Torontoist Sorta-Liveblogs The MMP/FTFP Debate

mmp.jpg

The debate between mixed-member representation and first-past-the-post representation has been a spirited one, assuming that you're one of the twelve percent of the public who knows what the hell that first half of the sentence just meant there. Friday night at the MaRS Centre, the Centre for the Study of Democracy held a debate, with Andrew Coyne of the National Post and former NDP cabinet member Marilyn Churley arguing for MMP, and Christina Blizzard of the Toronto Sun and former PC attorney-general Mike Hernick arguing for the FTFP system.

So how did it go? Details, after the cut.

(Fair warning: the writer is firmly pro-MMP, and believes that total objectivity is a thing for lesser men.)

7:09 p.m. - Good line from the moderator: "Good to see that all of you have come here on a Friday night to listen to people talk about electoral reform. Exciting life in the big city!"

7:10 - They have promised a lightning round! LIGHTNING ROUND! If Christina Blizzard and Charles Harnick win, they get Monica and Rachel's apartment!

7:21 - After the introductions finally finish, they do a blind survey of the crowd (by asking people to close their eyes and raise hands). Big shock: the crowd is firmly pro-MMP.

7:23 - Charles Harnick is the first speaker for pro-FPTP. Starts off by pointing out that 88 percent of voters have no idea what the hell the referendum is about, then makes a weak joke about his daughter saying "I thought referendums only happened in Quebec."

7:25 - Harnick cracks wise about how the electorate isn't ready for the referendum at all, so we shouldn't have it.

7:26 - Harnick's anti-MMP for the usual reasons (which he doesn't address at any particular length, it's like listening to somebody read a list of bullet points): the list MPs aren't accountable, the list MPs are "elected by whom?," and it weakens local representation. He points out that Windsor used to have 4 MPPs and now has one and a half. The one-half MP is of course the honorable Ale- Sm-.

7:31 - Andrew Coyne up to bat for MPP. He's using a lot of the basic federal examples to illustrate how FPTP screws over voter representation—the Tories in 1993 with their twenty percent of the vote and two MPs, the Green Party right now, et cetera. He's also harping a lot on the Bloc Quebcois a lot and how they're powerfully overrepresented in terms of population, because it's safe to bash the Bloc in Ontario, don't you know.

7:33 - "If you vote for the winner, great. If you don't, you get bupkiss." Coyne is earthy and a man of the people! That's why he writes for The National Post.

7:35 - Coyne raises an excellent point that often isn't raised in this argument: FPTP voting can encourage wild policy swings (he cites the enormous policy shift from Bob Rae to Mike Harris) that don't exactly help all the stability FTFP proponents like.

7:36 - "Now we have two interchangeable parties in Ontario who are desperately afraid to take anything resembling a stand, because if you lose power, you're done." ANDREW COYNE IS A HOUSAFIRE!

7:39 - "If we were the first country in the world to try this, maybe the naysayers would have a point. But we're not. This is an accepted norm throughout the world." Coyne goes on to establish how MMP has encouraged political stability and cooperation in the countries that use the system, like in Germany, where they have had precisely zero world wars since adopting MMP.

7:40 - Christina Blizzard's up and already apologizing for potentially being disorganized and how she had to get up early this morning and THIS IS THE WORLD'S TINIEST VIOLIN PLAYING "CRY ME A RIVER."

7:41 - And now she's telling us how she used to play cricket with her brothers as a child. This is an interesting start of a metaphor, I guess. And it eventually becomes something confused about, uh, how we shouldn't throw out FPTP. Ooookay.

7:43 - Blizzard suggests that MMP advocates argue that more women will show up in politics if we adopt MMP, and she finds that patronizing because women should get elected on their own merits and not off a list.

7:44 - "All politics is local," sez Blizzard. And this is true, because Olivia Chow owes me twenty bucks. I'M COMING FOR YOU, CHOW!

7:44 - (Disclaimer: Olivia Chow does not actually owe me twenty dollars.)

7:45 - Blizzard explains that she's the voice of experience and that she knows who'll get on those lists - people who are owed favors. As opposed to the people right now that the Tories and Grits parachute into ridings whenever they find it convenient or pleasing, who earn it because they are wonderful human beings.

7:46 - An excellent point where Blizzard says that ridings will grow in size, which is a legitimate concern. Did you know there is a riding in Northern Ontario that crosses two time zones? Possibly this is because nobody lives there except for the polar bears. (But what about the polar bears? Do they not deserve parliamentary representation? No. Because they are bears.)

