that MMP is going to increase the democratic representation of the people is fooling themselves.

Posted by: Iron Oxide at August 8, 2007 08:10 AM

---

An alert voter population would serve to keep them honest.

BINGO !

You guys in favour of MMP make some compelling arguments and I agree that our current system sucks but I don't see how draining even more money out of our wallets to pay even more politicians will solve anything.

I live in an area that elects Liberals with metronomic regularity. Arguably, my Conservative vote is wasted every time. It doesn't mean that I'm going to start voting Liberal just so my vote will count. What it means is that if I want to see a Conservative elected (or a Green or a Dipper or whoever) I personally have to get off my butt and talk to people.
A few months after the 2004 federal election, a coworker -one who is fond of telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about- came into my office and asked "So what's this about some scandal in the government?"
Yes, he was referring to the sponsorship scandal which had been in the headlines for months prior to that election.
And that idiot voted !
This isn't an isolated incident. I've been asked by coworkers "So who is the Prime Minister these days?"

Now if I'm the only one here who regularly runs into people who are so completely, utterly pig-ignorant of current events that they neither know nor care who's running the country, then tell me and I'll shut up.
Otherwise, my position is that until a majority of Canadians start to care more about what goes on in Ottawa (or the provincial capitals, or -hell- on their own streets) than in Hollywood, there's no sense expanding an already bloated and expensive government.

Posted by: up north at August 8, 2007 08:35 AM

---

Look at the damage trudeau did without a majority.

Was the most he ever got 43%

I findf the question is do you want your vote to be wasted so you may as well not go to the ballot box

Ie
you are a liberal in alberta,
a conservative in Toronto.
Any one other than NDP in Winnipeg, Transcona.

If you feel your vote counts for nothing why bother voting.

If you feel your vote counts for nothing will you be enamoured with democracy?

Once people think democracy is bad where does that end?

I waxed about this gratuitously a few months ago here among "Canada’s Democratic Institutions seminar, Compas & Frontier Centre."
http://marginalizedactiondinosaur.net/?p=18

Posted by: DrWright at August 8, 2007 08:36 AM

---

Good point up north. Ignorant voters are a bigger problem than the type of riding/representative system we have.

There are two poles in politics, left and right. We are well served now by the parties we have in terms of hearing views and concerns of both groups within the moderate continuum. The only thing MMP can possibly do is give the single issue parties and left/right extremists a platform to shout from. I would venture to say that it fringe left wing parties that want MMP the most.

Linuxluver, I'm glad New Zealand is doing well with its new system. How about other examples like Italy with something like 30 governments in 40 years?

Posted by: at August 8, 2007 08:59 AM

---

Good point up north. Ignorant voters are a bigger problem than the type of riding/representative system we have.

There are two poles in politics, left and right. We are well served now by the parties we have in terms of hearing views and concerns of both groups within the moderate continuum. The only thing MMP can possibly do is give the single issue parties and left/right extremists a platform to shout from. I would venture to say that it fringe left wing parties that want MMP the most.

Linuxluver, I'm glad New Zealand is doing well with its new system. How about other examples like Italy with something like 30 governments in 40 years?

Posted by: Larry at August 8, 2007 09:00 AM

---

Steve, if you've actually looked at the proposal that was written and approved overwhelmingly by citizens (not politicians or pendents, but randomly chosen every-day Ontarians), you know that no party can be elected unless they achieve 3% of the vote (or about 135,000 votes). The prospects of the truly fringe parties you mention receiving that much support are highly unlikely. In fact, not even the Green Party did so in the last provincial election.

On the other hand, if over 135,000 Ontarians want to support a party that's democratically legitimate, and they deserve to have their voices heard. To suggest otherwise in favour of some mythically clean or pure system is objectionable. Of course the ultimate system based on your arguments would be a one-party system. Politics and democracy involves people, not machines. Assuming that people and machines can be managed in the same way is your argument's fatal flaw.

BTW, MMP would elect more women and minorities (we know this from the experience in other countries that use MMP), who are woefully underrepresented in our current system. Do you consider them "noise" as well?

Posted by: Chris Tindal at August 8, 2007 09:29 AM

---

I like Steve's "signal to noise ratio" engineering approach
leading to rejection of MMP. There are also 'conservative'
and 'human nature' arguments to reject MMP, some of which are mentioned above.

The status quo is not very good and in my view MMP will help make it worse not better.

In the history of Parliaments - ridings and representatives came before the 'party' notion. Once elected, representatives formed loose clubs with others of like mind. Notice that the representatives were the ones with the minds and the 'party apparitchucks' served drinks at their parties.

