The FAQ on this site has some really good arguments against MMP which I never thought of before such as:
If I don't like the candidate who is first on a party list, how can I make sure that he does not get into office?
You can vote against the party list. But the only way to be certain that the candidate does not get a seat is ensure that 98% of Ontarians vote for someone else, thanks to the 3% threshold proposed.
Under our current FPTP system, a candidate can lose his seat if another candidate gets more votes than him. It is that simple. For a list MPP to lose his under MMP, if he is first on the list, 98% of the population have to vote against him.
How would you like an electoral system that puts in a representative that has 97% of the electorate voting against him?
This blurb on strategic voting is also interesting:
It is also possible to vote tactically for the party lists. Remember that the ratio between constituency seats and list seats is about 70% / 30% under this proposed MMP system. This means that the larger parties that pick up more seats than their vote proportion at the constituency level will usually not be entitled to any list seats.
This means that smaller parties are more likely to get these lists seats. This gives voters, especially those who support large parties, a strategic incentive to vote for a small party that could be a potential coalition partner with the large party they might support.
This happens in Germany all the time. Supporters of the conservative Christian Democratic Union often vote for smaller like-minded parties so that they get list seats, since they realize that voting for the CDU list will work to elect small parties that would not be interested in forming a coalition with them
Most of the arguments I've heard for PR focus on how much more responsive (theoretically) it would make our democracy. If "responsive" means coalitions, no more majority governments and fringe parties having the balance of power, I agree that PR will make government responsive.
It will also mean the "hard choices" will never be made because no party would ever be willing to take an unpopular position since that would likely mean losing coalition partners and votes in the next election. It will also mean the process of creating legislation will become a true bidding war with fringe parties pushing their agendas for the price of a vote.
So far, I've yet to see a compelling argument to change from FPTP.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You can attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum