MMP debate part 1
So I did something pretty callous yesterday; I challenged other bloggers by suggesting that they were taking shallow, unnuanced positions regarding the issues facing Ontarians in the upcoming provincial elections. I suppose it’s only fair then that I make note of a better approach, in this case a debate on MMP taking place over at The Great Canadian Debate. Ignoring for a moment the fact that their design is obviously inspired by yours truly… their debate is interesting. In this particular case there are a couple of points being made which are worth addressing, and a couple of points which need to first be addressed.
The one central issue which underlines this whole argument is quite simply one of representation. It is the purpose (and organizing principle) of government. We are governed by representatives because direct representation is impossible for anything larger than a small, cohesive community. The quality of that representation can be measured along two vectors: How far removed a representative is from his/her constituents (by location, ease of access, etc.) and how many constituents a representative is responsible for… so lets say there’s the practical vector, and the philosophical one. In Canada the nature of our geography and demographics mandates a system riddled with compromises in these two areas, and hence the imperfect but functioning form of government we currently have. Now, lets evaluate MMP along these two vectors. Today I’m going to focus on pratical considerations:
Practical Considerations
Under MMP we see two changes in the “distance” dynamic. First, with the number of geographic ridings reduced politicians will be responsible for a larger jurisdiction. Cameron Holmstrom suggests that this will punish Northern Ontario… I’m not necessarily convinced of that. Face to face interaction is no longer critical for the democratic process with the widespread availability of high speed communications; and given the uproar that is sure to ensue at most the North would lose one or two seats. The real movement would most likely come in major developed areas, and here we have a problem. In real terms politicians in urban areas are already required to juggle an endless number of issues, and certain wedge issues are usually what allows a political party to establish and dig-in to a given community. As these jurisdictions expand the ability for a politician to appeal to a specific community lessens, sometimes drastically. Individual local issues become less relevant and a politician’s voice becomes more generic. Is this what we want? What happens to those list-mp’s in this arrangement? Well, in theory they are accountable to the entire province; but without a geographic/demographic alignment, who does a citizen in Ontario appeal to on a given issue? Logically the most qualified, or the person who most closely associates with a given issue… This may sound beneficial at first, but the logical progression is Issue MP’s on the one hand, and issue-less or USELESS ones on the other, performing no duty besides voting along party lines.
I am concerned that the North will loose individual seats, yes, but at the same time it’s the whole distribution of power too, and the affects the whole province.
The fact is that we have shrinking populations in Northern and Rural Ontario, while Urban areas, like the GTA, are growing by leaps and bounds. When you take away regional attachment to seats and throw the result open to province-wide results, those who have a small amount of the vote cannot expect to have their concerns become heard. These Northern areas may have “extra representatives”, but how representative are they when they do not have any connection to those communities that are suffering from those problems? And how are these MMP MPP’s supposed to have this profound connection with each community in the province??? Heck, that’s hard enough for any MPP to do within a riding, let alone across an entire province the size of Ontario.
Comment by Cam Holmstrom — August 30, 2007 @ 11:32 am
I was under the impression that the MMPs elected proportionally would still represent certain geographical regions. That and the party lists would be open, that is, voters can influence which individuals get a seat in the proportional allotment.
Don’t those two factors solve at least one part of the problem? The other part, of constituent MPPs having a larger district to deal with, is certainly an issue but not a very large one.
Comment by Brandon — August 30, 2007 @ 9:36 pm