rollerblades = luv
I finally have some rollerblades! I'm soo happy and excited about them. I'm pretty bad at skating still but I'm not as terrible as I thought I'd be. My new K2's are much better than the old pair I used to have, so I'm still getting used to trusting them to go over bumps smoothly etc. Anyway, it's much faster to get to campus now
( Read more... )
Make sure you look into the recommended voting system - MMP - before you vote against it. I've lived under a very similar version of MMP used in New Zealand.
It really IS *FAR* better than what Ontario has now. I don't even know where to start.
The Citizens Assembly got it right. They were ordinary people, randomly chosen from around Ontario. They studied voting systems and listened to the public for 9 months.
In the end, yes, they DID make a decision based on the facts. I hope you take the time to do the same.
I feel strongly about this BECAUSE I have already lived under MMP for 11 years. If you like, I can explain to you how and why it really, REALLY is better than the present system.
The one single thing to remember about MMP is you get two votes. One for the person you want to be your MPP ocally and one for the party you prefer to govern Ontario. You don't have to vote for the same party, either. So if you really like that local Liberal man or woman...but you want to vote Conservative on the party vote - you can do that. That party vote is the one that decides what share of all the seats each party gets. But - and think about this - that party vote counts EVERYWHERE. So even if you voted Liberal locally and the Conservative won thelocal seat, your party vote for a Liberal will STILL count toward how many seats the Libeals get province wide.
Think about that. EVERY vote counts toward representation - no matter where you live or who won locally - provided the party you vote for gets at least 3% of all the party votes.
I've lived it. I love it. You will too.
Reply
Reply
You may hear arguments against the proposal that are based on belief, but you won't hear any good arguments against the proposal that are based on the facts. I say this because the members of the OCA voted 94 to 8 for the proposal. They did that because the recommendation is a no-brainer. It IS good.
Part 1.
Some of the arguments against:
"MMP will lead to a legislature full of one-issue, splinter parties."
Lovely claim. Problem is, it isn't true. If you look at the other countries using the system proposed (New Zealand, Germany, Scotland, Wales) you won't find any one-issue parties there. There aren't any.
"What about the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP!"
Well.....what about hhe Paty Quebecois? If enough people vote for a party they will win seats under any systm. The SNP is the largets single arty in the Scottish assembly. They would win seats no mater what system was in place....and have won seats at Westminister, the UK's national Parliament, under First Past the Post."
"MMP will lead to minority government"
Yes. It probably will and I can say from experience that minority government under MMP is a very good thing. For a very simple reason. A minority government under MMP isn't tempted to call an election the way they are under First Past the Post. They know that if they do, they'll end up right back where they started, and will have annoyed voters with a pointles election. Under MMP, they can only get a one-party majority government if they get more than 50% of the party vote. That will happen only rarely. So hy is it a good thing? Because parties are forced to work together to run the country.Debates in the legislature are REAL debates. Parliament ceases to be the rubber stamp of one party. Like we imagine it to be today.....except it isn't. The added benefit of minority government, where several parties work together to pass law, is that the leading party ha its agenda critically scrutinised by other parties not beholden to it. This is sort of like the "sober second look" our Federal Senate is SUPPOSED toprovide, but often fails to. None of the provinces has a Senate, so this aspct of MMP, in reality, is an advantage. While people who don't like MMP try to tell you minority government is bad, based on shakiness of such governments under the present system, people who live in countries with proportional systems go the other way. They don't like one party governments . They see them as being too often dictatorial and arrogant. An opposition leader in a country with PR who is trying to bost his vote will frighten voters with the prospect of one-party government, knowing how hostile they are to it. That's because minority governments in systems like MMP, where they can't just call and election and win a phony, one-party majority, really ARE better......despite the propaganda to the contrary. Voters like it that way. I like it that way, having lived under MMP already.
End of part 1.
Reply
"The small parties have too much / disproportionate power under MMP!"
I love this one. Whoever says it must have failed math at school....early on and often.
