Yes to 'First-Past-The-Post' at Queen's Park

WILL UPPER CANADA GO THE WAY OF NEW ZEALAND? Twelve million Ontarians will decide today whether they will stick with the time-tested British style First-Past-the-Post (FPP) plurality form of democracy, or go with Mixed-Member-Proportionality (MMP), a watered down variant of proportional representation. Today's referendum is asking us whether we should continue purely with FPP, whereby local Members of Provincial Parliament are elected to Queen's Park under a winner take all scenario, or go with a hybrid system that parachutes one-third of the members into the legislature according to lists drawn up by the parties in advance, to be apportioned according to each party's percentage of the popular vote, taking into account how many local members each party got elected under FPP.

And to that I uncategorically say thanks, but no thanks. As David Warren reminds us, "the genius of first-past-the-post, over the centuries, has been its ability to eliminate sectarian, fringe, and fruitcake parties. By contrast it favours large, broad parties within which the interests of diverse constituencies have had to be hashed out. This is the citizen's best guarantee against tails wagging dogs." It's also our best guarantee against the introduction of unaccountable politicians, who would answer to their parties, and not to local constituents. Now I know that's largely the case now, where members are whipped by their parties into voting a certain way, but at least the member has to take into consideration the wishes of the electorate; at least the option exists for the member to resign, abstain or vote against the party's position or government on a point of principle; at least we have the ability to get rid of members who don't; and at least we have the ability to kick out the undesirable and those who are unworthy of our trust. Not so under MMP. Top listed candidates in large parties would be permanently shielded against voter wrath.

Also, say goodbye to majority governments. New Zealand hasn't had one since they introduced MMP in the early 1990s. The Kiwis have experienced a proliferation of political parties from two to eight, including the recent introduction of the completely indigenous-based Māori Party. I wonder how representative of the population their lists are: Big Māori, little Māori. Young Māori, old Māori. Female Māori, male Māori. Gay Māori, straight Māori. Māori, Māori, Māori. Māori. And I wonder what a coalition with the Māoris will yield for the non-Māoris. Not a lot, would be my hunch. Would it be possible for Ontario's First Nations to organize themselves in such a way? The possibilities are intriguing.

Certainly we can expect a Toronto Party given that Greater Toronto represents nearly 50% of the population. It shouldn't be too taxing for us to get the minimum 3% required to send in list members. Hell, I might even support such a thing. The point is FPP is our best weapon against special interest groups, and self-interested one man shows like Winston Peters of New Zealand First. He happens to be their Foreign Minister, yet bizarrely remains outside of Cabinet. New Zealand Labour requires his support to continue governing, so Prime Minister Helen Clark has concocted this strange arrangement that requires Mr. Peters to report to her but not to Cabinet. That's MMP in action for you. Forgive me if I don't like what I see.

Update: FPP takes it by 62% to 38%. Not even close. On the down side, the Tories lost the election. Badly. The Tory leader, John Tory (yes, that's his real name), wore his dunce cap in the campaign by promising public funding to all faith-based schools in the province, not just catholic ones, to the obvious horror of secularists. No doubt many were thinking, including many conservatives were thinking: you mean you're proposing to fund Islamic schools? From that moment, the election was over. All the integrity in the world won't save you if you manage to scare the public. I dearly hope Mr. Tory has learned his lesson.