7:48 - "We live in a first-past-the-post world..." And now she's talking about hockey. No, seriously, she is comparing electoral policy to the Stanley Cup.

7:49 - Okay, it's fair of her to say that the Senate sucks and is generally useless, but so what - nobody's actually proposing adding another unelected powerless body!

7:50 - Marilyn Churley is up to bat, and starts out by saying that opponents of FPTP often talk out of their ass. Although she's nice about it.

7:52 - Churley: "Let's not get facts in the way, huh?" (Wow, never mind that whole "being nice about it" part.) She points out that other jurisdictions with MMP representation have more women, more visible minorities, and startlingly few party hacks in their parliamentary representation.

7:54 - Churley's talking about how MMP allows us to both vote strategically and for the party we like best. Which means we can be both idealistic and cold-heartedly realistic. Or, if you prefer, we can vote both like Superman and Batman at the same time.

7:56 - "Right now eighty percent of the time parties choose a man and ninety percent of the time they choose somebody white." Speaking as a white male, I'm glad absolutely everybody listens to me when I think something is important, so go to hell, Churley!

7:58 - "First-past-the-post was first established when women weren't even persons." True, but on the other hand, everybody had awesome muttonchop sideburns, so you win some and you lose some.

8:00 - Churley criticizes the way the whole issue has been handled - how the Citizens' Assembly was disbanded, and then the election got called right afterwards, and there isn't enough information about MMP out there, and how the majority of voters don't even know there's a referendum, and how the Liberals and Tories colluded to kill any chance of MMP passing because that would seriously threaten their political power base in Ontario. Well, not that last one, but I'm pretty sure she was thinking it.

8:01 - The Moderator asks Harnick if he has full confidence in the current system, which is a fair point. Harnick says that under the current system, people vote in their riding for who they want, unless you're a Liberal, in which case they just get appointed by faceless Illuminati hiding in the shadows, and that the Tories never do anything like that, no sir. (Yes, he actually made that claim.)

8:04 - Ian Urquhart isn't happy about MMP, according to his column today, and the moderator asks Coyne about that. Coyne uses the opportunity to bash the power that swing voters have (and you can't get enough swing voter jokes, can you?).

8:08 - "We, as a nation, like to think if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Well, it is broke, and we have to fix it." Oh, Andrew Coyne, you are so folksy.

8:10 - Blizzard's so tired. Boo hoo, Christina Blizzard. You make much much more money than I do and are a bonafide media personality and got invited to participate in an important role at a citizen's forum for those very reasons. Drink a fucking cup of coffee.

8:11 - She rambles and doesn't answer the moderator's question about the fairness of FPTP, although she does mention about how the Green Party isn't having much luck "getting their message across." Funny how being excluded from debates will do that.

8:13 - The moderator asks Churley about the size of ridings increasing, and her response boils down to "you know the MPs on the list? They're all coming from somewhere, and we can rotate them around the ridings so that ridings can have additional representation for a period of time." That's way too practical for Canadian government, missy! Go back to New Zealand, you kiwi-loving freak!

8:20 - We're finally getting questions from the floor. The first is for Christina "Tired" Blizzard, from someone asking about how the Green Party is kind of screwed in FTFP because "all politics is local" and Blizzard again blathers out some platitudes about how every community is different, and how you can't expect somebody from Kingston to understand the concerns of somebody in Thunder Bay. (In Thunder Bay, people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people!)

8:23 - Coyne points out that "all politics is local" is really kind of crap, because nowadays everybody votes along party lines, voters and MPPs alike, and that local concerns are a distant sixteenth or so on the list of importance for new MPPs.

8:25 - Coyne - who is really kicking ass, I'm sorry, I know this isn't horribly objective of me but he's really on his game - argues that FTFP also encourages regional grievance-mongering because parties tend to concentrate their efforts to retain easy-win ridings.

8:27 - A questioner says that Wales just went to MMP (with a 50/50 split between elected and list) and now their Parliament is fifty percent female. Which may be true, but they still don't have any vowels.

8:28 - Christina Blizzard tells us all how the wonderful thing about elections is that they always accurately display the will of the people, and then complains that she's had a long day and that she doesn't like that people are laughing at her comments. (I am not kidding in the slightest.)

8:30 - Andrew Coyne says the electorate isn't a formless, amorphous blob-being with one will and anthromorphizing it is a mistake.

8:31: Jason Cherniak is on the mike and HE HAS A BLOG YOU KNOW. He's already voted no and you can read about it on his blog. Marilyn Churley reads Jason's blog (she says so!) and she rightly says that the Grits and Tories don't want to break up a comfortable situation for both of them.

