MMP 102: What do List Members Do?
Perhaps the least understood aspect of MMP in Ontario has to do with the role of the list MPPs. Coming from a FPTP system, we are used to our riding representatives having a distinct, well-defined role: they represent their party in legislature, and represent the interests of their riding at home. In MMP, we add list MPs to this mix. It is pretty
( Read more... )
We can speculate, and we can also look at the two German states with low ratios: North Rhine Westphalia (29% plus overhangs) and Lower Saxony (35% plus overhangs).
In both states, the two major parties cannot count on having any List MPPs if they win the election. The need for List MPPs to work themselves out of a job is therefore even more acute. The competition between List MPPs and directly-elected MPPs is, therefore, even more acute than in 50/50 MPP found federally in Germany. Voters have grown to expect this. Smaller parties follow suit.
In both cases, the official websites of the Landtag (provincial parliament) list each riding and the four MPPs who serve that riding: the one directly elected one, and the other three from the other three parties. The Lower Saxony site has a nice feature of stereotypical German thoroughness: it shows directly elected MPPs in bold, list MPPs in italics if they live in the riding, and list MPPs who do not live in the riding in italics followed by the initials WKP (for a German word equivalent to the more expressive New Zealand term "Buddy MP.") Two classes of MPPs? Three, in a way, but all equal and all serving the riding.
http://www.landtag-niedersachsen.de/Abgeordnete/wahlkreis_index.htm
How will this likely apply to Ontario?
First, look at the largest opposition party. Let's take the 2003 votes as an example, but arbitrarily assuming that the Greens would have won enough extra votes for 6 MPPs. Liberals 60 (59 + 1); PCs 44 (24 + 20); NDP 19 (7 + 12); Greens 6 (0 + 6).
Half the List MPPs are PCs. They each have to try to win those 20 local ridings that they live in next time, but also to serve the other 45 ridings as "Buddy MPPs." Take the francophone ridings of eastern Ottawa and the area east of Ottawa, safe Liberal seats since at least 1981. There will be a PC francophone List MPP from that area. His or her chances of winning the local seat next time may not be great. He or she will focus on serving all francophones in the region. But elsewhere the List MPPs may focus more on the local riding they each live in.
The NDP's 12 list MPPs will have to serve the 83 non-NDP ridings, about 7 each. Common in Germany and New Zealand for smaller parties. The NDP's list will need to be balanced geographically, so those 12 MPPs will be in the right places.
Even the Green Party's 6 List MPPs will need to be spread across Ontario somewhat, for those Green Party voters who trust no one but a Green MPP to help with their problem. Even if they didn't bother to run locally, they will have to conform somewhat to voters' new expectations.
By the way, one small footnote on Arbuthnott: he's batting 1000 so far. He recommended Scotland switch to the New Zealand ballot right away, and it did. He also recommended some kind of open list system for the 2011 election, to be designed by others, no simple task. Stay tuned.
Reply
"A 'b-grade' legislature"
The Oct. 10 referendum question on the "Mixed Member Proportional" electoral system is misleading.
On the surface, it sounds more "democratic" than the "first past the post" method. On the contrary, MMP will guarantee that more than 30% of the Ontario Legislature will be "appointed" by party leaders, never elected by constituents.
If you think the Legislature is full of clapping yes men and yes women under rigid, party control, just wait until you see the new variety of B-grade MPPs. They will owe 100% of their allegiances to their party leaders, not constituents.
It will be functionally impossible for the B-grades to represent anything other than the wishes of their head honchos, certainly not Ontario's citizens.
On the bright side, you will never hear b-grades knocking on your door, or interrupting your supper to hand you a flyer. Although they and others will be running your government, they will never be required to seek your approval for anything. More democratic? Balderdash.
J. Michael McCutcheon
Toronto
(Persuasive argument)
Reply
As for them being appointed and not elected: give it up. The party leaders appoint party lists for some (but not all) small parties, but the big parties all use democratic nomination processes. It is true that some of the list MPs are of poor quality and that they are widely perceived to be second rate in Scotland, Wales and NZ. It is also true that they are subject to rigid party discipline -- but that means they have to go out and do the best they can to raise that party's profile, becuase if they don't then they lose rank in the lists, and the party loses party vote, which is how these people get elected. (And lots of people do lose their ranking -- turnover on the lists is very high, as the Vowles Banducci Karp paper illustrates.) Are you seriously telling me that these list MPs are not interested in keeping their jobs?
This idea of the party leader's best friends getting all the cushy list positions is by and large nonsense. It's a fairy tale, and I am sick and tired of it. I write articles like this one to demonstrate what is *actually* happening, warts and all.
Stop telling fairy tales. Start looking at reality. The reality is far from pretty, but it is a far better reflection of what actually happens under MMP.
Reply
Leave a comment