Globe on MMP: Unfair NDP majorities bad, Unfair Liberal and Conservative majorities good

Sigh... the Globe and Mail has held true to its (small-c) conservative biases this morning. In an editorial arguing against MMP, it clings to the hoary approach that the proposed system will effectively prevent single-party majorities. Far better, the editorialist argues, to apportion the list seats directly on the basis of proportional representation, and treat the constituency seats as a completely separate beast. This system, it argues, would be better because it would still permit the election of majority governments. And what's more, with regard to the proposed MMP system on the ballot:

had this [the proposed new] version of MMP been in place, no Ontario party would have won a majority in the past 20 years. That would have spared the province an NDP government that it elected by accident, but it would also have meant no Common Sense Revolution under Mike Harris in 1995 and no clear victory by the Liberals in 2003 – both results that were in tune with the province's general sentiment and handed those governments the tools to implement tough policies.

So let me get this straight... it would be good to adopt the MMP system because it would have prevented the Rae years, but bad because it would have prevented the Harris years.

Clearly the editorialist is a raging pinhead and an ideologue unable to see that this is a major point in favour of the new electoral system - preventing the election of false majority governments that can implement radical political change without having the backing of a majority of the voters. As Idealistic Pragmatist points out, what would replace single-party majority government (and has in Germany and New Zealand) are stable coalition governments, made up of parties that together reflect a majority of the voter's intentions. I'm disappointed that the Globe was unable to move past their blatant preference for Conservative and/or Liberal majorities and see the merits of the new system.

Recommend this Post

MMP in Guelph

In my last post, I indicated that the all-candidates debate in Guelph helped me narrow down my choices to two: Liberal candidate Liz Sandals and Green candidate Ben Polley. At present, my voting intentions are being influenced by two main issues: the funding of religious schools out of the public purse and the move to a mixed-member-proportional electoral system.

In both cases, the positions of the candidates are leading me to support the Green candidate. The Green party position on the schools question is to support a constitutional amendment to eliminate public funding for the Catholic school board system. To my mind, this is the best way to deal with the question of equitable treatment of religious groups raised by the UN. It is also a route that has been successfully followed in Newfoundland and Quebec. The Liberals, meanwhile, are content to simply defend the status quo, which is preferable to the Conservative approach, but somewhat cowardly in terms of showing leadership.

As for MMP, on his website Ben Polley clearly states that he favours MMP. The Greens are, understandably, fully in favour of a system that will give them some representation for the 5-10% of the vote that they attract. The Liberals are not taking a firm position, although some have adopted a favorable stance. I contacted Liz Sandals to find out her stance on the issue. Her reply was as follows:

"In 2003, the Ontario Liberal Party ran on a platform that included giving Ontarians a choice through a referendum, for the first time ever, on how people are elected in Ontario. When asked to study our electoral system, a randomly selected group of 103 Ontarians came forward with the suggestion of using the MMP system. I am not advocating for either side in this debate. We called the referendum to ask voters which system they prefer, and I will follow the direction of the voters.

That, to my mind, is not showing leadership on this issue, which I expect from a politician. I would at least like to know where their personal preference lies. This, again, is a check in the Polley column for me.

I might yet be swayed back to the Liberals before election day, but it's looking less likely.

Recommend this Post

The significance of Outremont

As I write this post, it looks like Thomas Mulcair is on his way to a victory in Outremont. As someone who once lived in that riding, and volunteered for the NDP in the 2004 election campaign, I'm pleased for him.

But by-elections are strange beasts, and rarely mean all that much in the broader scheme of events. Indeed, the last (and only other) time the NDP won a seat in Quebec, it was a by-election victory. Heck, a Communist MP managed to win a by-election in Quebec in 1943 (Fred Rose, re-elected in 1945). By-elections are great opportunities for local issues to rise to the fore, or for frustrations to be vented without fear of affecting the overall structure of government. However, they often do not indicate what they appear to on the surface.

And so while I am happy for Thomas Mulcair, I think that he will ultimately be another flash in the pan for the NDP in Quebec. He was elected at least partly on the strength of his high profile in the province from his years in the Charest cabinet. Previous NDP candidates in the riding (where the party has fared far better than elsewhere in the province) have barely eked out 10-20% of the vote. And so, much as I wish it were otherwise, I don't think this is indicative of a broader trend for NDP strength in other constituencies.

I think the bigger story, unfortunately for the Liberals, is the further decline of their vote from the 2004/06 levels which were already lower in Outremont under Jean Lapierre than they had been under Martin Cauchon. The Bloc vote does appear to be declining, but in one of the other by-elections, it was the Conservative who picked up those votes, not the NDP. And while a single NDP seat in the House of Commons from Quebec is a pleasing thought for me, the spectre of over a dozen new Conservative pick-ups in former Bloc (and perhaps even Liberal) seats does not.

On a side-note, Quebec's historic election results are one of the reasons why I support electoral reform towards some system of MMP. The left-wing/NDP vote and the Liberal vote alike are concentrated on the heavily-populated island of Montreal, and yet the high raw voting numbers for candidates who espouse these values or political leanings rarely translate into a seat count in the legislature that reflects this fact. For decades now, it has been possible for separatist/sovereignist/Union Nationale parties to win more seats than their share of the popular vote entitles them to, largely because their vote is dispersed across less-populous rural ridings.

Most egregious was the 1994 election, where the Liberals took a greater share of the popular vote (44.75%) than the PQ (44.4%) and yet were outnumbered in the legislature 77 seats to 47. As a result, we were treated to a Jacques Parizeau-led government, and the 1995 sovereignty referendum. I recognize that even if Quebec had had the version of MMP that is proposed for Ontario, Parizeau would have still formed the government. But the crushing majorities that do not reflect the voters intentions would no longer be the norm, and third parties might have a chance to break through the entrenched and often stale dynamics that characterize most provincial electoral systems.

Recommend this Post