FPTP vs MMP

[Evan Leibovitch]

Scott Elcomb wrote:
> As a libertarian I'm not into funding unnecessary administration.
> However, being moderately-so (libertarian), I'm not adverse to
> throwing a few extra tax dollars towards finding an alternate solution
> for increasing the publics' participation in Government.
>   
But that' s the point. There's no promise beyond wishful thinking that
MMP will increase public participation one shred.

Political whores will simply follow the power, as MMP shifts influence
from big parties to small ones. Any increase in activity in small
parties could simply be from former workers in large parties, so the net
gain in public participation could well be zero. It'll just be the same
influence-mongers, under different banners. Big deal.

> In order to implement MMP, 60% of the vote in 60% of the ridings is
> required.  I would've thought the democratic approach would be more
> like 50%+1 votes in 50%+1 ridings, but that's not the case.  I think
> the deck is stacked in favor of FPTP, and that makes me... um...
> argumentative.
>   
Why? It's not at all uncommon that any decision that requires a
significant change to an organization's structure -- changing bylaws
rather than resolutions, in corporate speak -- requires something beyond
a simple majority. Arguably, major decisions like these usually require
votes of two-thirds or three-quarters, so 60% is actually a surprisingly
low setting of the bar. From my POV this is one more example of how the
campaign has been stacked in favour of MMP proponents.

> I don't like feeling stupid; if necessary, I'll roll the dice to induce change.
>   
That kind of public sentiment is what gave Ontario Mike Harris as
premier. Dice rolling tends to backfire.

- Evan

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists