The results are posted on the Elections Ontario website.
63.2% of valid votes cast instruct the government to remain on the FPTP system.
It's disappointing to say the least, but we respect the decision of the electorate.
As of right now, this blog will not be posting any new items.
Thanks, everyone, who contributed.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Comment Moderation On
Comment moderation has been enabled on this site until the polls in Ontario close.
The Truth About FPTP - The Summary
Over five pieces, I have discussed the truth about FPTP. If you couldn't tell, most of it was in response to the ironically named "Truth" About MMP list put out by the advocates for the status quo.
The fact of the matter is, the referendum isn't about choosing whether or not we should move to mixed member proportional (MMP); it's about choosing to remain on the first-past-the-post or moving to mixed member proportional.
The advocates of the current system will tell you the real solution is to fix the current system and not to change, but somehow in the same breath argue that the system has worked well unchanged for a couple of hundred years.
The advocates of the current system will tell you they support electoral reform but that the real solution is to find a different electoral system other than MMP, but somehow fail to explain why we haven't explored a different electoral system for a couple of hundred years.
The fact of the matter is, the advocates of the current system want to remain on first-past-the-post. What they don't want you to know, however, is the truth about first-past-the-post.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
The fact of the matter is, the referendum isn't about choosing whether or not we should move to mixed member proportional (MMP); it's about choosing to remain on the first-past-the-post or moving to mixed member proportional.
The advocates of the current system will tell you the real solution is to fix the current system and not to change, but somehow in the same breath argue that the system has worked well unchanged for a couple of hundred years.
The advocates of the current system will tell you they support electoral reform but that the real solution is to find a different electoral system other than MMP, but somehow fail to explain why we haven't explored a different electoral system for a couple of hundred years.
The fact of the matter is, the advocates of the current system want to remain on first-past-the-post. What they don't want you to know, however, is the truth about first-past-the-post.
- First past the post is only the electoral choice of 8 countries of the world. Some of those countries use proportional representation, too. Most of the other countries that currently use FPTP inherited it from their colonial power.
- Under first past the post, governments in Ontario have reduced the representation in Ontario.
- Under first past the post, political parties determine who and what you vote for.
- Under first past the post, elections are like a box of chocolates - you never know what you're going to get. You could get a minority electing a majority, the second place party forming a majority, or the complete elimination of any political opposition. The worst part of all of this is that these situations are the norm.
- First past the post lets parties exploit the weaknesses of the system to their advantage. It's no longer necessary to campaign on policy. As long as you can scare your opponent's traditional voters away, it's not necessary to achieve a majority of votes or to form a consensus with someone else. You just need one more vote than your opponent.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Andrew Coyne : Quick Hits
Andrew Coyne is back with some quick hits on the biggest myths about MMP.
Parties breeding like rabbits, where Andrew shows that Germany under MMP has approximately the same average number of political parties as those under FPTP (Canada, UK, and the USA).
In unstable governments, Andrew breaks down the number of elections by electoral system.
Parties breeding like rabbits, where Andrew shows that Germany under MMP has approximately the same average number of political parties as those under FPTP (Canada, UK, and the USA).
In unstable governments, Andrew breaks down the number of elections by electoral system.
No. of elections 1945 - 1998Hordes of extremists shows us that the only extreme one-issue party we'll find is the "Party for the Animals" in the Dutch pure PR system.PR: MMP
Germany 14
PR: party list
Italy 14
Norway 14
Finland 14
Netherlands 16
Belgium 17
Sweden 17
Denmark 22
Plurality (first past the post)
United Kingdom 15
Canada 17
Australia 22
Monday, October 8, 2007
The Truth About FPTP - Politics as Usual
What is tactical voting? Why is it prevalent in FPTP?
Tactical voting is voting for a party or a candidate that a voter may not want in an effort to defeat a candidate the voter does not want to win. Usually, the voter chooses the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate.
For example, a voter prefers Candidate A, but really dislikes Candidate B. If the voter perceives Candidate C has a better chance of defeating Candidate B, the voter will vote for Candidate C in the hopes of making sure Candidate B is defeated.
This has even occurred recently when Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty called for tactical voting. Hoping to defeat Opposition Leader, John Tory, he attacked the NDP by saying that "a vote for the NDP is in fact a vote for the Progressive Conservatives."
Tactical voting is often described as a vote against someone instead of a vote for someone. This tends to lead to voter apathy.
It's prevalent in FPTP for the simple fact it's only necessary to have the most votes in a riding, meaning close ridings have this occur more often. The candidate who benefits most from tactical voting will often play up fears in the hopes of just slightly tipping the balance in their favour.
It's a compounding effect, as this negative campaigning also leads to voter apathy.
I like some of the policies of one party, but I like some of the policies of another party. If I select FPTP, will the parties work together?
Most certainly not. As false majorities are the norm, political parties that form governments declare they have the mandate to do as they see fit - that may be to implement a radical platform or to completely abandon the promises they were elected on.
Voters are left to vote "all or nothing" and hope for the best.
I support Party A, but my riding has consistently supported Party B. I feel like my vote is wasted. Is it?
A vote is never truly wasted, but it may seem to you that your vote is unnecessary. This could lead someone to stop voting.
I find I can't support the old line parties anymore. I like a smaller party - if I vote for them, what are the chances my candidate will win?
It's not likely - in fact, it's a practical impossibility.
The FPTP system, by setting the threshold for winning so low, makes it harder for smaller parties to get seats. Under FPTP, even a small party with a sizable portion of the popular vote may not get a seat in the legislature!
Tactical voting is voting for a party or a candidate that a voter may not want in an effort to defeat a candidate the voter does not want to win. Usually, the voter chooses the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate.
For example, a voter prefers Candidate A, but really dislikes Candidate B. If the voter perceives Candidate C has a better chance of defeating Candidate B, the voter will vote for Candidate C in the hopes of making sure Candidate B is defeated.
This has even occurred recently when Ontario Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty called for tactical voting. Hoping to defeat Opposition Leader, John Tory, he attacked the NDP by saying that "a vote for the NDP is in fact a vote for the Progressive Conservatives."
Tactical voting is often described as a vote against someone instead of a vote for someone. This tends to lead to voter apathy.
It's prevalent in FPTP for the simple fact it's only necessary to have the most votes in a riding, meaning close ridings have this occur more often. The candidate who benefits most from tactical voting will often play up fears in the hopes of just slightly tipping the balance in their favour.
It's a compounding effect, as this negative campaigning also leads to voter apathy.
I like some of the policies of one party, but I like some of the policies of another party. If I select FPTP, will the parties work together?
Most certainly not. As false majorities are the norm, political parties that form governments declare they have the mandate to do as they see fit - that may be to implement a radical platform or to completely abandon the promises they were elected on.
Voters are left to vote "all or nothing" and hope for the best.
I support Party A, but my riding has consistently supported Party B. I feel like my vote is wasted. Is it?
A vote is never truly wasted, but it may seem to you that your vote is unnecessary. This could lead someone to stop voting.
I find I can't support the old line parties anymore. I like a smaller party - if I vote for them, what are the chances my candidate will win?
It's not likely - in fact, it's a practical impossibility.
The FPTP system, by setting the threshold for winning so low, makes it harder for smaller parties to get seats. Under FPTP, even a small party with a sizable portion of the popular vote may not get a seat in the legislature!
Larger parties then use this as evidence to refer to these parties as "fringe" or not representative of electoral wishes.
No. If anything, political parties have more power over candidates, making them more responsible to the party brass than the voters of Ontario.
All candidates will want to maintain high standing within the party - toeing the line to ensure they are not booted from caucus or removed as a candidate. This is over and above the party support and finance that a candidate needs to get elected at the riding level.
Up next, a summary.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Truth About FPTP - False Majorities
Wikipedia defines representative democracy thusly:
FPTP could be called "Second Place Forms Government Sometimes, Too".
Isn't it undemocratic to have a minority of the population electing a majority of the legislature?
It most certainly is, but supporters of FPTP will tell you this is the most desirable form of government.
Up next, politics as usual.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by a majority of votes by the people being represented. Representatives may be elected by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate proportionally proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people, to act in their interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so.
Keep that definition in mind as we progress.
I've heard that one of the strengths of FPTP is that, in most cases, governments elected in this system are majority governments. Is that true?
Well, that is true. But, it's called a false majority.
A false majority is when representatives of one political party form a clear majority in the legislature, but were elected with a minority of the popular vote.
