MMP At A Glance

To all of you who visited my blog looking for more information on the Mixed Member Proportional system proposed for Ontario - I hope this answers at least some of your questions.

The Mixed-Member Proportional (or MMP) system is a hybrid system which combines constituency voting with party list proportionality. Voter make two votes: one for a local candidate and one for a political party. Parties that end up winning lesser share of seats than their share of the popular vote, receive additional seats from the party lists, so their share of seats matches their share of the popular vote.

In fact, MMP takes the best out of two worlds. Since most of the members are still elected in the local constituencies, it retains the geographic link between voters and elected members. It keeps other advantages of the First Past The Post system, such as being able to run as Independent. At the same time, the second, "party list" vote adds more advantages to the system.

It offsets the distortion of the FPTP system; if a local candidate of your choice doesn't get elected, the party vote still counts and it will ensure that the party of your choice gets its fair share of seats. Members "at large" provide additional representation to those who are ignored by their local representatives. And finally - having two votes - for a local candidate and for the preferred party gives voters much more opportunities to vote their conscience.

That's a serious issue. As if smaller parties weren't already disadvantaged by the First Past The Post system, their support becomes even smaller when it comes to voting. Every supporter of a small party faces a tough choice at the ballot box: should he "waste" his vote on a candidate who is unlikely to get elected or should he sell his vote cheap by helping a "could be acceptable" front-runner to win the riding?

Many choose to vote strategically. In the 1999 Ontario Election, the NDP lost over 40% of its support to strategic voting. Family Coalition Party lost 60%. NDP supporters were propping the Liberals, trying to vote Mike Harris' government out of power. FCP supporters voted PC to keep the common sense revolution going.

Mixed-Member Proportional system allows people to vote their conscience. First and foremost - because the system is proportional. Even if the party ends up underrepresented locally, the party list vote will offset the distortion. Also - voters are allowed to split the vote. It's possible to vote for an independent candidate and support the party of your choice with the party vote. Finally, those who don't want a front-runner they hate the most to win the riding, could still vote strategically on a "local" side of the ballot, but vote their conscience on the "party" side.

The main argument against the proposed system is that Members at large (or "list members") won't be directly responsible to the voters and that they may end up being more loyal to the party executives who compile the lists. However, with the way Mixed-Member Proportional system is designed, that's unlikely to happen. First of all, because local members still have the right of way. Unless the party is underrepresented on the local ballot, it gets no list seats. Thus, even being number 1 on the list doesn't guarantee the candidate is going to be elected - if he doesn't run locally.

Since larger parties usually have more success on a local ballot, the largest (thus - the governing) party caucus would be made up mostly of the local members, while most of the list members would be in the opposition. Yet even that doesn't mean that nearly half of the opposition as well as some of the governing party members would be unaccountable to the voters. They will be representing voters province-wide, addressing issues that local members may ignore and... trying to establish relationship with the local voters as well. Because if their party does better in the next election, winning more seats locally - it will be entitled to less list seats.

Finally, let's not forget that under MMP voters get much more options on the ballot. Therefore, one doesn't really have to vote for a party list if he doesn't trust the candidates. He may vote for a local candidate of that party and then choose a party list he likes better. (Or he may choose not to select any, so only his local vote is going to count.) I believe that having more opportunities to vote your conscience outweighs the inconvenience of not being able to select between different list members.