All MMP Candidates To Be Nominated Democratically
Tuesday October 02nd 2007, 2:28 pm
Filed under: - 2007 ON Election, - Electoral Reform, Canadian Politics

So much for the anti-MMP crowd’s overblown rhetoric about how “list” candidates will be “appointed by party bosses”. As of today, the four largest parties in Ontario (Liberal, PC, NDP, Green) — accounting for 98.6% of the votes in 2003 — have all officially committed to holding democratic nominations for list candidates under the recommended mixed-member proportional (MMP) system. List candidates will have to do exactly what local candidates do now (and will continue to do under MMP) — rally support in their area, get their supporters to vote at the nomination meeting to secure the nomination, then face the general voters, who choose their preferences, rewarding effective individuals and parties, and punishing ineffective ones. So let’s cut the crap about appointed candidates, party hacks, etc — local candidates are accountable to their localities and list candidates are accountable to their regions. If your local MPP is a jerk, you now have the option of going to your regional list MPP for help. Competition: bad for politicians, good for voters and good for accountability. End of story.


12 Comments/commentaires
Leave a comment/Enregistrer un commentaire

Do you have a link?

Comment/commentaire by Josh 10.02.07 @ 2:52 pm

MMP will, as STV did in BC and MMP did in PEI, fail.

it’s too much too soon, and no province will ever pass something like that. What’s needed is some kind of minimal system, not where all members (like BC) are elected though the new scheme, or 1/3rd of the members (like Ontario) but where maybe only 1/10th of the members are elected though a new system. That will scare much less people, and they’ll be far more willing to vote for it

Comment/commentaire by Nick J Boragina 10.02.07 @ 3:29 pm

Josh: A link to the Liberal Party of Ontario announcement

Your link to the other parties committing the same thing.

Comment/commentaire by Scott Tribe 10.02.07 @ 4:08 pm

Gee Nick.. that means in Ontario a grand total of 11 members would be elected that way.

I wouldn’t vote for it as an electoral reform supporter because of it being nothing more then a token response.

Comment/commentaire by Scott Tribe 10.02.07 @ 4:11 pm

Gee Nick, if the no side didn’t base its entire campaign on scaring the voters to death with doomsday scenarios, maybe reform wouldn’t be in doubt.

Comment/commentaire by Greg (not of democraticspace) 10.02.07 @ 4:16 pm

Just because I am curious, what is holding the parties to their promises? They could have a mostly democratic list and then shuffle the order somewhat. Until it is a binding law I have my doubts about politicians and their promises.

Comment/commentaire by rintrah 10.02.07 @ 9:21 pm

rintrah — what is holding the parties now? there is no “binding law” that says parties have to democratically nominate local candidates, is there?

Comment/commentaire by democraticspace 10.02.07 @ 9:40 pm

No there is no law that says parties have to elected candidates democratically. Perhaps that is why so many federal candidates were elected undemocratically back in the 1990s.

Comment/commentaire by Erol Hosdil 10.03.07 @ 2:14 am

In response to rintrah,

As a member of a political party, I can tell you that there is a very strong commitment among the grassroots members of parties to having candidates selected democratically. In rare circumstances, parties will interfere with local selection and when this happens, there is usually considerable pushback from the party membership. I would imagine that if a provincial party in Ontario committed to selecting list candidates democratically and then reversed their position, there would be complete insurrection within the party. Denying party members the ability to select their candidates on a province-wide basis (even just the list candidates) would likely be the end of that party as people would rescind memberships en masse.

Comment/commentaire by Devin 10.03.07 @ 12:21 pm

“So let’s cut the crap about appointed candidates, party hacks, etc”
For that we have our federal Senate, n’est pas?

Comment/commentaire by macadavy 10.03.07 @ 11:27 pm

To thos folks who actually believe that the current parties WILL democratically elect MMP list candidates one has to ask where have you been living? The current parties cannot, or will not, actually commit to doing that right now. So why would they behave any different with MMP? The simple answer is: They will not. The whole thing is WRONG! No person should sit in the house ANYWHERE unless they are elected by people free to choose and NEVER by political party appointment. Aside from that, Anyone who votes for MMP is actually voting for a greatly increased cost of government. It is much too bloated now to be efficient. There is little that can be said to be right about this whole deal: VOTE NO!

Comment/commentaire by Jay 10.05.07 @ 3:13 pm

rintrah suggests “They could have a mostly democratic list and then shuffle the order somewhat.” Since the ranked order cannot be changed after it is filed (well before the nomination deadline and the election itself), I will assume this question means “Could parties hold regional nominations in nine or whatever regions, and then shuffle the order somewhat” when folding the lists into one. Yes, if necessary they could, and likely should. They might want to ensure one or two francophones in high list positions, or one aboriginal, or whoever. I can’t see anyone having a problem with that.

Comment/commentaire by Wilf Day 10.07.07 @ 8:05 am



Leave a comment/Laisser un commentaire
E-mail address never displayed/Votre adresse email ne sera jamais publiee. HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required/requis)

(required/requis)



If your comment doesn't appear, it is because our automatic anti-spam software is blocking it. If so, just send us an email and we will post it for you.