Lets say we have a 100 seat Parliament and Minor Party A has 10 seats. The two big parties would both need the support of Minor Party A in order to be the government. They have the other 90 seas between them.
90 beats 10 VERY TIME. No exceptions. Minor party A *only* has any role to play if the two major parties - supposedly the two "responsible" parties can't reach ny agreement or compromise. Why can't they? Remember, the critics paint minor parties as "extremists" and "fringe", so surely the tow big parties should agree more often between them than they wold with an extremist minor party. Problem with the critics is, they're wrong. The minor parties almost always are more flexible and agreeable than the two major parties. They ONLY can be part of the majority if the two major parties disagree with ah other. 90 beats 10 every time. No exceptions. Why does everyone blame the minor party for blocking a government initiative when they can ONLY do that with the support of another, MUCH larger party? Sufficient that together they have a majority on that issue? Doesn't the majority win in a democracy (unless you have First Past the Post.....where 40% of the vote can get you 60% of the seats and 100% of the power).
Here's another gond one: "List MPPs will be appointed by party bosses".
Utter crap. In New Zealand and Germany and Scotland and Wales, the list candidates are ALL democratically selected to the list as candidates by vote of party members. Why would anyone support a party that didn't behave democratically internally? They don't. They specially don't under MMP because the "like it or lump it" reality of selection undr the PRESENT system is blown apart. There are no longer only two parties who (mainly) can elect anyone....and under the present system, there are many "safe" ridings where the same party always wins.....so whoever is chosen by the party there is effectively "appointed" to Queens Park.
"List MPPs will sit around Queens Park doing nothing!"
If only. :-)
I live in the rural, Otaki riding in New Zealand....which uses MMP. My local MPP is a Labour Party guy. He has offces in both major towns in the riding. Not far fr his offices are the offices of Nathan Guy. He's a list MP for the (conservative) National Party. They both compete head to head to serve the voters of Otaki. But Otaki doesn't just have two MPs under MMP. Sue Kedgley, one of the 6 Green Party MP, also covers the 10 ridings in the Wellington region and Otaki is one of them. She puts her contact info in the newspaper every week so people can call her if they want to. Other parties do the same.
Under MMP, these small, rral communities don't have just one MP working to serve them. They have several..and from a variety of parties. This is the REALITY of actual practice. Makes the critics look silly. They're either lying or they didn't bother to check their facts. Either way, they're still wrong.
Under MMP, the list MPPs are elected by those party votes - as a group, not individually - province-wide. his is most obvious when a party beats the threshold of 3% but wins no local seats. They only GET their fair share of mpps BECAUSE hey have been elected by their share of the party vote.
Remember. I've lived under MMP for over 11 years. The critics can tell you what they believe to be true. I'm telling you what I know...and I know they are wrong.
end of part 2.
Reply
"MMP will lead to unstable, ineffective governments. Look at Israel and Italy!"
This criticism relies on the ignorance of the listener....who may not know that the PR systems used in Italy and Israel work very differently to MMP. They also are ignoring the other 70-odd countries that use PR systems generally. They are also ignoring that fact Italy changed it's PR system to one more like MMP a decade ago and no longer has an election every 18 months. Italy also recently changed its system again because they didn't like the lack of choice to vote for and wanted something closer to their old system. The supposedly "bad" one. The one voters like. Germany has MMP and has the same number of elections as Ontario since WW II. NZ has MMP and every MMP government here has gone full term. The facts don't support the critics. But you have to know the facts to know that.
Summary
So why do they say what they say? This is the sad part. I know a columnist for a major daily newspaper here in Ontario. I have been corresponding with him for several years about proportional representation. I've heard every negative argument that can be made and knocked them all over with a dose of reality. In the end, just recently, he admitted to me in e-mail that he accepted my arguments, but was going to argue against MMP anyway because he wanted one-party governments. So he is going to be saying things in his columns that he KNOWS to be wrong, but will do so because he wants MMP to lose and for the party he favours to be able to continue to govern Ontario alone. I thought that was a bit sad....That he needed to mislead people to make any case for the present system. Sad for him that needs to mislead people to defend it and sad for them that they will give any weight to his deceptions.
