The Inhumanity of MMP
Jamon Camisso
jamon.camisso-H217xnMUJC0sA/PxXw9srA at public.gmane.org
Tue Oct 9 18:25:24 UTC 2007
On October 9, 2007 02:04:12 pm Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 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.
That's why we have a 4 year election cycle. The one thing I haven't seen
anyone mention is that if after 4 years, a clique of backroom
coalitions inside parties etc. are dictating policy that we
constituents don't agree with, the popular vote is an easy and
effective way to crush said party's MMP seats, without voters needing
to fear that voting for their local candidate will hinder that.
It's a good way to get parties to at least maintain a positive outward
appearance to avoid loosing ground to their competition. Most people
vote based on superficials anyways.
> 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.
Also, that Dalton McGuinty would promise a referendum on the issue, as
one of the two parties with the most to loose, and however disinclined
he may have been to deliver on that means one of two things to me: 1,
he thinks we'll all vote against it and wants to have a record of
delivering on promises made; 2, he is our appointed leader, listens to
the electorate, and has the public's best interests in mind.
Probably a combination of the two, I'm not a member of the Liberals so I
don't know what the real story is.
Jamon
--
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