tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615716556540686703.post5380694415466763021..comments2023-09-01T00:35:22.182-04:00Comments on Wilf Day's Blog: “Limited MMP” (Canada’s electoral Plan B)Wilf Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05546880754492040363noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615716556540686703.post-13760851800104506882010-06-22T02:09:36.631-04:002010-06-22T02:09:36.631-04:00“Limited MMP” is not what I would explain to the p...“Limited MMP” is not what I would explain to the public, because Lord Jenkins designed only a half-measure. To show the flaw in our system today I say: “in 2008, 51.4% of voters voted Liberal, NDP or Green, but they elected only 37% of the MPs.” However, “Limited MMP” still fails to let those voters elect a majority of MPs. <br /><br />So the intent of this model, as Jenkins’ Report in the UK said, is a compromise balancing broad proportionality with the need for stable Government: MMP-lite. Unlike most MMP models, this one is to be sold to the Liberal Party and its caucus. Note that, without adding more MPs, it would elect more Liberal MPs than were elected under winner-take-all. The parties with reduced numbers in their party caucuses would be the Conservatives and Bloc.<br /><br />Jenkins wanted only one or two regional MPs from each small region because, he said, additional members locally anchored to small areas are “more easily assimilable into the political culture and indeed the Parliamentary system than would be a flock of unattached birds clouding the sky and wheeling under central party directions.” That’s basic to his model.<br /><br />As for MPs from combined provinces, I don’t know if the public would accept it, but it would certainly require a constitutional amendment. Normally, MMP would not require a constitutional amendment.Wilf Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05546880754492040363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6615716556540686703.post-66458141962802024912010-06-21T11:28:22.514-04:002010-06-21T11:28:22.514-04:00I personally agree with some sort of MMP system.
...I personally agree with some sort of MMP system.<br /><br />The challenge would be selling the idea to politicians and/or to the public.<br /><br />If you enlarge the size of the legislature (to accomodate the additional regional MP's), it means having to sell to the public the idea of more politicians, with all the associated pay, perks & pensions.<br /><br />If you enlarge the size of the ridings to make room for the regional MP's without increasing the size of the legislature, it means having to convince existing MP's on the idea of reducing the numbers in their party caucuses (with all of their entrenched local connections, pension credits, etc.)<br /><br />Who would decide the size of the legislature? Would "limited MMP" be first sold to the political parties, their caucuses, or to the general public?<br /><br />I wonder if the public might accept 5 larger geographical regions at the federal level. For example: the west coast-Yukon; the prairies-NWT-Nunavut; Ontario; Quebec; & the maritime provinces. <br /><br />Right now, party representation in parliament is very regional in nature. Also, with "limited MMP", larger regions may be better, because of the limited number of MP's set aside for proportionality.Raymondhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11870700364959398032noreply@blogger.com