I notice my friend Darryl over at darrylwolk.ca has put a banner on his blog endorsing MMP. He loves the idea of being able to vote for a particular person but not necessarily the party for which he or she stands. I can't blame him for liking the idea, but MMP is not the answer, and it misses the whole point of electoral reform.
I've read both sides of the story and I believe MMP will harm democracy, not preserve it.
I'll give you a perfectly good reason to reject MMP. Out of the 129 MPPs that would be elected under the new system, 39 of them would be making laws that govern your life without ever having to stand for election. That's 39 MPPs without accountability. 39 MPPs that will never have to answer to citizens. 39 MPPs that won't have to go out and convince the citizens that their vision is right, and everyone else's is wrong.
In my books, that's a dictatorship, not a democracy.
The rest of the MMP debate is just fluff. MMP will leave our province, and our democracy, at the whim of party cronies, political sycophants, and "friends" that are owed favors. How can we justify a system where 30% of the MPPs are appointees? Where's the democracy in that? How is that an improvement over what we have?
4 comments:
Well said Kirk, I agree.
While MMP advocates emphasize the increased representation for small parties, they ignore the way the party list "candidates" are selected/appointed in the first place. The potential for inappropriate influence is too great to trust it won't happen.
It has not earned the benefit of the doubt.
In addition to this, a person can be both a candidate and on the party list.
So, let's say Warren Kinsella runs out in Renfrew-Nippissing-Pembroke and is handily rejected. If Warren is on the top of the party list, Dalton will be able to appoint him as a representative that cannot be voted out, despite that voters have already rejected him as undesired for a public representative.
Kirk,
First off, great to see you posting again. You were MIA for a long time.
Many years ago when I was still in school, I recall studying loads of different electoral systems in a couple of political science classes. There are several good systems available, each with their pros and cons.
The MMP referendum has been presented to the public as if there are only 2 electoral systems available. I wonder if some of the MMP supporters would be so supportive of it, if they learned about many of the other systems available that are not a choice on the ballot, but could be superior to MMP.
It seems that the only reason that MMP is the choice we're being given, is because the citizens panel of 100 or so people (I can't recall the exact number) liked it best.
Not only is MMP not very democratic with it's list candidates, I don't think the way MMP was selected to be our only ballot choice was particularly democratic either.
Scott,
There is also no binding on the parties to put forth their lists from the membership
Matt,
I attended a seminar today on MMP and this exact scenario was discussed at length
Dave,
Thanks for the kind words. I didn't realize people were actually paying attention. It was a busy few months for me and despite wanting to post regularly, I just couldn't spare the time.
MMP is being used throughout the world in many different flavours. None seem to be just like the one being proposed.
But of all the possibilities, I'm surprised this is what they came up with.
It isn't likely to pass, but you never know.
Post a Comment