Electoral reform
A reader wondered a few days ago why I had not been blogging about the referendum question and what I thought about electoral reform.
In answer to his querie, I’ve only just started blogging so my first couple were dedicated to the mainstream campaign.
As for electoral reform, I’m not among those who think it is necessary or essential. I don’t have a particular problem with the current system of “first past the post.” I have never found myself in the position of wanting to vote for a candidate but not the party or vice versa.
We are having the referendum question included in this election because the current Liberal government decided through legislation that electoral reform should be offered. The legislation then handed it off to a citizens’ coalition to suggest an alternative that became the “mixed member proportional.”
Although the system could be intellectually argued to be more representational than the current system, in practice, I think it could lead to cycle of minority governments who are prevented from acting or forced to act in ways by smaller party’s who would be able to appoint sitting MPs through the list system.
The idea that all parties could appoint people who are not elected and therefore cannot be unelected by the electorate is not something I am comfortable with. In my view, all MPs who take a salary, benefits and pensions from the public purse should be accountable to the people of the province on election day - not to the party brass who put them them on a list to serve if the party wins a regional lottery of public support.
October 10th, 2007 at 9:08 am
I wish the education portion of this referendum had been more extensive.
From your blog: “The idea that all parties could appoint people who are not elected and therefore cannot be unelected by the electorate is not something I am comfortable with.”
This isn’t accurate. Parties would not appoint people to be on the party list to be potential MPPs. They would be *elected* just as any other candidate is elected for our current ridings, or for the party leadership position.
Also, a *coalition* government would be formed where the idea for more cooperative discussions. As illustrated in Germany and New Zealand, the parties on the province-wide tier who fulfill their party agendas rather than the agendas of the people will be booted out in the next election.
Ontario is under-represented by population. One MPP represents approximately 115,000 people. Having 129 MPPs would restore the legislature to almost the number that it was from 1987 to 1999. Also, when the number of MPPs were cut from 130 to 103, the costs associated with support staff was exponential. So by reducing the number of MPPs, the government “window-dressed” how the money was being spent as a cutbacks for salaries and less politicans, but not looking at what was happening with MPPs’ workload. Adding the 39 list members would allow for issues such as health care and education to be discussed as a whole for the province. People could call their local representative or the party representative.