[praise-the-leaf]

I thought it would be 99% win FOR the change..

Elections Ontario has completely failed Ontorionians.. People did not understand the issue... they just thought "oh.. more politicians...".. I don't believe it...

What do you think is the reason behind the shut down of the MMP system reform?

[WBenson]

People wanted one or more of the following, whether right or wrong, and they believed MMP would take what they wanted away:

1) Stable Governments, and thus fewer elections

2) No politicians without ridings

3) The 2.5 party system

4) No fringe parties in Parliament


There were people who completely understood it and still voted against it. Just because someone didn't want it didn't make them ignorant.

[ridenrain]

The BC example had a strong against lobby when the pro side had it's spending and advertising restricted by law. It wasn't a political party so it didn't have an advertising budget or paid lobbiests so it's no wonder it failed. Often times, even common sense fails to apeal to the common public.

[ridenrain]

The funding and advertising wasn't equal so that really killed it. If I recall correctly, the unions came out against it and that sealed it's fate.
It was a good idea and I voted for it. I can't say the same of the MMP however.

[Wullu]

Ok, I have heard about MMP til the cows come home and have never actually seen a decent explanation. The pro side was, of course, all peaches and cream and the con side was doom and gloom.

What the hell was it?

[-Mario-]

Did you see how Rick Mercer presented MMP?????

I would have voted NO...

[Wullu]

I don't watch the CBC, so no

[Scape]

http://www.cbc.ca/mercerreport/index.php

[ShepherdsDog]

MMP, does it work? Ask italy, Israel and every other country that changes gov't like an anal retentive changes their underwear. This allows fringe parties to dictate the direction a government goes.

[Wullu]

After reading a few editorials and columns (none of which explained it!) I think I see the reason it went down the tubes. Nowhere near enough people had any more of an idea about it than I do. Smart folks that they are, they decided to vote against a sweeping change that had not been explained to them adequately. Seems to me that it failed because the supporters of it did not do their job.

Of course even if they did do their job, it might just as easly have failed to pass.

[hurley_108]

lily lily:

When we voted on the Single Transferable Vote system here in BC, it narrowly missed getting the required support (less than 1%, I think). I found that amazing, since most people didn't seem to understand it.

MMP is simple. STV is complicated. There must be some reason MMP was voted down so thoroughly while STV almost passed.

I think perhaps the biggest difference is under MMP there are lawmakers who do not represent any riding. Under BCSTV, every lawmaker represents a geographical area, even if they share it with others, and is accountable to the constituents of that riding.

I like the idea of IRV, as an alternative to MMP. One representative per riding, easy counting, and it gives people a chance to express their second and subsequent choices.

[Saskanna]

Until they come up with any idea where we have less government, not more, I'll always vote NO. Bad idea. Canadians have way too much government now. We hardly need more. In this day of instant communication no one can justify more representation in our legislatures or in the Canadian Parliament. NEVER.

[Wullu]

FPTP works for me.

If the fringe parties don't like it, then I guess they need to present ideas that Canadians are willing to listen to. It is not the country or the provinces that need to change to accomodate the fringe but vise versa.

[Arctic_Menace]

Wullu Wullu:

FPTP works for me.

If the fringe parties don't like it, then I guess they need to present ideas that Canadians are willing to listen to. It is not the country or the provinces that need to change to accomodate the fringe but vise versa.

[hurley_108]

Wullu Wullu:

FPTP works for me.

If the fringe parties don't like it, then I guess they need to present ideas that Canadians are willing to listen to. It is not the country or the provinces that need to change to accomodate the fringe but vise versa.

Canadians are demonstrably willing to listen to what the "fringe" parties are saying. The federal Green party are polling at levels higher than the Bloc! The problem is that their support is diffused agross the entire country while the Bloc is concentrated, naturally, in Quebec. The Green party got almost two thirds of a million votes in the last election.

FPTP effectively disenfranchised every one of those 665 940 people who voted green.

The purpose of FPTP is to distort the wishes of the electorate in order to hand disproportionate power to a few powerful parties.