Surely though, it's rare for a political party to win a minority of the votes but to take a majority of the legislature. Right?
That's not right. In fact, that's the most common result in FPTP. It is rare for a political party to actually obtain a majority of the popular vote. Even advocates for the FPTP system acknowledge this.
For historical purposes, the last time an Ontario election resulted in a political party forming government receiving a majority of the votes was in 1937, when a coalition of the Liberals and Liberal-Progressives took 51.6% of the popular vote. They took 65 of 90 seats (72%).
But, FPTP just says that a party has to take the most votes to form government. So, FPTP always ensures that the party with the most votes forms government. Is that true?
That is most certainly not true.
- In the 1998 Quebec general election, the separatist Parti Québécois took 42.87% of the popular vote compared to the Liberal Party which took 43.55%. Yet, the PQ formed a majority with 76 of the 125 seats.
- In the 2006 New Brunswick general election, the Liberal Party took 47.1% of the popular vote compared to the Progressive Conservative Party which took 47.5%. Yet, the Liberals formed a majority with 29 of the 55 seats.
FPTP could be called "Second Place Forms Government Sometimes, Too".
Isn't it undemocratic to have a minority of the population electing a majority of the legislature?
It most certainly is, but supporters of FPTP will tell you this is the most desirable form of government.
Up next, politics as usual.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Darryl Wolk : Why I Voted for Mixed Member Proportional
Darryl Wolk tells us why he supports mixed member proportional, including the understanding that while MMP may not be perfect, it is far and away a better electoral system.
There is a lot still unknown with Mixed Member Proportional because we have to see how it works in practice. I believe this system addresses most of the problems with our current system. MPPs would be more accountable and free to cast their votes independently. Seats would be allocated closer to the percentage of the vote they receive. Less strategic voting and the opportunity to make your vote count. Voting Green would bring about a result in the legislature if 3% of the population supports them. I think people should be voting for something positive not the "lesser of two evils". I want to see the spirit of compromise among elected officials so that things can get done. The grass roots members would get more say because of the list not less by elected the people who appear on the list. Italy and Israel are often thrown around as examples of proportional representation is not working while Germany and New Zealand are examples of where it works well. I know what I am getting with the status quo and I am willing to take a bit of a risk in order to see some meaningful change and reform to our outdated system. MMP is not perfect, but it is better than what we currently have. I don't think it is the magic bullet to address low voter turnout; but it may over time inspire more people to get involved or at least feel their vote means something.
NEWS RELEASE: Bi-partisan campaign to ask Ontario voters to choose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)
For Immediate Release: Thursday, October 4th, 2007
Bi-partisan campaign to ask Ontario voters to choose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP); Conservatives and Liberals now working together on electoral reform
(Toronto) While each of Ontario's political parties are campaigning against each other for votes over the last week of the provincial election, members from both the Conservative and Liberal parties are campaigning together for the first time to ask voters to choose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) when casting their ballots on electoral reform October 10th.
"More Ontario youth are voting for Canadian Idol than they do for candidates in either the federal or provincial elections," says Toronto school trustee and Liberal, Josh Matlow, "Under our current system, too many Ontarians simply don't believe their vote makes a difference. I'm hopeful that MMP will contribute to ending voter cynicism and make our democracy more accessible to the diverse priorities of Ontarians."
"Adopting MMP would help introduce a degree of stability to the electoral process where swings in party support would be more moderate and in line with the overall popular vote," says Patrick Boyer, former Progressive Conservative MP (Etobicoke-Lakeshore). "Discuss it with family members, and friends; make your feelings known on this issue to them."
If Ontarians choose the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system, voters will continue to be represented in local constituencies by 90 representatives. Ontarians will also benefit from an additional 39 representatives elected province-wide. Although the Citizens' Assembly recommended leaving it up to individual parties to decide how to nominate their province-wide candidates, all four major parties have already committed to choosing their list candidates in a democratic and transparent way.
-30-
For more information, please contact:
Josh Matlow (Liberal) at (416) 809-5674 cell.
Patrick Boyer (Conservative) (416) 225-3930
Backgrounder:
The Citizens' Assembly was a group of 103 randomly-selected citizens from the Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario - one from each of Ontario's electoral districts. With the Chair, George Thomson, 52 of the members were male and 52 were female. They were asked to assess Ontario's electoral system, and others, and make a recommendation whether Ontario should retain its current system or adopt a different one.
