I am in favour of a mixed member proportional representation
electoral system for all of BC. There are so many reasons why I
feel this system clearly stands out above the rest, that it is
difficult to get them all down in a short piece to you but I will
at least some of the most salient rationale.
MMP is the most proportional of all systems -- in New Zealand up to
90% of votes cast actually elect someone. Women, youth and
minorities are generally represented in proportion to their
population.
MMP results in larger constituencies but is more community based
because of the connection elected representatives must have to the
community. MMP politicians would be foolish not to establish
offices in their constituencies and to stray from working hard to
represent their constituencies because voters will turf them out if
they do not represent their constituency just like in traditional
politics. Also, instead of the tendency for old white male business
leaders to be elected (who have appeal to very few voters), MMP
would elect the person in the constituency who has done the most
for the various communities. Open lists mean that parties can not
control lists. The individuals most likely to be elected are those
who are best known to serve their community well. Evidence from
other MMP systems shows that voters tend to elect for their
constituency seat the individual they like the best, and vote with
their heart for the party vote. If this person, even in a very
large constituency, strays from their historical connection with
and deep reagrd for members of their constituency then they will be
turfed out in the next election. Also, each constiency would have 2
representatives. Thus, in totality, I feel that MMP, even with the
larger constituencies would result in better service to members of
the constituency.
MMP is easy to understand
MMP results in minority governments which are forced to make
coalitions and thus get along. Minority governments bring stability
in this situation. Even in Canada, minority governments are
responsible for the creation of Canada's social and medical policy
frameworks.
I draw a strong distinction between MMP and STV. I feel that STV is
not as proportional, tends to give exaggerated majority
governments, promotes competitive every man for himself politics,
is complicated, STV politicians tend not to back controversial but
necessary legislation (school taxation etc) because of fear of
local voter backlash, women and minorities are less likely to be
elected in STV systems. STV exaggerates the divide between right
and left political views, whereas MMP tends to encourage voters to
understand each other and compromise.
I endorse MMP in which a proportion (say 50%) are elected
proportionately, and the rest are first past the post.
Thank you for your time and consideration
|
levelCMS