FPTP vs MMP

[Jamon Camisso]

On October 6, 2007 03:47:34 pm Colin McGregor wrote:
> --- John McGregor <mr.mcgregor-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Christopher Browne wrote:
> > > I'd tend to expect MMP to give fringe parties
> >
> > appalling amounts of
> >
> > > power/control, as majority governments would be
> >
> > replaced by a need to
> >
> > > build coalitions where the last little bits to
> >
> > head in would get power
> >
> > > out of proportion to their representation.  That's
> >
> > the sort of thing
> >
> > > that has happened in places like Italy and
> >
> > Israel...
> > My concern runs is that an unpopular governing party
> > could remain in
> > power by vastly increasing it's plurality in its
> > traditionally 'safe'
> > seats. eg. the Liberals in Toronto and London; the
> > NDP in areas with
> > large numbers of organized labour like Windsor,
> > Sudbury and Oshawa; and
> > the Conservatives in the 905 area; -- could all get
> > out the vote in
> > order to offset their performance at the polls in
> > areas where they are
> > distinctly unpopular.
>
> My key concern is (as with Christopher Browne) the
> splintering of the legislature into umpteen different
> political parties and you will have weird unstable
> coalition governments almost all the time with the
> tiny one note parties having WAY too much power.
>
> A secondary related (but still significant) concern is
> that it takes power away from the people and gives it
> to the political parties. Let us assume you have a Ms.
> X who is seen by the VERY vast majority of people as a
> total dirt bag. Let us also assume that Ms. X is loved
> by the power brokers of party Y (ie: she knows where
> ALL the political bodies are buried (she helped bury
> many of them) and is an effective fund raiser). Well
> under FPTP Ms. X is most unlikely to get to the
> legislature, but under MMP, the party can put her into
> office and the general public can not say boo about it
> all.
>
> Currently, you do get some nasty folks running in
> party stronghold ridings that get elected. Key point
> that the dirt bag MPPs are always in the end
> responsible and always answerable to some voters, NOT
> to the political parties (i.e. the current system
> isn't perfect but it is clearly better than what is on
> offer with MMP).
>
> As stands with the FPTP system everything TENDS to
> window down to two large more-or-less middle of the
> road parties and one smaller balance-of-power party
> that is a bit further from centre. Yes, you sometimes
> get a party into power that takes a step off the deep
> end into weird political waters. But current
> arrangement USUALLY delivers more-or-less middle of
> the road effective, responsible to the people
> government, while MMP appears (based on experiences in
> places like Italy/Israel) to deliver on extremist,
> ineffective, responsible to the parties, not the
> people government.
>
> I am willing to consider changes to the government of
> Ontario, but those changes must deliver power to the
> citizens and not the parties...

Do remember that it was a group of citizens that came up with the 
proposal. That is, a group of our (the electorate) peers.

Also, I might point out a certain http://www.parlament.ch/e/homepage, 
where proportional representation has served well for a few hundred 
years...

Jamon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://gtalug.org/pipermail/legacy/attachments/20071006/8f506711/attachment.sig>