Together, Assembly members consulted with the public through meetings and written submissions. Using what they learned and heard, they recommended that Ontario replace its First-Past-The-Post system with a new electoral system, the Mixed Member Proportional system now before Ontario voters. That recommendation was outlined in a report submitted to the government on May 15, 2007.
The government promised to put the question of whether to accept the Assembly's recommendation to voters in a province-wide referendum in October 2007.
Liberal members launched this Liberals For MMP blog during the summer of 2007 and have thus far received over 8,000 visits, averaging over 300 to 400 hits a day. Liberal supporters of MMP include:
- Dr. Carolyn Bennett, Liberal MP for St. Paul's
- Elinor Caplan, former provincial and federal Liberal cabinet minister
- Michael Bryant, Attorney General and MPP for St. Paul's
- John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing and MPP for Kingston & the Islands
- Dr. Shafiq Qaadri, MPP for Etobicoke North
- Bob Rae, federal Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre
- George Smitherman, Minister of Health & Long-term Care and MPP for Toronto Centre
Conservatives For MMP was launched by party member James Calder, and is supported by the following well-known supporters:
- Hon. Hugh Segal, Senator (Kingston-Frontenac-Leeds)
- Hon. Janet Ecker, Former PC MPP and Cabinet Minister
- Hon. Nancy Ruth, Senator (Cluny)
- John Oostrom, Former PC MP
- Justin O'Donnell, Past President, Niagara Centre PC Association
- Patrick Boyer, Former PC MP
- Rick Anderson, President & CEO, Zip.ca and Chair of Vote For MMP
Bi-partisan campaign to ask Ontario voters to choose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP); Conservatives and Liberals now working together on electoral reform
(Toronto) While each of Ontario's political parties are campaigning against each other for votes over the last week of the provincial election, members from both the Conservative and Liberal parties are campaigning together for the first time to ask voters to choose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) when casting their ballots on electoral reform October 10th.
"More Ontario youth are voting for Canadian Idol than they do for candidates in either the federal or provincial elections," says Toronto school trustee and Liberal, Josh Matlow, "Under our current system, too many Ontarians simply don't believe their vote makes a difference. I'm hopeful that MMP will contribute to ending voter cynicism and make our democracy more accessible to the diverse priorities of Ontarians."
"Adopting MMP would help introduce a degree of stability to the electoral process where swings in party support would be more moderate and in line with the overall popular vote," says Patrick Boyer, former Progressive Conservative MP (Etobicoke-Lakeshore). "Discuss it with family members, and friends; make your feelings known on this issue to them."
If Ontarians choose the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system, voters will continue to be represented in local constituencies by 90 representatives. Ontarians will also benefit from an additional 39 representatives elected province-wide. Although the Citizens' Assembly recommended leaving it up to individual parties to decide how to nominate their province-wide candidates, all four major parties have already committed to choosing their list candidates in a democratic and transparent way.
-30-
For more information, please contact:
Josh Matlow (Liberal) at (416) 809-5674 cell.
Patrick Boyer (Conservative) (416) 225-3930
Backgrounder:
The Citizens' Assembly was a group of 103 randomly-selected citizens from the Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario - one from each of Ontario's electoral districts. With the Chair, George Thomson, 52 of the members were male and 52 were female. They were asked to assess Ontario's electoral system, and others, and make a recommendation whether Ontario should retain its current system or adopt a different one.
Together, Assembly members consulted with the public through meetings and written submissions. Using what they learned and heard, they recommended that Ontario replace its First-Past-The-Post system with a new electoral system, the Mixed Member Proportional system now before Ontario voters. That recommendation was outlined in a report submitted to the government on May 15, 2007.
The government promised to put the question of whether to accept the Assembly's recommendation to voters in a province-wide referendum in October 2007.
