Ontario be better served by MMP as opposed to the current FPP?

[.Snow]

Hey everyone, new to Volconvo, and posting my first debate topic. Hoping to have found a nice, loving, caring, sharing, wondrous community... :D

Resolution: Be it resolved that: Ontario would be better served by the proposed Mixed Member Proportional Representation system than the opposed First-Past-the-Post system.

A little bit of background info, in case no one knows what MMP or FPP is:
The University of Western Ontario
Electoral Reform Coalition
---
Referendum Ontario - FPP
Referendum Ontario - MMP
---
A video describing both systems, although it kinda makes me feel dumb T-T
Referendum Ontario - Media
---
Hope that helps, if not, a quick search on google using MMP or FPP should yield some more information.
---

Currently, in Ontario, elections really only revolve around three parties, the Liberals, the PC (Progressive Conservative), and the NDP; a vote for any other party becomes almost obsolete because of the nature of the FPP system - while other minority parties may still have supporters from the province as a whole, votes toward that party are wasted because the FPP system requires that a party gains a sort of concentrated support within any one riding to gain a seat.

This being said, minority parties (such as the green party who received 3% of the total votes but no seats) have little power despite having a significant amount of support from all of Ontario as a whole. In essence, for many voters, it is no a longer which party you favor more, but rather, which party you hate the least.

So how can we give votes to minority parties credibility? Enter, the MMP system - by giving each voter, two votes, one for electing a representative in whichever riding, and the other for electing a party as a whole. This way, even if minority parties are not elected to form a government, they will still be given a seat in the house of commons according to the number of votes received, thereby providing a much needed power shift.

Moreover, because the FPP system "trashes" many votes, representatives elected in their respective ridings, are more often than not opposed by the majority of the citizens within that district. This way, the FPP system distorts the results of elections, and can reward more seats to parties than they deserve. For example, in the 1995 election, PC won some 65% of the seats in the House of Commons, giving them majority and allowing them to pass whatever they want, while they were clearly opposed as a whole, receiving only 45% of total votes.

The MMP system, ensures that each and every vote is credible, in that electoral results are not distorted to such a degree as giving any one party majority while they were clearly opposed by Ontario as a whole.

Because every voter has credibility with the MMP system, and votes are not simply, "trashed", parties and their representatives will have to truly represent all citizens, to gain as many list members as possible.

[SoylentGreen]

Do join the party.
In New Zealand we swapped over to MMP awhile ago, and it is a better system.
When we had FFP the political party that won the election would do things like pass legislation that they had not mentioned before the election or completely revise the legislation passed by the previous elected party.
We only had two major parties and they were always at odds with each other.
Now with MMP the two parties and the minor parties act more cooperatively and consult with each other about details on any legislation.
Because with MMP it is unlikely for any one party to gain complete control and ram through laws that they had not revealed during election time.
This tends to make political parties a bit more honest.
And they also have to try a bit harder to get the votes so they listen and respond to the peoples demands far better than under FFP

[Wayne Smith]

MMP is a voting system designed by voters to be good for voters. It would give voters the power to hold political parties accountable, by giving every voter a party vote that actually helps to elect someone, every time. This would be in marked contrast to our current system, under which most of us vote for people who do not get elected, so we end up with a government that most of us voted against.

Contrary to the lies you have heard, MMP would not give more power to poitical parties or party bosses, nor would it allow for anyone to be "appointed" to the Legislature.

The 39 at-large MPPs would be elected by the party votes of voters across the province, and would be accountable to the people who elected them. Specifically, they would be elected by and represent the 60% of us who are not lucky enough to vote for the winning candidate in our riding, and who are unrepresented in the current system.

[Wayne Smith]

Information about this referendum was shamefully stifled by the Ontario government. They brought us the Citizens' Assembly and the referendum in response to an election promise made while they were in opposition, but once you are in government, the current winner-take-all voting system starts to look pretty good.

The Elections Ontario website is so "neutral" it is useless. For the real information, you have to read the report and recommendations of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, available on their website here:

www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca

This report should, of course, have been distributed to every household in the province, but that has not yet happened.

There is also lots of good information available on the Vote for MMP website here:

THANK YOU to all our volunteers and supporters! | Vote for MMP

And for the real skinny, read my blog:

Wayneon's blog | Vote for MMP

[Nono]

I think the Ontario referendum was designed to fail.

Rather than come up with a detailed formula over which hairs can be split in a campaign, they should have asked the simple question "Are you in favour of a mix of proportional representation and first-past-the-post?" I think most Ontarians would have supported it.

Once you have the principle nailed down by public vote, you appoint a commission (with public access) to settle the details.