MMP In New Zealand

No surprise here. The conservative National Party (and their big business buddies) wants to dump MMP and go back to FPTP. I doubt it will happen but this bears watching.

Recommend this Post

Whew

Thank God Ontario rejected MMP, or else we could have had parties dumping locally chosen candidates in favor of those blessed by all powerful central committees of party hacks. Dodged a bullet there.

Recommend this Post

Coyne Gets It Right

In his column today. He points his finger at one of the underlying messages of the no side in this campaign -- vote for MMP and you will get Muslim extremists calling the shots.

Much the same hysteria surfaced in the accompanying referendum on proportional representation: the first thing those opposed were likely to call to mind was, what if a Muslim party started up?

Never mind that the entire Muslim population of Ontario, at 3% of the total, would have to vote for the Muslim party -- and only one -- to get over the 3% threshold the proposal entailed. This was Ontario's version of Quebec's "reasonable accommodation" hearings, and Ontarians, it was clear, were not in a mood to be particularly reasonable.

The only thing Coyne leaves out is such thinking assumes all Muslims are extremists and will vote as a block for an extremist party.

Recommend this Post

Not Unexpected News

The Ontario PC party has blitzed the province with an anti-MMP email. As one pro-MMP person is quoted as saying:

"MMP is great for party bosses? If it was, how come they're fighting it so hard?"

If the backroom boys of the Conservatives and Liberals hate this new system this much, it must be good.

Recommend this Post

Two Signs MMP Is Doing Better Than The Elites Would Like

1. The Star has attacked it again this morning.

2. Strategic Counsel has it defeated.

Recommend this Post

Why You Should Vote For MMP

Tomorrow is election day in Ontario. Once again the people of Ontario will be faced with the prospect of a "majority" government elected with a minority of the popular vote. It will be an unappealing resulting from an unappealing electoral system. If we pull together, this will be the last election created by the vagaries of the First Past The Post System. There is, as some of you know, an alternative system under examination during this election. In the next few paragraphs, I will outline my reasons for supporting that alternative, MMP.

First, what is wrong with the status quo? The First Past The Post system was developed to do one thing and that is to create majority government. In theory, when there are two parties running in an election, in a geographically compact area, FPTP is a perfectly adequate system. It measures the will of the population quite accurately. The party with the most votes will, in the vast majority of cases, have a majority in popular vote. If however, you introduce more parties into the mix, the FPTP system continues to deliver a majority of seats for the government, without a majority of the popular vote province wide. This has been the case for Ontario, for most of the last 70 years.

Majority government without majority support is a recipe for alienation, apathy and cynicism. If, election after election, people see that more people voted against the government than for it, they will rightly conclude that their vote does not matter.

FPTP distorts the popular will by rewarding parties that are regionally based, rather than appealing to the province as a whole. That's so because FPTP reliance solely on ridings rewards concentrations of support in a small area. Pity the Dipper in Oxford, the Liberal in Welland, the Conservative in downtown Toronto. They will go to the polls (if they bother), knowing absolutely that their vote is useless and will have no bearing in the outcome of the election.

Worse still are the supporters of the Greens and NDP, who are told constantly that not only will their vote not matter overall, but that by voting their conscience, they risk "helping to elect" Conservatives through vote splitting. This leads to the distinctly Canadian phenomenon of "hold your nose" to vote for another party to stop someone else.

How will MMP correct these defects? MMP is designed for a multiparty system. It more accurately reflects the voting intentions of the population. It keeps local representation in tact by keeping the riding system, but also uses a party vote to gage political opinion, province wide.

I hear a lot of talk by the no side about the party lists. This is in my opinion a red herring. It is effective however because it projects the worst aspects of FPTP (fixed local nominations, insta-members, appointed candidates) on to the lists. All four of the main parties have stated publicly that they will use democratic processes to create lists. If one of them is lying then no one will vote for their lists in the next election and they will suffer as a result.

