Objections 4:  The current system works and it is fair. Why change?
by Giuseppe Gori

This is the classic "conservative" argument. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Unfortunately this system has been broken since a third party entered the Ontario political scene in the 1930's.

The electoral system was acceptable, when two parties were all that you had. Perhaps at one time government was less pervasive than today and most issues were resolved without legislation, by parents, local groups, church, traditions, etc.

Today governments (unfortunately) are more complex. For example, you could be for free enterprise, but for a responsible respect of the environment. You could be pro-life (an issue that did not exist 60 years ago) and against supply-side economics, or pro-life and for supply-side economics. You could be fiscally "right wing" and socially "left wing". 

In a multiple party, more complex political scene, the current system is inadequate. It IS broken and it is NOT fair. 

Fair chance to all parties
One argument against changing the system is that we do not need a new system for third (and forth) parties to be successful. The Reform has done it federally. the NDP has done federally and provincially.

The logic here is: It is POSSIBLE to be successful against all odds. Thus, let's not worry if the system is unfair. We are in power now (or we have a seat, or we have access to people in power), and if you want to oppose us, then go trough the hoops of an unfair system and see if you survive. It may take you about 60 years to do that, but so what? 

We are not talking here about a political issue, but about the rules of the game. We should be civilized enough not to support one or another system BECAUSE it stifles the competition!

The unfairness of the system has been pointed out elsewhere. Opponents of the system know that the current parties are favored by the rules of the game and by the "rewarding" formula, which establishes that the government pays a premium to all those candidates (of major parties) who receive at least 15% of the votes! They just re-define the word "fair" to mean: we did it (a hundred years ago), thus you can do it too. 

But the current system, in addition to being unfair towards smaller parties, it is unfair to voters.

The electoral system must be fair to voters
How could you, with a straight face, say that Canada (Ontario) is a democracy because we have regular elections, if the system of elections is biased?

Granted, the system is not as biased as in totalitarian regimes. In the old Soviet Union they had elections too. Too bad you did not have much of a choice.

Here in Ontario, in three consecutive federal elections (before the last one), the Liberal party won about 99% of the seats, with less than half of the popular vote! How is the system fair to electors? What happened to the MAJORITY who voted against the Liberals?

Almost any other citizen of almost any other (civilized) country would just say: "Unbelievable!" 

If the system of election is SO BIASED to give 99& of the seat to a MINORITY, wouldn't you say the system IS broken?

The MPP represents all
Another common response, in defense of the current system, is that it is not so important who wins in a riding, since when an MPP is elected, "he represents all the people" in the riding.
This is far from true.

The MPP represents voters in at least two ways: 1) By voting to pass new legislation or modify legislation in the legislature, and 2) supposedly bringing the concerns of the people to the legislature (Perhaps during question period?)

1) The real work of legislators is to create and change laws. This includes committee work, hearings and possibly analyzing input from lobbying organizations. Ministers of government also have staff to do a certain amount of research.

Most of this work is politically and ideologically driven. Party policies have been established. The leader of the party will set the direction, within the limits of his/her acquired "power."

Candidates who have no ministerial responsibilities ("backbenchers") have little impact on their own party and on government. Thus, even when at election time you have managed to help elect "your" candidate as the MPP for your area, he/she may not  be able to represent you and introduce legislation (through private members' bill, for example). These private members bills, since by definition are not mainline party policy, are seldom successful.

If instead you are represented by an MPP of a party that you oppose, you will feel completely alienated, until you have a chance, at the next election, to work harder to de-throne the incumbent (not that easy). 

How can you say that a political opponent represents your ideology? If he/she is able to do anything at all, he/she would do exactly the opposite of what you want.

2) In matters of local concern, the MPP may "work" with the Regional and Municipal governments to further the interests of his region. However, seldom MPPs can help individual voters. In legal matters, they would be seen as interfering with the judicial process (infringing in the principle of independence of the judiciary from the legislature). On other matters, they could be exposed by the media as using their position to favor "friends" in the riding (and unfortunately that often happens). So how does an MPP represent you? 

In spite of all of the above logical arguments, Canadians are attached to the system where they are represented by "their local guy" (someone they know lives in the community). For this reason, the new MMP system MAINTAINS local representation to the tune of 90 MPP's salaries costing taxpayers about $10 Million/year. For that price, we go through the motions of getting a local guy seat in the Legislature. If you like it, that's something I can accept. However, do not tell me that ANY of these guys (usually from a party that I oppose) represents me and my family. If I did NOT want them elected, chances are they will do exactly the opposite of what I would like (if anything at all). 

If instead I was part of the group (not usually a majority) in the riding that succeeded electing the MPP, then he represents my group because of his/her ideology (Point 1. above) not by favoring me and my family in any concrete way.

Now, if you have some "other means" (e.g. illegal bribes) to pressure your MPP, then I understand it is possible to get what you want. That is exactly why the system stinks.

What about the US?
When talking about changing the electoral system, another objection is that the system works in the US. Thus, by vicinity , it must be OK for Canada as well.

Our system worked in Canada too, for the first 60 years. Why? Because there were (and people were happy with) two clear political factions only. Now we have more political parties and the system we currently use was not designed for multiple parties.

Similarly, in the US currently there are two major factions, thus the system works better.

You may also argue the opposite: Single Member Plurality systems tend to create two party systems (obviously because smaller parties are disadvantaged). Thus the evaluation of whether a system "works" may be dependent on many factors, including voter satisfaction (dissatisfaction) with the whole political process in the country. 

In the US there is a healthy mistrust of government, embedded in their history and constitution. That makes "the people" more active in the political process and more eager to vote directly for every government position.

However, in the US as well we can see signs of system breakdown. For example, in the 2000 presidential elections, a relatively small amount of votes in Florida determined a complete different course of history (whether we prefer one or the other). The tendency with more proportional systems is NOT to create such dichotomies, but allow gradual changes over multiple elections.

Here are some of the differences (in very superficial terms) between the Canadian electoral system and the US electoral system. These differences also contribute to the overall voter satisfaction in the US:

...Top