Which brings us back to why there is no real case for keeping the present system. I know that from experience in NZ. The voters in the 80%+ of democracies who use PR systems around the world know it. The OCA members know it as they voted 94-8 in favour of recommending the change.
Yes. I know a lot about it. I've lived it. I've thought about it a lot. I hope this information is useful. You can verify the facts yourself about Darren Hughes and Nathan Guy and Sue Kedgley. They are real people. Otaki is a real riding. Go to www.govt.nz and have al ook at the MPs list.
I hope you won't discount the opinions and experience of people who KNOW...and give weight to the faith-based, fact-free arguments of many of the critics.
Bottom line One: You haven't heard a strong case for the present system because there isn't one.
Bottom Line Two: If you believe in democracy, there is only once choice: MMP. Hope that helps.
Reply
Your initial message was cause for some concern there.
I don't see why. I said, "it will take me a while to figure out enough of the system to have an opinion either way." What got you so worked up about that? I didn't post my reasons for being skeptical, did I? If I had, then you might have known that your long-winded rant is mostly irrelevant to me.
It's silly for you to present (what you think are) the oppositional arguments, when obviously you don't believe they have any merit. That doesn't help me. I don't care for your sarcastic answers to questions that were never asked; nor your opinions and rhetoric. "If you believe in democracy, there is only once choice" -- LOL. I know you're trying to help, and I do appreciate the incredible time investment you've given to my silly inconsequential little blog; but your behaviour has me puzzled.
I'm almost frightened, now, that anyone has such a vested, personal interest in the outcome of this referendum. Who are you, that you've been "corresponding with [some guy] for several years about proportional representation"? How often do you search for the blogs of strangers so you can try to convince them to vote the way you please?
I'm sorry, I'm trying not to sound attacking, but I'm just very confused.
Reply
Sometimes people do know more than you do....and they are happy to share their time, knowledge and experience.
A simple "Thank you" would suffice.
Reply
I'm not trying to to tell you what to vote for. I'm sharing with you y experience of two decades in this area and in particular, MMP, which I have lived under in NZ since 1996....and I have voted in 4 MMP elections there.
I'd done it. Seen it. Thought you might be interested in the xperience of someone who knows it first-hand. Not statements of belief......but statements based on real life with the names of real people (if you read the part about my several "local" MPs....one local and several list).
Just sharing. Thought you might be interested.
Reply
Yeaa.... I find that kinda creepy. You're crowding every relevant public forum with your opinions on this topic. One might call it "trolling".
I'm not trying to to tell you what to vote for.
Well, yes you are.
Maybe you're not trying, but that's what happens. It makes sense; you made up your mind on this issue when I was three. But you're not here just "providing the facts", you're providing your opinion, clouded in a whole lot of unpleasant rhetoric. In this situation, I have to get defensive, because I haven't yet heard the actual facts from reliable sources. And as much as I know you're trying, you are not a reliable source; you're some random guy on the internet with a very biased stake in the outcome of this referendum.
... and you seem to care more about it than I'd expect from anyone who isn't politically or financially motivated to care. Not that that's bad, but it's.... odd.
Reply
I for one appreciate the view from NZ because most Canadians have no experience with Proportional Rep of any kind, and many of the English-speaking countries we get info from are among the vanishing minority of democracies that still use FPTP pluralities. My own experience observing European list-only PR elections is that, while they have their flaws, they do reflect voter sentiment much more fairly than our existing system in Ontario does, including electing a broader range of political stripes who usually have to play nice (i.e. form working coalitions) in order to get the job done. One of the major flaws of list-only PR (lack of local grounding of list-elected members) is well-addressed with Ontario's proposed MMP system, and I for one am ready to take the leap. The only arguments I have seen for the status quo run to "tradition" (?!? like the male-only vote was traditional... don't get me started...) and a preference for one-party governments. Pretty lame stuff.
