Objections 2:  With the new MMP system there will be too many political parties
by Giuseppe Gori

If you are worried about "frivolous parties" created to acquire attention, promote a movement or one issue, you are right. This has to be prevented. The proposed seat assignment formula of the proposed MMP system prevents this by introducing a minimum threshold of 3% for a party to be eligible for a seat in the Legislature.

[ For your information, there are other formulas that could be used, to assign the 39 seats according to the total votes, or residual votes across Ontario (described elsewhere) which automatically would create a minimum threshold of about 2.6% (100/39). ]

= = =

If you are worried instead about the actual number of parties, say 18 instead of the current 9, here is a test for you: Can you name all the current registered parties? If not, why?

I guess it is because the media has decided that these parties "do not have a chance".

Thus currently we have nine choices, but only three "real" options.
See the nine registered parties at:
http://www.electionsontario.on.ca/en/cp_parties_registered_parties_en.shtml

So, what happens if we go from nine to (say) eighteen?

There are several arguments: The cost of having multiple parties, how the system may be confusing, and how a government can be formed (see objection 3).

Cost:
Currently the "cost of democracy" has three components: 1) Cost of running an election, 2) Frequency of elections, and 3) Cost of financing political parties.

1) The cost of running an election would remain approximately the same, as the District Returning officers, personnel, poll employees, etc. would not need to be increased. A change in the layout of the ballots would not make the printing costs any different.

There are some one-time costs in advertising the Referendum and explaining the new system, which are not related to the number of registered political parties. 

2) Elections would be more frequent in the case a government is not up to expectations (see: "Objection 3"). The question then is: do we want to spend $60 Million in another election (THIS IS LESS THAN 1/1,000th OF THE ANNUAL ONTARIO BUDGET!) or bear with a government that can easily cost us Billions of dollars in mismanagement? The answer should be obvious: elections are worth it, when needed.

3) The cost of financing a political party is currently proportional to the number of donations to a party and varies according to the size of donations. Members and sympathizers send contributions directly to the political party of their choice. 
The party issues an official receipt and this receipt allows the contributor to get a refund at tax time (This is the cost to taxpayers). 

Political parties, in Ontario, do not receive any government money or grants. However, candidates who received at least 15% of the votes get a reimbursement of their expenses. 

With the current rules, the number of contributors (more exactly, the total number of contributions) determines the cost of "partisan politics". The number of contributors and size of contributions is unrelated to the number of parties, whether we all contributed to one party or we contributed to a hundred different parties. However, because of the reimbursement rules to candidates (the unfair 15% minimum threshold) with more parties on the field, chances are that fewer number of candidates would receive more than 15%, thus the total cost of reimbursement to candidates may actually decrease!

Confusion?
Some people may think that having more parties would add to the confusion. 

- If you are not much interested in politics, as noted above, you only know the names of three or four parties. You will not know (or care) how many are registered.

- If you are interested in politics, then probably you will be happier when you find a party that matches your values, since with the new system your vote for this party is not wasted.

Some people may not like seeing on TV a debate (as it happened recently in the US for both democrats and republicans) with more than 10 people. The networks do not like that: they want to be in control of what you see (and know) so that their choice determines our government.

Obviously, the idea of democracy is not for society to be run by the news media (or any other group) but to have an informed choice and a free vote. Having debates with multiple candidates may not make a "good show", but allows more information and ideas to be shared with the audience and ultimately represents more freedom (available options) for voters.

How can a government be formed
You may worry about two things: 1) the stability of government and seemingly impossible majorities, and 2) the mechanics of forming a government.

1) The current system solves the problem for the short term, but creates long-term stability problems as it is conductive to "swings" from one majority to another often going in the opposite direction. This is very costly for industry, which sees no clear long term stability in the rules of doing business. The argument for the new system is treated in more detail under "Objection 3".

2) With the new system, majority governments can still happen if the majority of voters are satisfied with one party. Parties will be less willing to "win at all costs and promise the moon" and then not able to deliver. Parties will want to be perceived as able to deliver good governments.

However, it will still be unlikely that one party will be perceived good by the majority for a long time and (this is the nature of politics) people will probably want change. One party majority governments will be unlikely and majority coalition governments will be more common. 

A majority coalition will be formed by as many parties required to reach a majority in the Legislature (70 seats). Thus, if the most successful party at the election has gained 50 seats, the leader of this party will have to "find" one or two other parties he can work with who have a minimum of twenty seats, for a combined minimum of 70. These parties will form a "majority coalition" government. 

In such government, the minor players will participate in planning (the budget) and in administering the government (Ministries). Thus, depending on the specifics, you could have a government that will enact a legislative initiative of a minor party (representing a minority) among all of its major legislation. You might also have a minor party holding a ministerial position, depending on the specific interest and agreements.

The Ontario Citizen Assembly has judged and decided almost unanimously, that majority coalition governments are better governments. So have most of the industrialized western democracies.

Why? Essentially to provide an automatic check (and "recall" mechanism) in case one of the major leaders of the coalition wants to enact legislation that is in contrast with the direction of the other members of the coalition. 

If a party leader is so unhappy of the government course of action, he may take a chance and cause the government to fall. Either he is right (and voters will support him) or he is wrong, his political career may be over and his party will suffer the consequences.

...Top