The lists will, if the experience of the other jurisdictions using this system are duplicated here, give parties representation from all parts of the province. Those parties without riding representation in the North for example, will use the lists, if they are smart, to elect members from those areas of weakness, to prove they are pan provincial parties.

MMP is superior to FPTP in that it breaks up the monopoly of regionally based parties and rewards parties who are able to garner support from all parts of the province. The party vote will be taken at a province wide level (that is the second vote on all ballots from now on). This will encourage parties to think of the whole province when creating policy, rather than handing out plums solely to its regional base.

MMP in other jurisdictions has created much more stable government than FPTP. Germany has had few federal elections than Canada since WWII. This seems counter intuitive give the fact that no party gets a majority government in the German system without a majority of the popular vote. Why then have they had fewer elections? The difference is in the nature of minority government in FPTP and MMP.

In FPTP, a change of a few points in the polls can mean huge changes in the seat outcome. In MMP, you get what your poll numbers say you will get and so a shift from 35% to 40% is no incentive to pull the plug on parliament and run for that "majority". This means more stability.

A word about the most insidious argument put forward by the no side. That is the "tail wagging the dog" argument. This goes that it is ok to ignore the voters of the smaller parties because if we let their voices be heard in the legislature, they will somehow come to dominate. Again, you have to look at the histories of Germany and New Zealand to see that this is just not the case. The major party in the coalition governments still sets the agenda in the government. But, and this is crucial, it cannot run roughshod over the opinion of the other parties in the coalition. It has to be remembered that the bigger party may be bigger but it is not a majority. It will have to craft its policies in such a way to get majority support in the province. Never again will a "majority" government be able to ram through bills, unless it is supported by the representatives of a majority of the population. It will lead to a more thoughtful legislature.

The FPTP system is an anachronism whose time has come and gone. Tomorrow, we have it in our hands to usher in a new era of pan-Ontario politics. Don't be afraid. We may not create paradise on earth, but Ontario will still be better for the change.

Recommend this Post

Deconstructing The Case Against MMP

The Record (which is owned by the Liberal house organ, Toronto Star), came out against MMP this morning. Let's take a look at their editorial and examine the reasons behind their decision.

There's only one good reason to dump the way Ontario voters have elected provincial politicians for over a century. There's only one good reason to gamble on a new system of selecting the government that leads and rules this great province. That reason is democracy -- the government of the people.

So far, so good, that is exactly the reason we should dump FPTP. It creates false majorities out of regionally concentrated minority voting blocks. Such a system is undemocratic because it ignores the wishes of the majority of voters province wide.

If the electoral reform being offered in next Wednesday's provincewide referendum can strengthen democracy, if it can transfer into the hands of the people of Ontario more political power, more authority over their lives and their land, then they should embrace it. But if the change being proffered fails this most important test, if it does not demonstrably bolster the health of Ontario democracy, if, in fact, it threatens to vitiate that democracy by granting more power to political cliques, then the proposed electoral reform should be roundly rejected.

Here is where I begin to get off the train. The editorialist is implying we have a democracy to "vitiate", when in fact we live in a four year dictatorship of the minority, punctuated by elections. Also, it is impossible to grant more power to "political cliques", as all power in this province is already concentrated in the office of the premier. Any reform that would cause power to flow away from that office, would be an improvement. Any system that would cause the ruling party to negotiate with the other parties to get legislation passed would be a step forward in our democracy.

So how does the system being proposed -- mixed-member proportional -- stack up? Ontario voters will, as is their right, make up their own minds. But for our part, we at The Record have concluded that democracy would suffer badly under a mixed-member proportional system because such a system would quickly and inevitably cede political power to political parties and their unelected elites, at the ongoing expense of ordinary people.

I will leave alone the idea that we live in a democracy, but the second point that power will flow to parties needs examining. In our present system parties control the political process. Voting no will not change that fact. Political parties are not in and of themselves bad things (as this editorial implies). Political parties are the collective expression of voters with differing ideas and nothing more. Furthermore, they are not going away any time soon. Is the editorialist suggesting that in his vision of reform, there will be no parties? An interesting thought, but I doubt it.

