Election follies (II): MMP for MPPs?

First, a confession: I did not watch the political "debate" last night.
I don't think I've ever missed one, provincial or federal, but honestly. My interest in seeing these things rests comfortably to the left of zero these days. The day they stop screaming at each other and start talking rationally, I might reconsider.
Remember Mike Harris? He turned in the best performance I ever saw at one of these shindigs, by virtually ignoring his two opponents and simply, directly stating his platform to the electorate. He was rewarded with a huge majority--and even those many who hate the man recognize he followed through on most of that platform. Would that all politicians, of all stripes, exhibited that sort of candour. Instead, they bob and weave, rarely even speaking to the issue at hand, unless it's to blame the other guy. No thanks.
I did, however, pick up copies of both the Sun and Star this morning, to make sure I got both sides. Both papers, predictably, pandered to their biases. The Sun's headline shouted "Dalton Loses It"--they would have chosen that headline even if McGuinty had blown Tory and Hampton right offstage, for its dual meaning. In fact, their official editorial position is that McGuinty won that debate, because his message about John Tory's faith-based schools initiative has stuck and continues to dog Tory at every turn. Another Sun columnist says you could make an argument for each candidate having won (except Frank deJong of the Greens, who wasn't allowed to play--sorry to harp on this, but that really pisses me off.)

The Star, just as predictably, championed their Liberal hero. I swear, if Dalton McGuinty had eaten a kitten on stage last night, the Food section of the Star would be replete with kitten recipes today. Reading between the lines, though, it's clear they feel McGuinty didn't so much win the debate as the other two lost it (by not being Liberal) -- ack! Sorry! My fingers just get twitchy every time I deign to read a Toronto Star.

Onward.

What I really want to talk about is MMP: the Mixed Member Proportional electoral system we're being asked to embrace or reject in the referendum accompanying this election.

The media coverage on this is weird. On the one hand, I don't think there's enough of it. You see the occasional editorial and that's about it; on television, there are commercials for the website yourbigdecision.ca but newscasts are strangely silent.
On the other hand, what coverage there is, is hysterical, especially on the anti- side. According to some people who really should keep their knees from jerking while they're writing, MMP would result in everything from religious dictatorship to disenfranchisement of large numbers of people.

One thing to keep in mind: you still vote for your local representative, exactly as you do now. For a country as supposedly inclusive as Canada, it continues to astound me how many people have such black/white views of things. We've merely extended marriage to gay couples, but some people act as if we outlawed straight marriage. John Tory wants to extend funding to non-Catholic faith-based schools (which I disagree with). He doesn't propose to cut funding from the public system. Likewise, MPP still allows you local representation. It does not mean your vote has no meaning. In fact, any vote should be more meaningful.

You'd vote for your MPP, just as you do now, but then you'd also vote for a political party. That party may or may not be the same party your chosen candidate represents. This second vote determines the number of "list members"--candidates chosen by their parties, not by you--who get to sit in the House.
The idea of appointed politicians really gets under some people's skin. Odd how they forget that in Canada, both the Prime Minister and the provincial Premiers are appointed, not elected. It's true. You don't vote for Stephane Dion or Stephen Harper, you vote for your local representative of their party, and that local representative gets to vote for their party leader, but you don't get a say. And it's been that way since Confederation, and you don't hear people yapping about it, do you?
The chief argument against MMP seems to be that appointed "list members" have no constituents and are therefore beholden to no one but their own parties. The cynic in me suggests that politicians often act this way now. That aside, having voted for a party, you get what you vote for. It's highly unlikely the list members in the NDP are a bunch of neoconservatives.
As for accountability: List members might not be accountable to any one subset of Ontarians, but they are accountable to Ontario as a whole. I think there's something to be said for members who are able to take a wider pan-provinicial view of things.

John Snobelen, high school dropout and ex-minister of education (and doesn't that pairing just blow your mind), wrote a column in the Sun last week attacking MMP as a system that rewards parties for losing elections. Pshaw. I think MMP rewards everyday people for voting...especially if you intend to vote for a smaller party (such as, ahem, the Greens). If this current Ontario election were held under MMP, the Green Party would win several seats. Under our current system, I don't think they have a prayer at even one. Polls I've seen place their support at anywhere from 6 to 12%: not huge, but not all that far behind the NDP, either. (The NDP would also benefit from MMP). If your party polls that high, don't you deserve at least some representation in Parliament?

It is probably true that MMP would make majority governments exceedingly rare. But many would argue that's a good thing. Look what happens to majority governments over time, the most recent example being those infamous Libranos of Adscam fame. Look too at the large number of folks who seem to be okay with Mr. Harper...so long as he never gets a majority and ruins the country. Under MMP, you'd see more coalitions. Some people see that is sleazy backroom wheelie-dealie stuff. I prefer to think of it as "building consensus". And what could be more Canadian than that?

This is all a moot point, since I can state with some degree of certainty that MMP will not pass. They've set the bar very high: 60% of voters, in a majority of ridings, must choose MPP for it to supercede what we have now. I don't think you can get that many Canadians to agree the sky is blue. Ironically, that may be the best argument for MMP there is.