Now, sadly, the 'chucks' tell the 'reps' what to think and how to vote. Parties are far too strong in our system today. MMP is a further scheme devised by 'chucks' to increase their power over real elected representatives.
(Those representing the people in their ridings, not those representing the party that gave them their job.)

Changes to improve our system should strengthen the positions of individual riding representatives relative to their parties. For example taxpayer extracted election funding should be tied first to individual elected riding reps, rather than his party. He can then assign a portion to the party of his choice. This will help keep the 'chucks' in line and the party platforms representative of the views of elected members (rather than the reverse).

Wes

Posted by: at August 8, 2007 10:23 AM

---

I like Steve's "signal to noise ratio" engineering approach
leading to rejection of MMP. There are also 'conservative'
and 'human nature' arguments to reject MMP, some of which are mentioned above.

The status quo is not very good and in my view MMP will help make it worse not better.

In the history of Parliaments - ridings and representatives came before the 'party' notion. Once elected, representatives formed loose clubs with others of like mind. Notice that the representatives were the ones with the minds and the 'party apparitchucks' served drinks at their parties.

Now, sadly, the 'chucks' tell the 'reps' what to think and how to vote. Parties are far too strong in our system today. MMP is a further scheme devised by 'chucks' to increase their power over real elected representatives.
(Those representing the people in their ridings, not those representing the party that gave them their job.)

Changes to improve our system should strengthen the positions of individual riding representatives relative to their parties. For example taxpayer extracted election funding should be tied first to individual elected riding reps, rather than his party. He can then assign a portion to the party of his choice. This will help keep the 'chucks' in line and the party platforms representative of the views of elected members (rather than the reverse).

Wes

Posted by: Wes Warner at August 8, 2007 10:23 AM

---

Professional economists have studied the effects of varieties of proportional representation, of which MMP is one, as compared to First Past the Post. The best estimates, from Torsten Persson and Guido Tabellini, are that PR increases the size of government substantially, increases welfare spending, and increases deficits relative to FPTP. Go over to Google Scholar -- that's the part of Google that gets you academic journal articles. I'd put in a direct link, but the comment form won't allow it. Type in Persson Tabellini Constitution . That will pull up the relevant articles. They argue that, because PR-type systems require coalition governments, big parties always have to pay off small parties to form a government -- that's what drives the increase in the size of government under PR. Now, you all might really want the Canadian government to get a lot bigger -- like 5% of GDP bigger. If that's what you want, go support MMP. Or, if you think that those costs are outweighed by other benefits, as Andrew Coyne seems to think, go ahead and support MMP. But be prepared to live with a government SUBSTANTIALLY larger than the one you currently have.

Posted by: Eric Crampton at August 8, 2007 12:33 PM

---

I like FPTP because it usually leads to majorities that are easily held accountable come election time. I don't see how MMP is any better for democracy. In FPTP, assuming a majority government, roughly 40% of the people get what they voted for. In MMP, which will likely not produce a majority and require a coalition with certain concessions, no one gets what they voted for.

Posted by: at August 8, 2007 01:00 PM

---

Greetings from BC. We did what Ontario is doing about 5 yrs ago and we came up with the Single transferable Vote system. It is much more democratic. An example is the recent election of Stelmach in Alberta or, if you can imagine the recent liberal Leadership race, where the delegates had done all of their voting at one time and ranked their preferences. That is the Stv system and the political parties hate it because they lose control. It favours individual choice. Both New Zealand and Ireland use it, very stable democracies.

When we had our referendum we needed 60% in every riding for it to pass and it achieved it in every riding but one, mine. We came up short with 58.5% because of vigouous political lobbying.

Fortunately it is going to be back on the ballot at our next election. If you manage to defeat the one your voting on this time i suggest you look at STV. Cheers.

Posted by: sandra at August 8, 2007 02:48 PM

---

I don't have a problem with FPTP but rather with the way our party system has developed such that MP's and MPP's have become representatives of their party to their constituents rather than the other way round.
The best form of democracy would be direct participation and given the ease and security of use the internet could make that possible. The problem would be the lack of time or interest in or understanding of many issues by the average voter.
So I would prefer to elect a local representative that I thought would best support the issues and concerns of my riding with only a general reference to their party line/dogma. I would acquiesce to the will of the majority if I could not change their opinion in exchange for a guaranteed equality under the law. I would use the capabilities of the internet to facilitate communications between the acting representative, other potential representatives and the constituents.
I would expect local plebiscites on issues for which my representative wanted a clear mandate. I would also want a yearly review of my representative during which he/she could explain their voting choices on all issue to the satisfaction of the majority in my riding or be replaced.
PR appears to me to be more about improving party representation rather than individual representation.

