Saturday, July 14, 2007

WHY FIRST-PAST-THE-POST IS BAD FOR ONTARIO - PART ONE

Ontario has the opportunity on October 10th to vote to dump our antiquated first-past-the-post electoral system and replace it with Mixed-Member Proportional (or MMP), a system that guarantees representation at Queen's Park closely matches the way people actually voted.

Stay tuned for future posts on this subject, as well as more good reasons Liberals should support MMP.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL ELECTION 1990

After a tumultuous campaign, the NDP garnered 37.6% of the vote, just five points ahead of the Liberals at 32.4%. The Tories got 23.5% and other parties won a total of 6.5% support.

However, our first-past-the-post system over-inflated that NDP vote and gave that party a big majority government for which it clearly was not ready. As a result, Ontario got five very long years of disastrous government and the Ontario economy suffered greatly.

We ask supporters of the status quo: How did first-past-the-post promote greater 'stability' in this instance?

Prior to 1990, few believed that support under 40% for any one party could translate into a majority government, but first-past-the-post proved them wrong.

1990 VOTES
NDP 37.6%
LIBERALS 32.4%
PC 23.5%
OTHERS 6.5%

SEATS
NDP 74 (57%)
LIB 36 (28%)
PC 20 (15%)
OTHERS 0

1 comment:

Wilf Day said...

"Prior to 1990, few believed that support under 40% for any one party could translate into a majority government." Yes, and then again, in 1999 Ontario Liberal voters were 40% of the voters (39.89% to be precise) but elected only 34.0% of the MPPs. And in 1985 Liberal voters were more numerous than PC voters but eleted 4 fewer MPPs.

But does MMP elect unaccountable list MPPs?

Transposing actual votes cast into the Citizens' system, in 1990 you get:
NDP 52: 51+1
Lib 45: 25+20
PCs 32: 14+18

Would those 18 PC list members have been unaccountable?

1995:
PCs 60: 57+3, so all but 3 of those 18 would either have won a local seat or been out.
Libs 42: 21+21
NDP 27: 12+15