If Ontarians choose mixed-member proportional, the number of members of the provincial legislature (MPPs) elected to represent geographic ridings will fall, from the current number of 107 down to 90. Meanwhile, there will be a new class of MPPs -- 39 members who are not directly elected by voters but are, instead, appointed by political parties to the enlarged, 129-seat legislature.

Ah, the big lie of the no side finally appears. In the first place, the list MPPs will be elected province wide in the general election and will in no way be appointed. In the second, all four of the main parties have declared that their lists (which by law will have to be published before elections) will be created by transparent and democratic processes.

The laudable goal of the mixed-member proportional system is to have a legislature that matches as closely as possible how citizens actually vote. And it is true that under our current first-past-the-post electoral system, political parties that capture far less than half of the popular vote typically win elections.

At last he says that the goal of MMP is laudable and he admits that the present system is undemocratic. Does this change his position? Does he now reconsider his rejection of reform now that he has had an epiphany about the undemocratic nature of our present system? Not on your life. In fact, that is last you will hear about the ridiculousness of FPTP. Why? Well, you would have to ask the editorialist, but the answer to me is self-evident. The present system cannot stand up to even the most cursory of analysis and so he concluded that the best line of defense is a good offense.

Critics of the status quo say it lets a minority of voters enthrone a majority government that rules with total power. And that smacks of unfairness. Advocates of a mixed-member proportional system praise it as more fair because the number of seats a party gets in the legislature reflects as closely as possible the number of party votes it receives. There would be two votes on the ballot, remember, one for a local representative, one for a party.

We don't just "say" that a minority of voters enshrine a majority government", that is the reality. Again, the fairness of MMP is not just a claim, but a fact. Unlike FPTP, every vote will be used to create a legislature reflective of the wishes of the voters.

The 103 Ontarians who joined the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform and proposed adopting this mixed-member proportional system deserve applause for their hard work, thoughtfulness and civic responsibility. However, our respect for them does not diminish our strong opposition to what they recommend.

This is what we call a pat on the head/slap in the face. Afterall, what do 103 of your neighbours who spent 8 months studying electoral reform know, compared to an editorialist who spent a long half hour reading the no mmp website? Silly Citizens Assembly, the elites of Ontario know what's best for you. Thanks for your service now go away and let them run the province like they always have and always will.

A mixed-member proportional system would hurt democracy because it would reduce the number of directly elected MPPs by more than 15 per cent. There would be significantly fewer ridings in Ontario and they would be bigger. Riding MPPs would be responsible for thousands of more constituents. It is easy to see how this would impede the direct access of constituents to their representative as well as their ability to influence that representative.

MMP will not reduce anything. All MPP's will be directly elected by the voters. The number of ridings will go down but if the experience of New Zealand is any guide, the 39 list MPP's will be drawn from all areas of the province and give voters even more options for interacting with their government. The bottom line is we will have more representation rather than less under MMP.

Then, there is the troubling matter of the 39 non-riding or at-large MPPs. Directly elected by no one, they would be directly accountable to no one -- at least to no one outside of the party cadre that put them on a list. True, the parties would offer some explanation for their slates of potential appointees. But it would be difficult in the extreme for voters to examine the many names on a slate for an ever increasing number of political parties.

This is the "democracy is too hard" argument. Firstly, all of the parties have now agreed that their lists will be created democratically. Second, the editorialist is suggesting that if people have to put any effort into voting, it just isn't worth the bother. And he is supposed to be defending democracy? Give me a break.

It is questionable how much legitimate campaigning such potential appointees would do in future elections. But what would that matter? Once installed in the legislature, they would be beyond the reproach or touch of voters. Future legislatures would be home to two classes of MPPs, one the traditional riding representative, the other, in all but name, a senator. Spare us this.

