GREAT QUESTIONS

Could you please address issue of the NDP being the biggest beneficiary of the MMP system and why the radical left is in favour of the new system?

There are two answers to the question.

The mathematical answer and the ethical answer.

1. Simple math:

THE QUESTION OF NDP GAINING

The NDP is getting usually around 10% to 15% of the seats with 17% of the votes. (this can change wildly, of course, because the two numbers are unrelated.)

The Liberals and the PCs, with this system are – In the words NP columnist Andrew Coyne (article attached) sitting on the edge of a knife. 

A few percentage points make the difference between a Majority Lib or a majority PC.

That means that each having 30% to 40% of the votes, get between 10% and 75% of the seats.

(This model was already disrupted once, when the role between NDP and PCs inverted roles and the NDP won with Bob Rae.)

With the new system, of course, the NDP would get 17% of the seats and the others 30% to 40% of the seats. The other 13% would be split between the greens, us and the independents.

WHO GAINED? The NDP, they say!

If 8 runners, each on his lane, were running in a stadium the 400 meters starting on the same line, and you came along and explained that to be fair, they need to start staggered, who gains? The guy on lane 8 of course. He will not have to run 440m against the guy on lane 1 who runs 400m.

You get my point: We are correcting an error. The NDP “has” 17% support. It does not “gain” that support.

To insist on the current system is unethical just on the basis of fairness.

THE POSSIBLE NDP THREAT

What is implied in the question is that “the left” will be a threat.

17% to the NDP, even adding another 6% from the Green, would make 23%.

-With the current system there is a “chance” for the NDP to be a big spoiler, as it happened with Bob Rae.

-With the new system it would be impossible for them to form a government.

What about coalitions? Would they be called in a coalition government and then impose "their will?"

The rest of the voters, the 77%, in the new system would probably be split in several parties (E.G. 7: The Libertarian, Social Credit, Family Coalition, fiscal conservative, progressive conservatives, Liberal, Social democratic).

I cannot possibly predict all possibilities for coalitions, as this depends on the relative votes for each party.

For example, we could have:

-         a right coalition (Libertarian, Social Credit, FCP, Fiscal conservatives), or

-         a center coalition (FCP, Fiscal conservatives, PC, Liberals), or

-         a center-L coalition (PCs, Liberals and Social Democratic)

It does not really matter, because there are enough seats in the 77% group, to form more than one coalition without the need of the NDP.

RADICAL LEFT PARTIES

The word “radical” is used because some parties are way off center field. Then, by definition, are small and less than the 3% threshold.

However, if one of the “radical parties” would grow to 10% you would not call them radical any more. 

So, if someone is saying that he is scared by the possibility of the radical left organizing and forming a party, this is possible, but either they are radical extra-parliamentary (do not make the threshold) or are legitimate and, like the FCP, seek for representation of a large minority.

Why is the radical left in favour? Just for the same reason as the radical right is in favour. They do not have fair representation in the current system.

Each radical group thinks that, given a plain field, they can become a mainline party some day. The reality is much harder.

2. Simple ethics

a) Why are we really talking about the NDP and the left? 
Because the people using this argument want to scare their audience (people who are small "c" conservatives and undecided). 
If they were talking to a Workers’ Union meeting they would never raise that point! 
This tactic of course is unethical. It is called scare-mongering.

b) The system we will choose on October 10^th, after more than a hundred years of FPTP, would have to be in place for a long time.
Who knows which parties Ontario voters will form and support just FOUR years from now? Imagine 40 years from now!

c) An electoral system must be fair, at a meta-level. It is a constitutional matter, and should not be a political matter.
On this I wrote another article. This is actually the main point.
See: “Ontario, Why Change?  MMP - A synopsis”

d) Judging the electoral system change on the basis of who benefits from it is dangerous and unethical:

- Dangerous because the alternative to more democracy is more oligarchy (or even worse.)

- Unethical because someone justifies a choice of method (the means) on the basis of the objective (the end).
“The end justifies the means” is a proposition widely rejected by Christian ethical standards.