Objections 1: The new MMP system creates “career politicians” and “cushy jobs”
by Giuseppe Gori

The positive aspects of the new system overcome the negative. 

Having politicians with longer-term jobs and longer term vision, is positive. 

For voters to know what you are voting for in advance, is positive.

The whole argument is skewed by what people know about our current system. 
Of course, having career politicians would be bad, if your options at election time are only two or three. 

Essentially voters would feel they have no choice.

The common question would be: “Who put these people there?”

However, with the MMP system every vote counts. Voters have a real choice among nine parties (as currently registered) or even twice as many, as probably we will have in 2011. Their choice to hire and fire party list candidates consists in the following: You don’t like the party list? Vote for another party. This is an effective and reasonable choice.  It provides a “recall” mechanism for the whole party at the next election. 

You do not like the fiscal conservative party A? Vote for the social conservative party B, or the social conservative fiscal liberal party C, or the liberal party D, all of whom may have similar policy aspects, but differ in their “executive choices”.

With the introduction of “preferences” in ballots (see below) you can also have it both ways: either fire the whole party, or vote for the party, but specifically choose the “political current” or ”faction” or political leaders you like within that party.

With more choices, the thinking process has to adjust. “Career politicians” in the party list help “define a party” and do so consistently across elections. 

The party list puts a "face" to a party. WYSIWIG: What you see is what you get.

There are two parts to this objection:

1. You may object to the high-salary of party list candidates (or any other candidate):

A party list candidate has a political job, but it could be compared to a person hired by a Citizen  commission (an expert bureaucrat). If the person has no valid skills, he should not be hired, or should be fired.

Riding candidates differ from party list candidates in several ways. 

Riding candidates are elected on the base of populism. They represent the community. They may be doctors, or housewives, or layers, or business people, or welders, or teachers, or farmers, or policemen. They represent "vox populi", the voice of the people. People elect them because they like them. These people may be great communicators, or renown for their involvement in local associations or volunteer groups, or be "connected" or "well known" locally. 

There are some positive aspects to these attributes. There are also some paradoxes: we elect local candidates to do the interests of their riding, then we criticize them when they stir public money to local projects. We also put these people in a position where they get "rewards" (one being re-election) if they forward local interests. In some cases it has been difficult for elected representatives to remain within the limits of the Law. 

The MMP system does not fix those problems (as with MMP there will still be 90 local candidates), but it lowers them somewhat (See related article: False promises at election time).

Party list candidates represent philosophy and ideology. They are also chosen according to their skills in representing the party and their experience in a particular field, such as education, health care, economics, environment, business. They can explain, with authority, the direction the party would take in implementing policies in a particular area. A doctor might be more able than a policeman in explaining a party's position and the party's policies in health care.

To attract high-quality people to run for a political party, the salary has to be good. However, it is a scandal that elected politicians can vote themselves salary increases. The Family Coalition Party, for example, has proposed to tie the salary of elected members of the Legislature to the average salary in Ontario. An MPP could receive exactly twice the salary of the average Ontario worker and should pay taxes like the rest of us. That would actually be a pay cut for them!

By introducing a relation between the average salary and their salary, politicians could become more responsive to the economic prosperity they help create in Ontario. By asking them to pay full taxes, they would become more responsive to the high taxation levels we experience and hopefully use public money more accountably.

Another idea is to allow parties to negotiate the salary of party list candidates (out of their own budget) as it happens in private industry. The party itself will "fire" party candidates if they do not perform. Who better than the party can assess their performance in representing the party? 

2. You may object to the position (of party list candidates) that is not reviewed by the electors:

The best answer is probably to amend the system and introduce "preferences" for party list candidates on the ballot. Each voter could write a number of names on the ballot to express his priority (which people in the party likes the most) for this party (his preferred party).

This reform (preferences in the ballot) may come down the road.

= = =

But even with the current version of MMP, parties are justified in selecting their own party list. Political parties may use this choice wisely, or not. If they don't, they will pay for it at election time.