Liberal members launched this Liberals For MMP blog during the summer of 2007 and have thus far received over 8,000 visits, averaging over 300 to 400 hits a day. Liberal supporters of MMP include:
- Dr. Carolyn Bennett, Liberal MP for St. Paul's
- Elinor Caplan, former provincial and federal Liberal cabinet minister
- Michael Bryant, Attorney General and MPP for St. Paul's
- John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing and MPP for Kingston & the Islands
- Dr. Shafiq Qaadri, MPP for Etobicoke North
- Bob Rae, federal Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre
- George Smitherman, Minister of Health & Long-term Care and MPP for Toronto Centre
Conservatives For MMP was launched by party member James Calder, and is supported by the following well-known supporters:
- Hon. Hugh Segal, Senator (Kingston-Frontenac-Leeds)
- Hon. Janet Ecker, Former PC MPP and Cabinet Minister
- Hon. Nancy Ruth, Senator (Cluny)
- John Oostrom, Former PC MP
- Justin O'Donnell, Past President, Niagara Centre PC Association
- Patrick Boyer, Former PC MP
- Rick Anderson, President & CEO, Zip.ca and Chair of Vote For MMP
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Andrew Coyne : And another thing...
Andrew Coyne presents a quick post of some lines regarding proportional representation that he "didn't manage to work in, in four columns on proportional representation".
As Greg notes in his post (Truer words and all that), the big line worthy of repeating is when Mr. Coyne responds to a comment clearly based on a conservative concern that there will be endless NDP / Liberal governments filled with big spending.
Andrew comments:
As Greg notes in his post (Truer words and all that), the big line worthy of repeating is when Mr. Coyne responds to a comment clearly based on a conservative concern that there will be endless NDP / Liberal governments filled with big spending.
Andrew comments:
[N]aturally I deplore that development [where governments become larger], unless that is what the people in those countries wanted. The test of a democratic institution is not whether it produces outcomes I happen to agree with, but whether it accurately reflects the public's preferences.
Emphasis mine.
The Truth About FPTP - How Political Parties Choose Candidates
I heard that the people who get chosen to run in a political riding under FPTP would be named from a list of supporters of political parties. Is that true?
That is correct. Only party members may run as a candidate for a political party under FPTP.
So who gets to determine the makeup of the political candidates?
The political parties are solely responsible for the composition of the party candidates under FPTP. They can either be determined by direct orders by the party leadership, or they might be determined by a vote by party members.
No matter what, the candidates for election will be in the hands of members of political parties, who make up a tiny part of the population of Ontario.
Non-aligned voters do not get a say at all.
If I do not like the candidate representing the party that I want to vote for, can I alter the name so I can put the name of my preferred candidate in when it comes time to vote?
No, you cannot. FPTP only allows for closed party candidate selection. This means that voters cannot cross off names or change the candidate's name in the ballot box. The only choice given to the voters under FPTP is to vote for the candidate chosen by the political party.
Your preferred candidate may run as an independent, but they are unlikely to win under FPTP.
But, under FPTP, I can still support the political party, by voting for the party but not the candidate, correct?
No, that is not correct. If you want to support the political party, you must vote for the candidate you do not support.
Wait. I will have to vote for someone I may not want to represent me? Isn't that undemocratic?
Yes. You cannot support your political party and not support their preferred candidate. Similarly, you cannot support your local candidate and not support their political party.
You must choose between selecting a political party you do not support, a candidate you do not support, or spoiling your ballot. Those are your only choices.
That is undemocratic.
Isn't giving political parties total control over selecting the candidate undemocratic?
It is important to be highly regarded within the party to be selected or chosen as a candidate. It helps if the candidate is also well known in the community, but this is not always the case.
If a candidate is highly regarded by the party but not well known in the community, he or she may be parachuted into a riding, most likely into a riding that's called a "safe seat" - one where support runs high for the party, regardless of candidate. The candidate will likely have no ties to the community - neither personal nor professional. He or she is then pretty much guaranteed a seat in the legislature, regardless of how well the party does in an election.
So if you want to vote for a party but do not like whom they have running in your riding, you are pretty much stuck. Not only is this undemocratic, it is also unfair.
If I don't like a candidate running in another riding, how can I make sure that he or she does not get into office?
You could move to that riding, and vote in their election. For most of us, that's simply not possible. Once you have moved, you'd also have to convince the rest of the riding not to support that candidate - and if you don't have a lot of ties in the community, it may be all but impossible.
How many political parties in Ontario use FPTP to select leaders?
Neither the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the Ontario Liberals, nor the Ontario NDP uses FPTP to select leaders. That is, of course, unless the candidate is acclaimed.
How many political parties use FPTP to select candidates?