These MPP's will, by and large be running in ridings as well as on lists. They will campaign just as hard as anyone else. Again, using New Zealand as a guide, list MP's are not seen as second class MP's, in fact they tend to take on issues of wide importance to the country at large. Finally, when was the last time you got to vote for a senator? There is no analogy to be found here. If the Record wants to talk about an elected senate, fine, but the list MPPs will be elected province wide and are in no way appointed.

In the past 22 years, each of the three major Ontario parties has managed to win one or more elections, govern and then be evaluated by voters under the first-past-the-post system. Governments have been stable and often accomplished much, but they have also, out of necessity, been forced to heed the wishes of the people.

The majority of voters wanted nothing to do with Bob Rae. We got 5 years of unopposed rule from him anyway. The majority wanted nothing to do with the "Common Sense Revolution" and all of the upheaval that went with it. We got ten years of that rammed down our throats. Finally, the majority wanted nothing to do with Dalton McGuinty, but we are on the verge of having him rule over us like a king for 4 more years. Hey that sure is some system we have here, where the majority don't want the government they have, but have to endure it anyway. What do we call it anyway, because it sure isn't democracy.

To contemplate mixed-member proportional system is to consider a future of instability, of fragmented and only partially accountable legislatures fumbling their way under the leadership of perpetual minority governments. It is also a future in which political parties, including party hacks, hangers-on and failed politicians, would gain in influence and power as the already limited authority of ordinary voters wanes.

This is the "pulling it out of the air" portion of the editorial. Is New Zealand unstable? Is Germany unstable? No, but who cares because the editorialist isn't worried about reality, but fantasy. If the editorialist is worried about party hacks having influence, he should be going after the present system, which is completely dominated by those hacks. And when he says that voters have limited authority in the present system, he means they get to cast votes every four years knowing that the will of the majority will be ignored and distorted by a system of voting created before his great grandfather was born. To contemplate retaining a system is to look forward to the continuation of undemocratic rule by the self-satisfied elites in the Premier's office and their allies among the corporate press. Sure its not as messy as democracy, but let's not pretend it is democratic either.

To be sure, the way Ontario elects MPPs today has flaws. It could be improved and perhaps, after this election, Ontarians should continue searching for a better system. But mixed-member proportional is, in the final analysis, not a better system. On Oct. 11, please, say no to this proposed reform.

Finally, the biggest of the big lies in this referendum. Vote no and we will get it right next time, they say. Well, I have a prediction for you. If we vote no this time, the next time will not come in our lifetime. The elites in this province will proclaim loudly (especially if McGuinty gets his false majority) that we have tried it and "the people" rejected it and besides it is much too expensive to go through this process again, while there are taxes to cut and other such lofty priorities to prioritize. Why endure another 40 years of undemocratic rule? We have it in our power to seize control from the elites. Let's do it.

Update: Go read the Dawg. He and I are on the same wavelength this morning.

Update: I changed the title of this post because there are some Liberals who are truly trying to change the system.

Recommend this Post

Take That, NoMMPers!

All four of the major parties in Ontario have committed to creating their candidates' list using democratic processes. So much for "appointed" MPPs.

Update: And just to top off a pretty good day, Mr. Coyne pipes up with the final installment of his series on electoral reform. Needless to say, it is a must read.

Recommend this Post

Lorrie Goldstein And The Way Ahead

Greg Staples points to an article by the Sun's Lorrie Goldstein, giving vent to the frustration building within the ranks of small "c" conservatives at a looming Liberal "majority" on October 10. Mr. Goldstein points out the central truth of the upcoming "victory" for the Liberals:

If the last 10 days of the Ontario election campaign go the same as the first three weeks, two groups of people are going to wake up the morning of Oct. 11 with an awful hangover.

The first will be the majority of voters, especially Conservatives, who, not having voted for the party that won -- the Liberals -- will be wondering how a minor promise by Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory to publicly fund a few more faith-based schools, became the elephant in the room that obliterated everything else. (emphasis mine)

The second will be Liberals, who will be wondering how, in victory, they became the party of religious bigotry and ethnic bashing.