Posted by: Doug Newton at August 8, 2007 03:52 PM

---

A legislature is a system which outputs governance for a society.

If the members of a society are defective in regard to self-governance (i.e., getting out of bed in the morning, working productively, not robbing and killing their neighbours), then why do you think that an elected committee of the same people would be able to overcome the defects? (through a monopoly of force no less)

Lowering the bar to their entry is like allowing higher-order signals to pollute the power line in a circuit. Suddenly my circuit has to contend with extraneous signals affecting the output, signals that frankly are not part of the working design.

Were the small group of individuals, political parties and church leaders who opposed Adolph Hitler "noise" to be filtered out? This is not an argument for proportional voting, this is an argument against the view of society as being some kind of machine to be constructed and monitored by elites. Human beings are not cogs, and whenever they are treated as such, bad things happen.

When government imposes a "working design" on their citizens it leads to slavery and genocide. Especially when a large majority of the people supported the design. The governments of Nazi Germany, USSR and the PRC were extremely popular in their salad days. The noise of special interest groups - property owners, ethnic minorities, pacifists, etc. - was well filtered. The problem is not the type of design that is chosen, it is not the method in which the designers were selected, and it is not that a collective design exists. The problem is when participation in a collective design is enforced at the point of a gun. At this point the beneficial impulses are lost and the design becomes an infernal machine.

Some will be more urban than others, some more affluent, and so on, but no riding is likely to be so entirely dominated by one tiny segment of society that a single-issue party can succeed.

But there is really only a single issue in our system: redistribution of wealth.

"The rulers buy votes by promising to the poor extravagant welfare benefits. The rich pay the price for these, but their dissatisfaction cannot overturn the government. They number but few compared with the poor whom the government enlists in its support. Thus predation proceeds unhindered, to the government’s own advantage."

If there are too many rich people who spurn the assistance of government then it is a simple matter to make them poor through taxes and regulation, then they will come begging for crumbs like the rest. It's all by design.

Posted by: at August 8, 2007 07:33 PM

---

7:33pm--government by design--well said! That is exactly where we are today. The NAU will be the ultimate outcome of this 'design'.
We have been manipulated and corralled by the more equal that we have 'elected'. I have not believed for a long time that our elections have anything to do with reality. We are fools if we believe otherwise.
Lowering the bar would be difficult in our society. How much lower can we go? Our elected people sell their and our souls to play the game. That is the bottom. Where are those people we elected to represent us? They toe the line or they are out. We have lost our country and our way--and any amount of tinkering will just make it worse.
We are not even treated as cogs--more like puzzle pieces to be fitted in to whatever slot they prefer to have us. Animals at a stockyard are treated with more respect. And sadly, we can be stampeeded easily and effectively--because we refuse to use our own intellect to stop the momentum with which we are being destroyed. Design indeed, and any tinkering to 'change' the 'system' will only be to have us avert our eyes and mind to that which is already almost accomplished by our 'leaders'.

Posted by: George at August 9, 2007 06:03 AM

---

These are all points that voters made during the months of public consultations held by those 103 deligent Citizens.

They concluded:

"In meetings with fellow Ontarians, many people advised the Assembly not to propose sweeping reform, but rather to build on the province’s current electoral system. We took this advice to heart. The Mixed Member Proportional system we have designed is a made-in-Ontario solution: It preserves the strong local representation of the current system and adds new elements that will increase voter choice and produce fairer election results."

"The Assembly believes that Ontario’s current system is limited in the choices it offers voters: The ballot allows us to mark only a single X. Many voters have been faced with the dilemma of wanting to support a local candidate but not his or her party, or wanting to support a party but not its local candidate. A Mixed Member Proportional system allows voters to vote for a local candidate and for a party."

"If a party wins at least 3% of the party vote, it will have strong enough support from voters to be entitled to have a voice in the legislature. It is not possible to predict with certainty how Ontarians will vote under the new electoral system. However, based on past voting patterns in Ontario and the experience in Mixed Member Proportional countries, the Assembly believes that this threshold will ensure that the legislature continues to function effectively."

If you want to filter out all the noise, why not just elect a premier? Why bother with MPPs at all?

Because it's not about noise, it's about voters. If voters vote for a fringe or nuisance party, they won't get heard. But voters are complaining they don't have enough choices. The Citizens' Assembly spent a lot of time debating how many choices are enough. Should voters who make up only 0.75% of the electorate have a voice, as in the Netherlands? Should it take 10% as in Turkey, or 5% as in Germany, or 4% as in Sweden? They decided to open the door to 3% of voters, concluding that 3% of Ontarians won't be that noisy. That's the task we gave those Citizens. I think they got it right.

Posted by: Wilf Day at August 12, 2007 01:12 AM

---