X Marks the Spot

(If you haven't yet read Parts 1 and 2 in this series, please scroll down and read them.)

All right, so I kept putting this off because I knew it would be a big post, and I knew I'd leave some things out, but now, here we are, forced to deal with the question at hand.

The question: Is the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system a better way to elect our MPPs than our current First-Past-the-Post (FPTP) system?

The answer: I don't know.

I know my job is to take sides on these things, but I honestly just haven't decided.

There's simply too much to consider, and more information coming when the Assembly's final report comes out on May 15.

Here are the worries:

1. Perpetual minority governments.

Because a party that forms the government very rarely receives more than 50 percent of the vote, in the MMP system it is likely we will always have minority governments.

Because it's unlikely we'll ever have a majority government, it's expected we won't need to put up with the continuous brinkmanship we see in the federal sphere.

Instead, there will be regular-length terms of minority governments working with other parties to pass legislation.

Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

Under MMP, if the Progressive Conservatives form the government after running on a revolutionary platform, with a minority government they will probably have a hard time passing the platform they envisioned and sold to Ontarians.

That's bad if it stops necessary measures from being taken, but if the measures are necessary, one other party will likely be on side, or be willing to find some middle ground and build from there.

From the National Post's April 17 editorial condemning MMP: "A real change of government becomes highly unlikely with (MMP), which produces a game of musical chairs with repeated recombinations of much the same group of consensus politicians."

On the other hand, as National Post columnist Andrew Coyne pointed out (while condemning his employer's editorial on the matter), "In recent years, Ontario has veered wildly, from the Rae NDP to the Harris Tories and back to the McGuinty Liberals, on the basis of relatively minor swings in voter support."

So, there will be minority governments and a need for consensus.

But, on the other hand, there will be minority governments and a need for consensus.

2. The emergence of crazy fringe parties.

For a party to have representation in the Legislature under MMP, it will need at least three percent of the popular vote.

It is possible for a one-trick party (anti-abortionists, say) to gather three percent of the popular vote. They will then get one seat. The larger their share of the popular vote, the more members they'll have.

There is a fear that this will result in many such fringe parties, and that those parties, in minority governments, will have too much sway in the legislature.

Surely if such parties are elected it's because we have a large enough number of fringe voters to support them. Just because most of us think fringe voters and the parties they support are crazy, those voters are still Ontarians and they deserve to be represented.

David Docherty, dean of arts at Wilfrid Laurier University, told Canadian Press he doesn't think fringe parties will gather much support.

"Will it change things dramatically? No, probably not. Just as if the Greens get two seats - will it change things dramatically? No, but at least they'll have a voice there."

Andrew Coyne (who has written the best piece on this so far), wrote about MMP through a federal lens: "The Green Party, with more than 660,000 votes in the last federal election, got zero seats. The Bloc, with barely twice as many votes, got 51 seats."

So, there will be more fringe parties, but how many more? Probably not many, and with only one or two members, it's hard to imagine they'd have much more power than they deserve.

On the plus side, there will be more fringe parties, meaning the Green Party, which does fairly well and probably deserves a seat, will get a seat.

(It's also worth noting that the Green Party, which is a fairly substantial machine, has so far only received 2.8 percent of popular support in an election, so to think that getting three percent of the popular vote is simple is ridiculous.)

3. 39 riding-less MPPs.

This is probably the toughest part of the MMP proposal, and one that won't be understood until the final report comes out in May.

39 of the MPPs elected under MMP would not have ridings. They would come from a list prepared by the political parties.

Who would these 39 people be, who would they represent, and to whom would they be accountable?

They would be paid the same as MPPs with constituencies, and their votes would count in the same manner as riding MPPs.

It makes one think this section of the Legislature could become a mini-Senate, since the members will be appointed instead of elected. The difference, of course, will be that there will be more turnover than the federal Senate, and the members will be more beholden than their federal cousins to the party line.

These people, in theory, will be members who will help balance the legislature to reflect Ontario - visible minorities, women, and other people who are under-represented.

It will also likely become a place where people well-liked by a given party will be rewarded.

They can be put near the top of the list, and if there is balancing to be done, they will get into the Legislature first.

It's hard to say how each party will build their lists, and that will be the most interesting question if MMP passes.

It's also worth knowing whether these members will be allowed to be part of the government's cabinet.

All of this will be seen more clearly on May 15.

There are many concerns with MMP, but these are the three that have stood out so far.

More will rise to the surface as more information comes out, and as the referendum nears.

Stay tuned, and stock up on Advil.