September 28, 2007/Vote for MMP

On October 10, Ontario will be voting on a new election system, called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP). As a quick overview, in MMP, voters will vote twice in each election: once for their local member, and once for the party. Votes for the local member will be handled as before. After that, an extra number of seats will be allocated to each political party based on the number of seats that they have won, and based on the proportion of the popular vote that they obtained, in order to ensure that the number of seats that they get in the legislature more closely matches their popular support.

Past election records

A common occurrence in our current system (First Past the Post, or FPTP, also known as Single Member Plurality), is that the government does not have popular support. In other words, more people voted against the governing party than voted for them. But if the party still has a majority of the seats, in the legislature, they are able to pass pretty much any legislation that they want.

For example, in the last Ontario election (2003), the Liberals got 46.5% of the popular vote, but won 69.9% of the seats, giving them 1.5 times more representation than they should have had. In 1990, the NDP got only 37.6% of the popular vote, but won 56.9% of the seats. While some of the numbers from other years are closer, the last time that an Ontario government enjoyed popular support was 70 years ago, in 1937.

Nationally, the numbers are much closer, but still show that FPTP creates majority governments with minority support. The worst case happened in 1997, when the Liberals won 38.5% of the popular vote, but 57.5% of the seats.

First Past the Post also creates the possibility of the second-place party coming to power. In 1979, the Tories won 36% of the vote, compared to the Liberals’ 40%, but won more seats than the Liberals, giving them a (short) minority government. In 1896, the Liberals got 51% of the seats, despite winning fewer votes than the Tories. And just last year, in the New Brunswick election, the Liberals formed the government, despite getting fewer votes than the Conservatives. (Mind you, in that last case, the margins were close: the difference in popular vote was only .4%.)

How bad can First Past the Post get? Well, let's say we have two political parties. In 51% of the ridings, the races are close, but party A takes it with 51% of the vote in each of the ridings. In the other 49% of the ridings, however, it isn't even close; party B gets 100% of the votes. If all the ridings have an equal number of votes cast, that means that party A gets just over 25% of the popular vote. However, they won 51% of the seats, which means they form the government. So in this case, we can have a government that only received 25% of the popular vote. The case can be even worse when we have three political parties, in which one party can govern with majority rule, even though they only obtained 17% of the popular vote (that is, 83% of the people voted against them).

Not only does FPTP created anomalies in the governing party, it can also create a big imbalance in other parties as well. For example, in the last federal election, the Bloc Québecois won 10.5% of the vote, but gained 16.6% of the seats (over 1.5 times what they were supposed to get). This, combined with the inflated Conservative seats, gave the Bloc the balance of power. However, the NDP won more votes (17.5%), but fewer seats (9.6%, or a bit over half of the seats that they should have won), which lost them the balance of power.

Proportional representation

A proportional representation system would solve this problem: in proportional representation, parties are assigned seats according to how many votes they get. That is, if a party gets 36% of the vote, they would get 36% roughly of the power (not counting rounding).

However, a purely proportional system eliminates local representation, and kills independent candidates (not like they don't have enough problems in the current system).

Mixed Member Proportional

In a Mixed Member Proportional system, voters would vote for their local representative as before. However, they will also vote for a political party. Then, the number of seats that each party gets from local representatives is compared against the number of seats they should get, according to the party votes. Then each party's seats are “topped up,” from a pool of additional seats, to better match the popular vote. In this way, the government formed is a closer fit to the will of the people.

This method of mixing Single Member Plurality with a proportional component ensures that we still have local representation, while having a fairer government.

Objections to MMP

I received an email that listed some objections to MMP, and so I'd like to address some (not all) of them. More answers to common objections are given in “Ten Lies about MMP”.

“List members will not be interested in the public's views”

List members are the “top-up” members. i.e., the members who are not elected locally, but added to the party's pool of seats to reflect the popular vote. The idea behind the objection is that since the list members do not represent a specific locality, they will not represent anyone.

However, the list members were elected, and so it is still in their interests to represent the public. But who do they represent? Well, the people who elected them, that is, the people who voted for their party. If you are in a riding where your MPP does not represent you, then you can talk to one of the list MPPs that you did vote for.

“MMP usually leads to more political parties”

That's an objection? Right now, there is no political party that reflects my beliefs and values. No party comes close. There are so many different views and opinions. In a democracy, all of those views should be heard. Not just the two most popular views.

“MMP produces unstable coalition governments”

They're missing a step in their logic. Let's fill it in: MMP makes minority governments more likely. And minority governments are more unstable.

The above-linked document addresses that by saying that Germany, although, they use MMP, has a very stable government. And they say that a small shift in popular vote in FPTP may create a vastly different government, while under MMP, a small shift in popular vote will make a smaller shift in government.

I want to add a different response. First of all, our goal in democracy is not necessarily stability. If you want stability, you go for a dictatorship. Of course, we also don't want complete instability either. However, a democracy is supposed to represent the will of the people. Can we really say that the public's will is being followed when the majority of the population object to the government?

The will of the people is complicated. It can't be boiled down to a couple of political parties. I think that one of the best ways to represent the will of the people is through multiple cooperating parties.

“MMP benefits small parties”

While this is true, I think it is better stated as: MMP reduces the unfair advantage currently enjoyed by larger parties.

“MMP will undermine our democratic system of government”

After looking at how the current government doesn't reflect the will of the people, can you really say that it is democratic?

Problems with MMP

Of course, MMP is not perfect. It doesn't eliminate strategic voting, but it does reduce its effects. It won't guarantee that every party will get their fair share of seats, but it will make it closer than it currently is.

No voting system is perfect. But MMP is a giant step in the right direction. It will make our government more reflective of what voters really want.

Vote!

Whatever your views on MMP, get out and vote on October 10th (if you are eligible to vote in Ontario). Democracy works best when the voice of the people is heard. You have been given a chance to make your voice heard, and to affect the way that Ontario politics happens. So make sure you make an informed decision, and get out and vote!