The Inhumanity of MMP

Evan Leibovitch evan-ieNeDk6JonTYtjvyW6yDsg at public.gmane.org
Tue Oct 9 18:04:12 UTC 2007


OK, so the subject line was a bit extreme. But there's been something
bothering me about this whole debate that I haven' t been able to put my
finger on, and even here I'm not sure if I'm expressing it well. So I'll
do my best and hope it makes some sense.

Currently, MPPs are not robots. Sometimes they vote against party
discipline. Sometimes they change parties in mid-session. Sometimes they
force free votes on issues that transcend party politics. Sometimes they
face local backlash when a province-wide initiative severely threatens
their riding. Sometimes they advance local needs in caucus to provide
context to province-wide programs. Sometimes they resign, or die while
in office, and by-elections need to be called. Sometimes they may even
be persuaded by debate on the floor of the legislature. And sometimes
they may leave their party and sit as an independent.

In other words, there's a human element to the system. Legislators have
to balance personal, party and constituency accountability -- this is,
to me, a Good Thing. Yet, under MMP,  all of that goes out the window
for the 30% of the legislature to be selected by parties rather than
directly from the public.

The list members won' t need to justify themselves to the public, only
to the party backrooms, where loyalty is the only talent that matters.
Almost one-third of the MPPs -- some of whom could even find themselves
in Cabinet -- will have their voting record dictated to them by party
brass and generally stripped of individual thought, for they have no
other accountability. I imagine that if one of the 39 dies or resigns,
their party just appoints a replacement and the legislature doesn't skip
a beat.

To take this to its logical conclusion, why even appoint people to the
39 positions? Each party whip could simply deliver, by proxy, the party
designated answer to each vote, proportioned according to the election.

(Of course, one can argue that even the party-list MPPs are free to vote
on their conscience and occasionally buck the party line. But if that's
the case, it' s the party -- not the people -- who gets to decide their
consequences. At that point, though, what's point of the promise of MMP
if the party reps can vote against the party?)

Is this what people really want? Is this worth making majority
governments an aberration and reducing the influence of independents? I
don' t want MPPs who are reduced to yes/no switches, with no public
accountability and no need to bind with local constituents. These MPPs
don' t need to campaign; the party can simply parade out smooth talkers
-- who aren't even on the list -- to explain and attack, while
appointing parliamentarians who can't relate to people.

I understand the calls for fairness, I get the point proponents are
making, and I do see some benefit of cold logic in the proposal.
However, IMO what we lose from MMP is far more than what we gain. There
are many other reasons to oppose MMP, but this is certainly a big one to me.

- 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





More information about the Legacy mailing list