How MMP will encourage long-term vision
by Giuseppe Gori

You could say that a totalitarian regime is a “stable” government, with a long-term vision. Thus, do not get fooled when people praise the current system for its stability. The current system creates short term, artificial stability at the expense of justice. 

For example, in the last twenty years, pro-lifers, pro family people and people of faith were not represented in the Legislature by a political party. Thus justice has taken second place with respect to the ability to win seats at election time.

The fact that Jean Chretien was able to win three consecutive federal majority governments, did not make him a "just Prime Minister", but just an astute pragmatic politician.

You must have heard that our electoral system (First Past the Post, or Single Member Plurality) encourages “strong” (majority) governments, while a proportional system is ridden with weak, easily defeated governments.

There is some truth in the above statement. Both our system and the Proportional system have their problems. For this reason we believe that a mixed system (such as the Mixed Member Proportional proposed in Ontario) is the best way to go.

The current system however, obtains short- term "stability" at the price of long-term instability.

One unwelcome consequence of our current system is its confrontational, polarized approach. Parties need to “win at all costs”, i.e. promise anything, to win at election time.

The new electoral system will not by itself reduce confrontation or apathy, but it may create the conditions for co-operation and coalition governments.

For example, on Tuesday, May 8, 2007, former archenemies Ian Paisley of the Protestant Democratic Unionist Party and Martin McGuinness of the largely-Catholic Sinn Fein wing of the Irish Republican Army (IRA) made one of the mightiest leaps forward in the Northern Ireland peace process in 15 years by entering into a political alliance in the form of a new power-sharing government. 

These two groups had religious and ideological differences that have spawned violence and bloodshed since time immemorial.

Northern Ireland has been using a form of proportional system called STV for many years. Would the two factions have been willing to create a coalition government if the system had given a clear majority of the seats to one of the two parties? Probably not.

However, if a government majority coalition can work in Ireland, we can reasonably hope that it will work in Ontario.

The stabilizing effect of the new system

The new system will introduce a "stabilizing effect" on the voters' allegiances across multiple elections. 

Currently voters are forced to choose a "whole package" out of only three choices (In Ontario, NDP, Liberal or PC). Each of these parties had their turn in government with the support of a minority of about 35% of the votes, but formed a "majority" government. None of these recent governments satisfied the rest (the 65%) of the people. 

Each of these government was thus subsequently defeated and replaced by a similar "majority" government. At election time voters, out of frustration, have chosen to "swing" from one party to another in the hope of being represented by a better Premier.

People voted for Peterson, Ray and Harris, more than for their party's policies.  Actually it is even worse: people voted AGAINST Peterson, Ray and Harris, more than they voted FOR the new future leader. 

Although the real number of "swing" votes was relatively minor, the result was a real, drastic change of direction, from one government to another.

As a result of these political about-faces, literally hundreds of regulations have changed from one year to another and then changed back by the next government. Civil servant directions changed around by 180 degrees; jobs were on the line; heads of boards and commissions were replaced; industry leaders suffered as a result of a climate of instability.

I am actually making the argument FOR stability, which is one of the main arguments AGAINST more proportional systems.

However, the reality is that voters in countries using a more proportional or a fully proportional system tend to "settle" from election to election and "park" their vote with the party of their choice. Why? Because their vote, even for a small party, already counts. Because changing party will not produce much change and the next government will still be a coalition. 

It does not mean, of course, that voters will not change their support. But changes of support will occur less frequently and in less numbers.

This stabilizing effect will create less rapid and less dramatic government policy inversions, thus it will create a more stable environment for industry and allow a longer term vision for economic leaders. 

What is the effect of repeated Coalition Majority Governments across multiple elections?

Let's assume that, because of the "stabilizing" effect of the new system, party A continues to have approximately the same support across multiple elections.

If the Premier of Ontario knows that he will not lose either his seat (the first on his party's list), nor his position of power as a likely candidate for the leadership of a coalition majority government, he will not have an incentive to risk his reputation for acquiring a few more seats, on a temporary basis, for his party.

His current mission is to be the Premier of Ontario. That is the way he wants to be remembered.

What can party A give him that he does not have? In a sense, the loyalty to his party will be slightly diminished in favour of his loyalty to his position as Premier and head of a government coalition. This will reinforce his mandate as a Premier and discourage wrongdoings for the sake of partisan politics.

Again, there is no guarantee on the honesty and wisdom of any leader, but leaders sometime rise up to the occasion.

...Top