The party can pick a person who knows about health care to be a future health care minister, or a health care critic. Or the party could pick someone who has an agenda (wants to reform the system in some way). Or the party could choose someone who has a high profile, but not much substance. By this type of choice the party exposes itself to gain or loose a number of seats.

For example, Will the Liberals confirm George Smitherman as a party list candidate and advertise that he will be again the Health Minister? If they do, for whatever reason, voters have more information than with the current system, thus they can make a more informed decision. The Liberals, on the other side, by making this choice, expose themselves to judgment at election time. They may get more or less votes, based on the perceived performance of George Smitherman.

With the current system people may vote for a candidate based on what the leaders say on TV, but they do not have a clue of who the potential candidates will be, for the position of next minister of health, when they go to vote. 

Firstly nobody knows, not even the party leader, who is going to be elected in each riding. How can the leader “plan” a cabinet? They essentially "have to do" the best they can with the people at hand.

Secondly, electors do not know, thus they cannot really judge if the party can do a good job at forming a government, or as an effective opposition.

With a party list, an alternative party can actually create a team of experienced people who may attract votes "as a whole". "Vote for us and you get this team".

This argument thus reduces to: Do we want to know what to expect, or do we want to play a game of chance?

= = =

The next argument is: "With the current system, electors decide whom to elect."

Well, they do not really decide, but it is the local riding association (party members) who decide who the candidate will be. In many cases it is actually the party leader who decides. Remember in 1997 when Jean Chretien substituted, with the stroke of a pen, ten candidates duly elected by their riding associations? Who elected these ten? Thus, if you see a problem of "lack of choice", the current system has the same problem.

= = =

In any case, the current system has another big problem. At election time voters disqualify candidates for all parties. When a candidate for party A wins, because most people in that riding like him, automatically the Libertarian or the Communist candidates are disqualified. These people may be the best the province has to offer to represent libertarian or communist ideology. 
Although most people may not like either party, the essence of democracy is to allow their voice to be heard.

Why should the average elector who is not a “Communist” or a “Libertarian” have a saying about who represents the Communist or the Libertarian ideologies (and thus disqualify the Communist or Libertarian supporters from being represented)?  

In fact a voter can even become a member (more or less temporarily) of another  party and vote AGAINST the best candidate of that party just to disturb and destroy that party's best candidate and the party's image. Some defensive membership restrictions are introduced by political parties to prevent these negative "intrusions", but they do still happen. 

Such behaviour has a negative influence on the whole democratic process.

The party lists give a chance for all voices to be heard, and possibly voted for. These candidates cannot be disqualified by local interests who "do not like them" or by the fact that the majority does not support them. 

When voters KNOW about all alternatives, democracy is at work. This knowledge does not prevent, in fact it facilitates, the voters' decision to support or disqualify these ideologies.

With the new system, voters have more information about who the people are (according to the published party list) and allows voters a decision of whether or not to put their confidence on them.

= = =

Finally, an advantage of having "career politicians" is that these people have a longer-term position and vision. In politics, as well as in industry, having a short-term approach (e.g.: to be re-elected four years down the road) may cause serious problems. 

Such politicians are more interested in achieving a particular goal this year, or certainly before the end of their term, to "show" what they are doing or even "buy votes" for the net election.

Considerations regarding what is good for the province and for the people take lower priority. Politicians instead tend to do anything to "keep their job".

The party list candidates, especially those running for more established parties, will have a longer political life. They do not have to constantly "fight for their job".

There are some good aspects to this: People with a relative “job safety” are less susceptible to immediate gratification and corruption. They are less prone to lie to be elected, or change their mind after being elected. They are generally more reliable. They are sticking to their philosophy and either you like them, and vote for the party, or not. They are less willing to compromise and say "yes" to all. Their moral character, in some cases, will show.

How would you like having politicians you can trust? 

...Top