8:35 - Hernick says that he doesn't believe an election is like a buffet, where you take a little here and a little there: you should vote once and you get one representative. Then he starts saying how local representation is completely meaningless anyway because MPs have no actual power outside of the party. Which kind of screws his earlier point about accountability and representation, but hey, who's counting.

8:37: Hernick follows that up with a response to a questioner who said he feels disempowered because his vote is meaningless in his riding which always goes Liberal. According to Hernick, the voter is, in fact, a valuable empowered voter anyway, for reasons he doesn't actually mention.

8:39 - The kids next to me are playing New Super Mario Brothers on their Nintendo DS and it's horribly distracting. Do they have MMP in the Mushroom Kingdom?

8:40: Pam Patterson, who was actually on the Citizen's Assembly, takes the mic and wants us all to know that MMP will actually mean more representation, and with all due respect, Mr. Hernick, she likes buffets.

8:44 - Hernick suggests that private members' bills never get anywhere so this makes the idea of list MPPs meaningless. Shorter Mike Hernick: "Democracy just doesn't work, people! Stop your futile attempts to improve it! They are doomed! DOOOOOOOMED!"

8:46 - More shorter Mike Hernick: "Modern politics is too mean for girls." (Again, I am not kidding.)

8:47 Blizzard: "As a journalist, I don't have any political stake in this." Right, an opinion columnist for the Sun is a neutral party. (Or the Star or the Post or wherever, for that matter.)

8:48 - Blizzard says that list MPPs will be more beholden to the party, because the party will put them on the list. Unless the parties hold elections for the list MPs, which the NDP and Greens have already promised to do, but who's counting.

8:49 - Coyne's final statement: He's been voting forever and his side never wins and he's grumpy and isn't it time for a change, a new system, where Andrew Coyne is not grumpy?

8:50 - Churley's final statement: Women want to run, but the old boys' network of politics means less women run, and that sucks. Also, for all the young people here, she was young too once, and fight the power, you young people, but do it in a responsible manner. And stuff.

8:51 - Blizzard's final statement: She thinks MMP would be fun to cover because it would be a political zoo and much more interesting, and she finds the whole thing about electing more women condescending and patronizing, and she's the only woman in the scrum at Queen's Park, and her family is dysfunctional, and if women want to run they have to compete on the same playing field so they suffer like she did (I think), and "that's my case."

8:53 - Hernick's final statement: He doesn't want to get into women's issues right now (good call there given his track record on the evening), and forums like this are awesome, and we're all awesome for showing up, and he might not agree with people who like MMP, and he thinks a vote is never wasted, and this topic is only the beginning of a debate we need to have about how our legislative system works and he hopes there's going to be more of that.

In closing: Coyne was on his game, Churley was a bit muddled but generally handled herself well, Hernick didn't really adequately defend FTFP so much as he disagreed that MMP was the cure for all our political ills, and Blizzard was very, very tired.

Email This Entry


Comments (17) [rss]

user-pic

Charles Harnick doesn't seem to remember that his government reduced the legislature from 130 to 103 seats. That would explain the reduction in representation for Windsor area.

Curiously, he was the Attorney General at the time and would have had some involvement in the enablins statutory instruments to make the reduction possible.

Makes me wonder, was he sleepwalking through his short 4-year term? Or was he a good trained seal?

As for Blatchford, her days are numbered and her effectiveness greatly diminished. That's why she's reduced to a phone-in segment on CFRB and a newspaper column in a failing publication.

user-pic

I've spoken to a lot of my friends (I'm 21, they're around the same age but mostly a year younger), and the truth is they definitely weren't aware of the referendum, so I've been doing my part to inform the people I know about the important decision facing Ontario in the upcoming election.

I really don't see how any reasonable person could see MMP as a step backwards from FPTP. Anyone afraid of this change, to me, is afraid that they're backing an increasingly unpopular platform and will be risking the influence of their party by switching systems. Unfortunately this is a major downfall of democracy, in that in most cases, a persons choice will go to cover their own ass and not protect the greater good. It is because of this that I have lost all faith in politics, democracy, and my fellow Canadians. No one can be trusted to represent true objectivity.

This very point has been proven time and time again, most recently with Stephen Harper's delays of a vote on troops in Afghanistan until he can be sure that his agenda, and his party's agenda will be fulfilled. Does this not defeat the point of a vote, and democracy itself? If your goal can only be reached through twisting and manipulation of the system until a favourable outcome, why have a system in the first place? It is through these actions (and inactions) within our Government that our Great Nation will fall.

