Comments on: Midland Says Yes!

By: Valerie Powell

Valerie Powell — Tue, 29 May 2007 15:06:39 +0000

Great to meet a fellow shadow member. You did a great job of providing the background on what at first seems to be a complicated new system. By the end of the discussion I think all present realized it is quite simple and more representational, as its name suggests. Our challenge is to get that message out to the general public.

By: Wilf Day

Wilf Day — Mon, 28 May 2007 14:35:50 +0000

Excellent meeting in Midland.

As to being the first, it was tied with Whitby, where two OCA members spoke last Thursday. Not all OCA members are into public speaking. The OCA Alumni will do their best to provide an OCA member for a public information meeting. They have been given an excellent PowerPoint presentation which is simple and practical. The more people who hear it, the better.

By: John Waite

John Waite — Mon, 28 May 2007 12:36:34 +0000

Excellent meeting Chris. You did a terrific job and managed your multi-partisan role very well (didn’t realize you were a Green Party member until a google alert for “simcoe north” brought your blog up this morning). I was there with my “citizen” hat on, but will be running for MP as the Liberal candidate (alongside my friend and your colleague, Valerie). I have long been a proponent of proportional representation and look forward to advancing the debate at a federal level as well.

By: Steve Withers

Steve Withers — Sun, 27 May 2007 00:21:09 +0000

Great blog, Chris.

I’ve lived in New Zealand for the past 24 years, including the last 11 years under MMP. As a citizen and voter there, I know MMP is far better than First Past the Post.

The critics here claim the list MPPs will be “appointed” – whereas the reality is they are elected by the party vote.

The critics claim the list candidates will be selected by party bosses, whereas in reality no party activist would tolerate such a thing and voters wouldn’t vote for it….and they don’t.

List candidates in New Zealand are democratically selected to the lists by members of their parties. Not appointed by party bosses. Yes, the party does compose the final order of the list, with reference to how attractive the candidates are to voters, genders, ethnicity and whatever other criteria the party may deem important, but the people on the list were elected to it by members.

The critics claim that list MPPs won’t have anything to do with constituency work. That makes no sense. In a system where the fate of any party is decided by their share of the party vote, why would you have MPPs sitting around Queens Park instead of out there winning votes?

In my Otaki riding in New Zealand, the local MP, Darren Hughes, of the Labour Party, has offices in Levin and Paraparaumu. Not far away in both towns are the electorate offices of Nathan Guy, a National Party List MP. In the weekly newspapers are the contact details of several more MPs from smaller parties, each making themselves available to Otaki voters.

The voters of the Otaki rding have not one MP, but several from a variety of parties competing to serve them…all with an eye to the party vote at the next election……

It’s ironic that the critics of MMP monster us with what are actually the worst aspects of the First Past the Post system.

By: Saul

Saul — Sun, 27 May 2007 00:13:15 +0000

“If it existed, it would be top-heavy, with professional politicians and well-paid pundits comprising the bulk.”

Or just a group of regular people: http://www.mindfulreform.com

Thanks for letting me know, Saul. I hesitated on that sentence a bit, because I don’t mean to suggest that regular, intelligent people can’t be opposed to MMP. However, as I think the Citizens’ Assembly proves, the vast majority of Ontarians support MMP once they understand it, including how it stacks up to the status quo. -CT