What is coming is another false majority, created by a minority of voters, swayed by the fear campaign of the Liberal Party. The real majority of voters will be left scratching their heads, wondering how a party that has broken so many promises could win a majority of seats by using fear of Muslims as its main weapon. But if they take a moment to think about it, the answer to their confusion is right in front of them. It is our broken electoral system.

The upcoming election, like all of our elections using FPTP, will create a legislature based on a lie. That lie is the presumption that somehow the results are based on the will of the majority of voters in this province. As Goldstein points out, this is just not so. The majority of the voters will cast their ballots against the winning party in this election just as they usually do. Will this reality stop the Liberals from behaving like they have a true majority mandate, when in fact they do not? Our history show us that it will not. The Liberals will trumpet their "majority" as a sign that they have the absolute right to move this province in any way they see fit and the majority will just have to live with it.

This outcome seems to be inevitable. But even if it isn't -- even if John Tory were to make an amazing comeback and swing seven or eight percent of the voters his way, the outcome would still be based on the lie of FPTP. The lie would benefit a different winner, and that's all.

However, though the outcome of this election is going to result in a sham majority, we needn't bang our heads against a wall. Sure, the majority of voters will get the shaft once again. Nothing new there. It will sting like hell. But, we can ensure that this is the last election we ever have to suffer the realization that the majority of voters have been trumped by the minority. We have it in our hands to pass MMP and make sure that in all subsequent elections, the will of the majority will be reflected in the creation of the Legislature. It will be the end of false majority rule in Ontario. The real majority may "lose" this election, but passing MMP will ease our pain. Vote MMP.

Recommend this Post

Futurama Understands McGuintoryism

I tried to find this on Youtube, but the video has been taken down (thanks Twentieth Century Fox!). I did however, find this transcript from the episode "A Head in the Polls". It illustrates beautifully politics under McGuintoryism:

Johnson: [on TV] It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: "I'm against those things that everybody hates".

[The other candidate is John Jackson.]

Jackson: [on TV] Now I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man but, quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said!

Fry: These are the candidates? They sound like clones. [He looks a little harder.] Wait a minute. They are clones!

Leela: Don't let their identical DNA fool you. They differ on some key issues.

Johnson: [on TV] I say your three cent titanium tax goes too far.

Jackson: [on TV] And I say your three cent titanium tax doesn't go too far enough!

Two clone parties fighting for power, agreeing on virtually all issues except who should be in control. Is this the best we can do in Ontario? Shake up this clonefest. Vote MMP.

Recommend this Post

MMP And The Philospher King Right

MMP has the authoritarians in Ontario worried. I am seeing, as we get closer to referendum day, things like the following showing up in comments and on other blogs.

lrc, a regular contributer to comments over at Political Staples, wrote this in response to Greg's support for MMP:

Majorities have no inherent moral virtue. Bad legislation passed by members representing 50% or more of the party preference of the general population will be no better than if it is passed by a legislative majority of individually-elected representatives whose broad party vote is some lesser number.

This is quite a revealing statement and I think it shares a similar origin to this one on Fuschi's Canadian Forum:

But, although democracy is far better than any of the alternatives, its intrinsic flaw is that it is subject to the skewing effects of lemming-like activity. As one of the Greek sages put it; ten fools can hold sway over nine wisemen. One dimensional thinkers can cause consequences to all, well beyond their scope of vision. Those whose attention span is torn between the future of our democratic progress, and the next episode of “American Idol”, can easily outnumber our wisemen.

Both writers harken back to Plato, who distrusted democracy and instead recommended strong rule by philosopher kings. Both lrc and Fuschi would rather have a strong ruler or a miniority group of "politically correct" rulers, than to trust the wisdom of the people as a whole. That may have been fine for 4th century BC Greece, but I trust the people of 21st century Ontario to make wise choices when they create a legislature. Trying to game the system to thwart the will of the people, as our current system does, just won't cut it.