Democracy cannot last in its current form. Ontario, and Canada, need a change, and we need it NOW.

I think the Mushroom Kingdom is a monarchy, but it's possible that Princess Peach is only a symbolic head of state and that there's actually a separate head of government.

Wait, wait, holy shit, the Wikipedia article on the Mushroom Kingdom actually has a section on "Government."

I'm a reasonable person and I don't like MMP. Two reasons: a) Proportional to what? to support for a given political party? In my experience political parties are just collections of hacks who mostly disagree, but pretend that they don't. Since when did that become a good measure of proportionality? b) MMP means more power to parties, which means less ability to vote bad politicians out, which means less accountability (i.e. if you're high up the list and you support the party line and you don't do anything too disgraceful, you're not going to be unelected) which means less representation (the loyality of people on the lists will be to their parties, not to their electors).

Between what I`ve read and the debate Thursday night on TVO. the pro MMP group simply hasn`t convinced me yet.

user-pic

Christopher, I was at last night's debate, and while I had a good time and enjoyed the discussion, I didn't realize how AWESOME the whole experience was until I re-read it interpreted through your eyes. Thank you.

I'm pretty sure Mushroom Kindom is a Monarchy, though most fiefdoms didn't have running water, let alone plumbers. Or giant evil turtle men.

user-pic

the problem mentioned above about proportionality is completely correct.

an additional point: the list seats are predicated on some non-real abstraction called "the popular vote". But there's no such thing as the popular vote. We "make up" this idea of the popular vote. It doesn't exist. The only way a popular vote can exist by which to apportion seats is if we had a simple voting question: which party do you like the most? And all citizens voted on that simple question.

Tallying up the votes per party per riding is not a "popular vote". Every riding has a different political culture that cannot be mashed together with the next. As well, contrary to Coyne's fantasy world, people don't predominantly vote for party -- they vote for a human being's name on a ballot. They vote for an ethnic candidate because that's their ethnicity. I've known people who will stick with a candidate even after that person changes parties. Many candidates win year after year despite the failures of their party more generally -- because they are well known in the local community.

To say that all votes in all ridings are "party votes" and thus candidates on a non-directly-elected list should fill the
"proportional" spots misrepresents the act of voting. It doesn't understand the complexity of voting and instead makes it "party voting" when it is not entirely that.

The only way a popular vote can exist by which to apportion seats is if we had a simple voting question: which party do you like the most? And all citizens voted on that simple question.

In practice, a lot of voting is party voting - especially in Ontario, the Canadian birthplace of strategic party voting. It's only proper to represent that within the system, especially as the power of individual MPs has diminished over time. We have a party system, so let's have a legislature that reflects that.

Tallying up the votes per party per riding is not a "popular vote". Every riding has a different political culture that cannot be mashed together with the next.

This isn't entirely incorrect, guest numero seven, which is why nobody's proposed Ontario move to a purely proportional-representation system.

user-pic

---------------------------------------
In practice, a lot of voting is party voting - especially in Ontario, the Canadian birthplace of strategic party voting. It's only proper to represent that within the system, especially as the power of individual MPs has diminished over time. We have a party system, so let's have a legislature that reflects that.
-----------------------------------------------

"a lot of voting is party voting". if a lot of voting is already party voting, why should be double up and add a "party list" whereby party voting will occur in the 90 ridings and party voting will occur in the list ridings?
You state that the power of the individual MP has declined. You do understand that the power of the individual MP has declined because of the power of parties. TO give them more power to define lists will only make the power of the MP decline even more -- particularly considering those MPs will have no local constituency to worry about voting them out next time.

----------------------------------------------
This isn't entirely incorrect, guest numero seven, which is why nobody's proposed Ontario move to a purely proportional-representation system.
---------------------------------------

To use a phrase "this isn't entirely correct" doesn't prove your point in any way. how is this not entirely correct? each riding is its own community with its own issues. How can each riding not have its own political culture?

Can you tell me two ridings that have the exact same voting results in each election, that have the exact same issues, the exact same socio-economic profile? Each riding is its own political culture. That's a fact. Unless you're saying we're "all the same".

You also don't respond at all to my main point while responding solely to a single sentence.
Is it not a false aggregation of individual communities to call it the "popular vote"? If note, explain why.

