MMP is worth supporting despite CLC objections

It's rare for me to disagree with the Campaign Life Coalition, but this is the case when our opinions differ. I support the Mixed-Member Proportional system proposed for Ontario, while the CLC proposes another solution:

What we need is not electoral reform but political reform. We don't need a better system of choosing our elected officials; we need more informed and engaged voters and more honest and open debate in order to elect better politicians. We need fewer backroom deals and more public discussion of the important issues. We need less centralized control by party leaders and party elites.
...
The answer to this is to open up parliament or provincial government by empowering parliamentary committees, removing the privilege of patronage from prime ministers and premiers, and making it easier to introduce, debate and pass private members bills. This will lead to more accountability, the ability to consider a wider variety of issues, and decreasing the role of government leaders and their unelected staffs.

More >>>

How can that be achieved if we keep electing the same old politicians? Theoretically the first past the post system is supposed to let the voters choose the best candidate, which would be personally accountable to his constituents. In reality, every candidate except those endorsed by the two leading parties ends up in a catch 22: People are reluctant to vote for him because he doesn't have much support and he doesn't get much support because so many people are afraid to split the vote.

The CLC is concerned that party lists from which the 39 top-up MPPs are going to be selected will be drawn up by party elites. Yes, it would be much better if voters were able choose between the list candidates of a party that they support (which could still be implemented once the system is adopted).

But at the same time - who is deciding on the local candidate nominations? The same party elites or at the very best - those who represent the party elite at the local constituency associations. If they don't like the candidate - they won't allow him to run for nomination, no matter what. If they want the guy to win - they'll overlook any irregularity there is even if he buys a dozen membership cards for his cat.

So if we want less influence of the party elites we better have an electoral system that lets the newbies in. Adopting a system that would make it easier for smaller parties to challenge the established leaders will accomplish much more in terms of democratic reforms than a handful of independents or "third party" groups that are allowed (under severe restrictions from the electoral office) to endorse and denounce candidates during the campaign.

And if a party still submits a lists which ignores voters' preferences - that's when the MMP advantage comes into play. If you don't like the way the party list is compiled - you can simply vote for another party with absolutely no concerns about splitting the vote. Your local vote doesn't oblige you to support the party to which your local candidate belongs. So if you like the local candidate but don't like the party list - you can still vote for that candidate and choose some other party to support on a party list vote. And vice versa - you can always vote for an independent candidate on a local ballot and then support a party of your choice on a list vote.

The Mixed Member Proportional system proposed for Ontario would allow voters more freedom to vote their conscience. That's why I believe it's worth supporting.