Recommend this Post

Mr. Coyne Speaks

I was in Toronto yesterday, visiting a distinguished professor from the University of Alberta. It was a great time Ace and thanks for saying I look the same as I did 23 years ago.

Anyway, I missed Andrew Coyne's latest on the stupidity of FPTP. This should be required reading by every voter in Ontario. H/T to Greg Staples.

Recommend this Post

Ontario Can Lead The Way With MMP

So we can end stuff like this from showing up in the Globe's political coverage:

While the Conservatives and Liberals appear nearly tied for support, according to a Strategic Counsel survey in August, the same research found Mr. Harper has built up political capital with Canadians, strengthened his position in Quebec and gained support in the 905 area code around Toronto and in Southwestern Ontario.

Still, analysts warn that an election would be risky for Mr. Harper, especially if Liberals could steal back votes from the New Democrats using the threat of a Conservative majority. (emphasis mine)

We have to get this mentality out of our politics. It leads to bitter partisanship, with parties raiding each other for votes, using fear as their main weapon. Fear is the toxin that has sickened the body politic for years. Luckily there is a cure. It is called MMP, where every vote counts and fear of dictatorial false majorities is virtually eliminated. In Ontario, we can lead the way by giving the rest of the country a good example of how to move away from fear and smear politics. Vote MMP.

Recommend this Post

Coyne Writes More About MMP...

And conservatives should give his words due consideration. His argument mirrors my own discussions with Greg Staples and reading Coyne could go a long way to explain why a rock-ribbed conservative like Greg is supporting MMP. Here is a taste:

Living on a knife-edge does strange things to people. On the one hand, it leaves the parties in a perpetual fever of anticipation, convinced they have only to gain a few points in the polls to destroy their opponents. That is one reason the two federal conservative parties, Progressive Conservative and Reform, were so reluctant to merge. It is also the reason why minority governments tend, under our system, to be so unstable.

On the other hand, the consequences of losing a few points makes them excessively, almost neurotically cautious, unwilling to take the slightest risk or advocate the mildest change, but each hugging as close as it can to the median voter, the status quo and each other. Hence the dominance of the two brokerage parties, indistinguishable in philosophy -- alike, that is, in the lack of it.

Put the two together, and you have much of Canadian politics -- viciously partisan, yet unspeakably trivial; much ado about nothing much. McGuintoryism, in short.
So the case for electoral reform, it seems to me, is one that conservatives, if not Conservatives, should find appealing. It is a cause that has tended, historically, to be identified with the left, not least in the current referendum debate; many conservatives have accordingly rejected it. Yet it is not the left that has suffered most under the current system. It’s the right.

By whatever combination of historical circumstances, the left has a party that will advance its ideas, free of the brokerage parties’ grip: the NDP. Though not often in government, outside of the West, it has succeeded in dragging the entire political spectrum to the left, its policies adopted by Liberal and Conservative governments alikes. Nothing like it exists on the right, federally or provincially, nor has since Reform’s demise. Nor is one likely to emerge, so long as “first past the post” remains the rule.

The same is true of parties less easily categorized, like the Green party. Though it is the party of choice for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, it has yet to win a seat, unable to concentrate its support geographically in the way that FPTP requires. How many more votes might it win if potential supporters were not disheartened at the prospect of “wasting” their votes, or worse, “splitting” the vote, as they are forever warned against doing?

But what if there were a system in which no votes were wasted, where vote-splitting ceased to be an issue? There is such a system, and it’s called proportional representation, of which the proposal before Ontarians is a variant. Not only the Greens, but other parties -- libertarian, social-conservative, or other -- might then have a fighting chance. The spectrum of acceptable ideas for debate would noticeably broaden.

Exactly. Conservatives should not look at the short term benefits of MMP for the left, but the longer term potential for them. If we get MMP, then elections will be true battles of ideas. The legislature will become a marketplace of political thought. Coyne and Greg Staples see this potential. I think they are right to do so.

Update: Read Greg Staples' own take on Coyne's column.

Recommend this Post

Krugman on Health Care (Or Is It MMP?)

Paul Krugman writes this in the context of the health debate in the U.S:

But the G.O.P. nominee, whoever he is, won’t be trying to persuade the public of the merits of his own plan. Instead, he’ll try to scare the dwindling fraction of Americans who still have good health insurance by claiming that the Democrats will take it away.

The smear-and-fear campaign has already started. The Democratic plans all bear a strong resemblance to the health care plan that Mitt Romney signed into law as governor of Massachusetts, differing mainly in offering Americans additional choices. But that didn’t stop Mr. Romney from denouncing the Clinton plan as “European-style socialized medicine.” And Fred Thompson claims that the Clinton plan denies choice — which it actually offers in abundance — and relies on “punishment” instead.

If Krugman had said NoMMP instead of Republicans and FPTP rather than health plan, I would swear he was talking about electoral reform. Funny isn't it that the same people trying to block health reform in the States are the same ones trying to block electoral reform here, and using the same talking points in both cases?

Recommend this Post

Rick Salutin Chimes In On MMP

I would recommend everyone read Rick Salutin today. He refutes the main arguments of the no side quite well. For those of you out there who hate Rick Salutin (you know who you are), just say to yourself "Even a broken clock is right twice a day". Don't dismiss the argument because you dislike the person putting it forward.

Recommend this Post

Yet One More Reason To Vote MMP

I know I said don't expect much from me, but I couldn't let this one pass. David Herle, writing in the Globe, give us another fine example of why we need to vote for MMP on October 10:

The NDP campaign appears stalled and they lack an obvious way back into the campaign dynamic.

Nonetheless, the Liberals need to steal some NDP and Green votes to be in majority territory.

Polls indicate the NDP vote is soft and many current NDP supporters are prepared to move. The Liberals need those voters to believe that stopping a Tory victory is a more important imperative than voting for the NDP.

and

The Premier needs to harness the current high levels of satisfaction with his government and motivate the strategic vote by raising fears of change.

In other words, Mr. Herle is pushing the tired Liberal tactic of scaring the shit out of NDP voters so they will vote against their own party in order to "stop the evil Conservatives". Please God, let this be the last election we have hear such crap from the Liberals. If we have MMP in place for the next election, the Liberals will have to compete with the other parties on the strength of their ideas. Won't that be nice for a change?

Recommend this Post

Why, It Would Mean The End Of Civilization!

I am busy today, so don't expect much from me. While I am otherwise occupied, please enjoy Don Ferguson's good natured ribbing of the "no" merchants.

Recommend this Post

The Kiwis Are Coming!

The co-leader of the Green Party of New Zealand, Jeanette Fitzsimons, is coming to Ontario on a speaking tour about MMP. I will post more info as soon as I know something.

Update: I have one date. She will be in Ottawa on Sept. 28 at 7:00 pm. The event will be held at Rideau Park United Church, 2203 Alta Vista Drive, at the intersection with Cunningham Avenue.

Recommend this Post

MMP Quick Hits

Thanks to Antonia Zerbisias' Facebook, I found this link to Daniel Aldana Cohen's piece in Walrus. It is a very personal account of his support for MMP.

I watched Liberal Senator David Smith on Newman's show, last night. He was just another high profile Liberal attacking MMP, in all respects but one. Smith conceded he is not worried by the prospect of list MPP's and thinks the process for selecting them will be as fair as the system now in place for selecting riding candidates.

After watching Smith, I must admit I was shocked that he seemed to confuse riding support and provincial support when it came to meeting a 3% threshold for seats in the legislature. Anyone listening to him could be forgiven if they thought a party could have a seat in the legislature if they got more than 3% in a riding rather than province-wide. I am sure Mr. Smith didn't mean to mislead people, but he was quite clumsy in presenting his case.

Recommend this Post