MMP fosters Walmart politics

A frequent objection to the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) election reform proposal is that it’s too democratic. Just as it will smooth out the blatant over- and under-representation of today’s system (e.g. the 1990 Ontario NDPs, today’s Green Party), it’s possible that certain, less desirable political parties (the Nazi/Facist Party or one-issue parties the typical examples) could earn a seat in the House. The proposed legislation already addresses these “undesirables” with its requirement that parties must receive 3-percent of the popular vote to gain one of 39 list member seats – some, including the Globe & Mail, want this threshold raised to 5-percent. More than the suggested increase, the very fact that a threshold even exists looks to me to be in direct conflict with the basic principles of democracy. Two thoughts come to mind:

• There’s a simple solution to having Marijuana Party MPs walking the halls of Queen's Park; don’t vote for them! If 5-percent of Ontarians vote for the Weed Party, that’s (unfortunately for some) a reflection of 5-percent of the province’s population, not a fault of the system. Sweeping the actual seat under the rug isn’t going to change the fact that you live in a land of stoners!
  
• Aren’t the ability for every voter to have their say, and for political movements to develop at the grassroots level, essential and founding principles of democracy? How then, can anyone justify a quota for defining party credibility? We’re up in arms about predatory pricing and anti-competitiveness whenever Walmart sets up shop in another community. We’ve got legislation preventing the telcos from collusion and predatory pricing. Yet when it comes to our system of government, even a proposed better model, we penalize grassroots political organizations for being…well, grassroots. How undemocratic.

Am I oversimplifying?

Tory can still pull it off

Whether he read my blog or not, Tory sure changed his tune on the faith-based schooling issue. He may be paying the price for it now, but it's still early to call the time of death on his campaign. From here, I think he needs to do three things:

1. Stick to his guns - he was firm in his support of the idea in the first place and has to stand firm with the new plan, including my original idea that he commit to developing an ideal solution before the next election.
   
2. Come up with the sound bite(s) - There are a bunch of ways Tory can turn the flip flop sentiment around, and they all require a stinging one-liner or two. He can turn it around on McGuinty and that voters are understandably more accustomed to leaders chaning their minds after the promises have been made and election results tallied. He can draw on the Leadership Matters theme, that what voters are seeing is smart leadership, something perhaps they can be forgiven for not recognizing. Whatever the issues, there's a zinger or two that can change public opinion around on this.
   
3. Hope - and I suppose praying would be appropriate - that he made the tactic switch on the issue far enough ahead of the election. A week earlier and I think he would have been fine - time will tell if the remaining 5 days is just enough for voters to move on to the big picture decision.