There are in fact very few if any "unbiased sources with actual facts", just citizens who care. And corporate media who are doing a good job of ignoring the whole issue. Take your pick (as you may have astutely guessed, I have already picked and will be supporting MPP. And will be encouraging others to do so as well, whether you find that creepy or not).
Reply
Neither do I, and I don't believe I said anything to support that claim. In particular, I casually mentioned the referendum question on my blog to help inform people that it was happening at all.
I guess it's worth drawing an important distinction: do you wish to educate the public about the two options so as to allow them to make a well-informed decision for themselves, or are you advocating the option that you believe is best in hopes to sway the outcome the way you see fit? Not that the latter is necessarily bad, ... sigh, I suppose lobbying is a great weakness of democracy, isn't it. Well, I feel more committed to allowing my friends a space where they can make up their own minds without feeling pressured.
I appreciate views from NZ as well; but I'd appreciate them more if they were provided in a place that made sense. This is obviously a personal blog, and I was not yet interested in hearing a slosh of campaign-style advocacy one way or the other.
The only arguments I have seen for the status quo run to "tradition" (?!? like the male-only vote was traditional... don't get me started...) and a preference for one-party governments. Pretty lame stuff.
In the few meagre discussions I've had about the proposal, I've definitely heard stronger arguments against MMP than the silly suggestions you mention. I wonder how you were able to get this far without experiencing the same. Without going into depth, as I do not yet feel prepared to do so, the major obvious knee-jerk complaint I've heard is simply this:
The MMP proposal enshrines the party system. The closed party-list means that list candidates are not individually accountable to voters. The party is, but not the individuals themselves. If it is suspected, then, say, that the NDP will be drawing at least one candidate from their list, then their 1st-pick person will become an MP, and there's not much anyone can do about it. (Aside from electing more NDP regional representatives in hopes that the party list needn't be consulted; lol!)
I dislike parties. I feel that representatives should represent their region, rather than just mosey along with what the party tells them. The idea of "voting for a party" might be considered a flaw that we should avoid, rather than setting it in stone on every ballot.
It's a point of view I'm not very solid about, but that I've also confronted a lot when discussing the proposal with friends. There are likely some worthwhile responses to the above that could be made by the pro-MMP side, but I don't wish to debate the intricacies of the voting system at this time. I just wrote the above to give one example of an argument that people are making which is not at all about tradition and political bias. These are real, legitimate concerns.
All this being said, I think I will be voting in favour of the proposal, but that's subject to change and change again before October 10th ;)
Anyway, the more I learn about the Citizens Assembly and the MMP proposal, the more I realize that it is much more of a complicated issue than I'd been lead to believe. Most certainly, it is not an obvious choice, and there are a lot of questionable aspects of the design. (and of any voting system, certainly..)
Reply
Starting in September(i think) there will be a public education program that gives the pros & cons of the current system & MMP. So you can see it up close & personal.
In the meantime I hope you continue this talk because its important to get the message out. Many Ontarians still have no idea that there will be a referendum on Oct 10 and with this double threshold of 60% in all of Ontario plus 50% in 60% of the ridings we all need to be educated on both systems
Reply
Oh cool! Well thanks for the hard work you put into it, yo.
For those of you that believe that this is some big con job (...)
Well, I'm very impressed with the level of transparency+openness you guys have shown. In that all the information that you had at the meetings is available online, etc. I hope the point gets across to the general populous that this isn't some partisan game.
It will be good if the education program attempts to outline the cons as well as the pros, since the "against" side has no official representation. Sadly, I think anything coming out in September is probably too late to have much impact. I'm a bit surprised how "sudden" this whole proposal feels. Although perhaps I overestimate the attention span of the general public :o Meh, I hope it works out.
Reply
Much depends on how closely one pays attention. The media have covered this very poorly so far.....though it has been covered somewhat.
Reply
I've been aware of the whole thing for nearly two years.
Yeah, but it's the general public that matters. Unfortunate about the media coverage :/
Reply
Leave a comment