Pollsters do this all the time. They falsely aggregate people out of their own communities, combine the results with people in other communities, and then say the results of a poll represent the "people's views" on a subject when it's nothing of the sort.

you mention that "a lot of voting is party voting." As a statement of truth this is a qualifier (otherwise you'd say "all voting is party voting). My contention is not that all people vote based on party or that all people vote based on the individual candidate. My contention is that voting is based on many different reasons. If voting is based on many different reasons, then we shouldn't be apportioning seats on a list based solely on "party". It's fine to ask people "which party list do you like" but then you can't turn around an apportion seats based on the popular vote since the popular vote is not based on party. The popular vote is based on a whole wide range of voting practices. It's intellectually wrong to apply the popular vote as some sort of accurate representation of "party vote".

user-pic

Great post and pretty accurate too. Those were my kids playing DS beside you. They've heard me rant about MMP and FPTP far too many times so I figured I'd give them a break.

Sorry they were distracting though!

And of course they have MMP in the Mushroom Kingdom!

cheers,
Jonathan Rose.

user-pic

shouldn't the more democratic system be understandable to those that will be subjected to it? It would seem many do not, and many will not have the time to find out before we vote.

One of the big problems with the whole electoral reform debate is the idea of understandability. Alternative vote, a very fair system, gets dismissed on the basis that it's too complicated. Single transferable vote, which is both very fair and can be pretty proportional (in a good way), is considered even more so. Yet participating in both of these systems is actually very simple. You rank candidates in order of preference. That's it. Now, if you want to understand exactly how the votes get tabulated, then it's a little more complicated (but still far less complicated than filling in a tax return, or determining cheapest way to travel from Toronto to New York). The sad thing is that they get dismissed as unfeasible systems because of this (and did by the silly Ontario citizen's assembly). What's stupid about that argument is that it assumes that under "simpler" systems, like FPTP and MMP, the ordinary citizen really understand how their vote affects their government. The legislative process is much more complicated than just understanding who won an election. If you're capable of (and motivated enough to try) understanding exactly how your vote affects (or doesn't) the legislative process, then understanding STV is easy. If you're not, then that's fine, you just need to know that you rank the candidates in order, and that the system is basically fair. The real reason that Alternative and Single transferable vote are not popular is that traditional (party) politicians hate them and spread the "too complicated" myth. That's because if you're a crap candidate, but you manage to scrape a party nomination, then you have a good chance of being elected under FPTP, because everyone will be too scared of wasting their vote to support the independent that stands against you on a platform of "I believe in basically the same things as the party guy, but I'm not an incompetent fool". Under any system of preference voting, they would have a much better chance of beating you.

user-pic

I talked to my parents and some of their friends (all 60+ years olf) about MMP recently, and the big hangup for them is they don't see why anyone would vote for (say) their riding's Liberal candidate and not for the Liberal party overall.

The electoral reform people have done a terrible job promoting and explaining MMP. Instead of the 10 second 'make sure you understand the question' spots on TV, they should have been running minute-long PSAs every other hour explaining the question.

I'll be voting for MMP, but I don't think it's going to pass. I doubt it will get half the support it needs.

Can you tell me two ridings that have the exact same voting results in each election, that have the exact same issues, the exact same socio-economic profile? Each riding is its own political culture. That's a fact. Unless you're saying we're "all the same".

No, I'm saying that generally each riding's political culture is not so distinct that it alone counts as a de-facto victorious argument for FTFP, much less a decent argument against a small reduction in the number of ridings, since MMP doesn't even come close to abandoning the riding system.

Rek, the "make sure you understand the question" spots are done by Elections Ontario, which isn't supposed to advocate for one result or another. Since it's all but impossible to stay truly "neutral," they've opted to say as little as possible.

The Citizens' Assembly's report, which explains what they recommended and why, was supposed to be made widely available but the campaign to oppose change complained that that wouldn't be fair, so the government changed its mind and decided not to print any more copies of the report. Those supporting the status-quo would rather as many people stay as ignorant as possible because they know from polling and from the Citizens' Assembly experience itself that, in general, the more people know about MMP the more they support it.

If Elections Ontario were to explain in completely neutral, objective terms what MMP meant and what effect it would have, it would be tantamount to wholehearted endorsement.

It's just that good, people.

user-pic

When a magical racegoat endorses it, I'm sure there is something wrong with it. Off to vote against it today.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

TIP US OFF

Tip us off with news, leads, links; anything at all.
Subscribe to get events, weather, contests, and stories in your email inbox—daily.

EMAIL (required)

About Torontoist

Torontoist is about Toronto and everything that happens in it. It's edited by David Topping and Marc Lostracco, and you should totally advertise on us.

More about Torontoist.

Recent Comments

The Tall Poppy Interview

Follow Torontoist...