Neither the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the Ontario Liberals, nor the Ontario NDP uses FPTP to select candidates. That is, of course, unless the leader selects the candidate or the candidate is acclaimed.
Why would partisan activists of political parties then support FPTP if political parties themselves do not use FPTP?
That's for another debate, but it certainly does indicate that even the political parties themselves understand that FPTP is not the best method for electing officials.
Up next, false majorities.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
That is correct. Only party members may run as a candidate for a political party under FPTP.
So who gets to determine the makeup of the political candidates?
The political parties are solely responsible for the composition of the party candidates under FPTP. They can either be determined by direct orders by the party leadership, or they might be determined by a vote by party members.
No matter what, the candidates for election will be in the hands of members of political parties, who make up a tiny part of the population of Ontario.
Non-aligned voters do not get a say at all.
If I do not like the candidate representing the party that I want to vote for, can I alter the name so I can put the name of my preferred candidate in when it comes time to vote?
No, you cannot. FPTP only allows for closed party candidate selection. This means that voters cannot cross off names or change the candidate's name in the ballot box. The only choice given to the voters under FPTP is to vote for the candidate chosen by the political party.
Your preferred candidate may run as an independent, but they are unlikely to win under FPTP.
But, under FPTP, I can still support the political party, by voting for the party but not the candidate, correct?
No, that is not correct. If you want to support the political party, you must vote for the candidate you do not support.
Wait. I will have to vote for someone I may not want to represent me? Isn't that undemocratic?
Yes. You cannot support your political party and not support their preferred candidate. Similarly, you cannot support your local candidate and not support their political party.
You must choose between selecting a political party you do not support, a candidate you do not support, or spoiling your ballot. Those are your only choices.
That is undemocratic.
Isn't giving political parties total control over selecting the candidate undemocratic?
It is important to be highly regarded within the party to be selected or chosen as a candidate. It helps if the candidate is also well known in the community, but this is not always the case.
If a candidate is highly regarded by the party but not well known in the community, he or she may be parachuted into a riding, most likely into a riding that's called a "safe seat" - one where support runs high for the party, regardless of candidate. The candidate will likely have no ties to the community - neither personal nor professional. He or she is then pretty much guaranteed a seat in the legislature, regardless of how well the party does in an election.
So if you want to vote for a party but do not like whom they have running in your riding, you are pretty much stuck. Not only is this undemocratic, it is also unfair.
If I don't like a candidate running in another riding, how can I make sure that he or she does not get into office?
You could move to that riding, and vote in their election. For most of us, that's simply not possible. Once you have moved, you'd also have to convince the rest of the riding not to support that candidate - and if you don't have a lot of ties in the community, it may be all but impossible.
How many political parties in Ontario use FPTP to select leaders?
Neither the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the Ontario Liberals, nor the Ontario NDP uses FPTP to select leaders. That is, of course, unless the candidate is acclaimed.
How many political parties use FPTP to select candidates?
Neither the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, the Ontario Liberals, nor the Ontario NDP uses FPTP to select candidates. That is, of course, unless the leader selects the candidate or the candidate is acclaimed.
Why would partisan activists of political parties then support FPTP if political parties themselves do not use FPTP?
That's for another debate, but it certainly does indicate that even the political parties themselves understand that FPTP is not the best method for electing officials.
Up next, false majorities.
Cross posted from The Progressive Right.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Andrew Coyne : The fearmongers debunked
Andrew Coyne is back with another article arguing in favour of the mixed member proportional electoral system. This time, Mr. Coyne targets the myths that the group who advocate for the first-past-the-post system have dreamt up. Dreamt up, that is, after having long given up actually defending the first-past-the-post electoral system.
Indeed, apologists for the status quo have more or less given up arguing for first past the post on its merits. The pretense that it delivers “stable majorities” can no longer be sustained: recent elections in Ontario have produced, in order, NDP, Conservative, and Liberal governments, none with a majority of the votes, yet each interpreting the support of its own minority as a mandate to impose a succession of radically different policy regimes on the rest of us.Mr. Coyne systematically debunks the myths. His posts, as always, are worth the read.
So instead first-past-the-posties have focused on raising fears about the alternative. These fall into two broad categories: fears about proportional representation in general, and fears about mixed-member proportional in particular.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
