Understanding the Electoral System - Family Coalition Party of Ontario

The current system gives us fewer choices and larger packages ("wider" party platforms).

You may not like a number of policies of Party A, but you have a real problem with a major policy both with party B and party C.

With new system, a couple of things will happen:

1) Those “big tent” parties, held together only by winning tactics will split into different parties. This will not substantially change the number of seats the current party holds.

2) New political parties will form and acquire seats in the Ontario Legislature.

All this will give voters a greater number of options and a way to clearly state what they do support and what they do not support.

At election time, voters will be able to indicate exactly the option they like, among perhaps 15 or 20 options. Each party will need to be different in some way from the others, thus voters can pick and choose.

For example, voters could choose a party that is fiscally liberal, but socially conservative, or socially liberal, but fiscally conservative, or pretty much each combination of the most important policy flavors available.

The leader of the “reform movement” will want to test, with the electorate, the exact power his faction holds. By running separately, he will know exactly the number of seats he can count on. With the new system, the number of seats would be roughly proportional to the popular support, thus there is no penalty in seats to be paid for running as a smaller party.

After the election, the Tories and Reformers would be able to still work together in a government coalition having at their disposal as many seats as they would have acquired running as a single party.

Now, the advantage to the electorate is significant and important. Electors know the difference between the two factions and can decide exactly which direction the coalition should go, by rewarding the faction of their choice with their vote.

The other advantage to the electorate is that they will be able to vote for a smaller party currently not represented in the Legislature. In Ontario, currently this means one of the following: Green Party, Family Coalition Party, Libertarian Party, Freedom Party, Communist Party and Confederation of Regions Party.

While only some of these parties may acquire 3% of the votes across Ontario, required for a seat in the Legislature, these new parties will bring more choices, more ideas and in some cases will provide the only option acceptable to a voter.

Even if the party will gain only a few seats, voters will start seeing a relation between their action (their vote) and the effect: someone elected that represents their political philosophy.

With the current system, as mentioned elsewhere, the main concern of candidates and party leaders is "to win". Political parties tend to cater to their audiences, but especially to the "undecided" groups. Most of the votes (according to the statistical "bell" curve) are at the center of the political spectrum.

Often against the wishes of the "ideologists" within political parties, this is what tends to happen: Party strategists and people working on policy push towards changing the direction of the party to cater to the center of the political spectrum.

This tendency continues, before elections and in between elections. The party direction tends to be affected by opinion polls and "follows" the perceived majority opinion. Political parties tend to abandon their original purpose and ideology to become more acceptable to the electorate (in reality, to have a better chance to "win").

This is also helped by democratic rules of membership and voting privileges within each party. The paradox is that the more political parties become "democratic" (i.e. follow public opinion), the less they provide a real choice to voters.

What country would you think is more democratic? Which has real freedom of vote?

	COUNTRY A:	COUNTRY B:
	Any citizen can become a member of more than one party. Party policies are democratically voted on, at each party convention. There are five political parties: The Socialist party, the Social Democratic party, the Social Coalition, the Progressive party and the Democratic party. All parties have essentially the same policies, with slight variations. Leaders are trying to represent the view of the majority, according to frequent opinion polls.	Citizens are forbidden from being members of more than one party. Party policies are unilaterally decided by a party elite, which follows a particular ideology. There are five political parties: Communist, Socialist party, Democratic Coalition, Conservative party and National Heritage party. Parties have very different policies, with slight overlaps. Leaders do not care about opinion polls, but represent their party's philosophy and ideology.

It did not seem a difficult question, at first, but... In country A voters do not have much of a choice, while in country B voters have real options: They can still vote for the "Democratic Coalition", if they so wish, but their options are NOT limited, thus they have real freedom.

In real life Ontario, we have been suffering from some of the "shift to the center" syndrome. The Liberal party of Ontario and the Progressive Conservative party of Ontario, both in a race to gain votes from "the center" have become very close with respect to policies and direction. Personalities differ, but there is less essential difference.

This is due, in large part, to the system of election, which rewards "winners" more abundantly than they deserve (with the power of a majority government) and thus it entices politicians to shift towards the center to acquire more votes.

With the new more proportional system, the different roles and policies of political parties will be maintained. Political leaders are more likely to be clear, unique and stick to their message, giving Ontario voters clearer options.

Finally the MMP system will provide for another “ultimate” resource, when no party or no candidate represents the voter's opinion: abstaining on the left side or the right side of the ballot.

While currently voters can spoil a ballot, and spoiled ballots are counted, the voter essentially gives up his ability to influence the political process. Protest votes are un-distinguishable from ballots spoiled by mistake and hardly distinguishable from people who do not even go to vote, as a protest.

With the new system abstaining from voting for a local candidate is a powerful statement. It does NOT compromise your ballot, as you can still vote for a party, and your vote still counts to elect someone.

In the same way, abstaining for voting for a party may make an important statement. There may not be a party that reflects your opinion or you are contrary to organized political parties. However this does not prevent you from voting locally, for example, for a candidate you approve of, or even for an independent candidate.

Ultimately, the MMP system gives more choices and more responsibility to the voter. Consequently, in the Countries where the system is in use, there is a higher voter turnout. In addition, while voters will never see “complete victory” of their party (on the contrary, most parties will acquire less than 20% of the votes), they will at least see someone in the Legislature that represents more clearly their position.

This grater sense of representation has generally created an electorate more satisfied with their government and produced greater trust in the political process.