G'morning David,

 DW> We're having a referendum here in Ontario, Canada, on October 10. We'll
 DW> be asked whether we want to change the voting system in future
 DW> provincial elections from the present one, in which the province is
 DW> divided into "ridings", which each elect one MPP, being
the person who
 DW> gets the greatest number of votes, to a system in which some seats are
 DW> assigned to parties on a proportional-representation basis. Apparently,
 DW> this is the system you have had in New Zealand for a while.

 DW> So, what do you think of it? Is it better or worse than what you had
 DW> before?

It is called "Mixed Member Proportional" here - and it is far, far 
worse.

As a long-time pollster of NZ politics (1958>...) I hold myself to 
be responsible in part for the imposition of MMP here (The scheme 
first appeared in Germany, prescribed after hostilies ceased in 
order to prevent the rise of another Hitler).

My original polling system used Markov processes to predict **each 
electorate's status** from a 1,000 national random sample.

Regrettably,  the media and the political scientists of the day 
talked me into reporting only on the "popular vote" for parties 
... and the poll reports that followed thus ignored the actual 
business of voting sentiment in favour of party fortunes.

As the records show, the "popular vote" is often quite different 
from the party result in "First Past the Post" (FPP) Parliaments,  
thanks to local electorates, politics and the personal attributes 
of local politician.

Socialistic politicians and political scientists here played on 
that difference to promote MMP,  choose a time when the public 
badly needed to cane politicians and finangled its implementation 
on a referundum support by 41% of registered voters.

The public here does NOT like it after 10 years,  are STILL 
expecting a (half-promised) binding referundum over keeping it - 
but are denied this by devious politicking...

An MMP MP is really going to endanger his seat, incomes and perks 
by letting votersget rid of MMP ???? - yeah, right !

There is no way out of MMP for NZ,  short of revolution.

Right now,  the NZ conservative party polls fair to be outright 
winner at the next election, publicly acknowledges the voters' 
concern with MMP - but fears that offering to hold the expected 
referundum might cost it votes.  Alas, poor NZ democrasy....

Be warned that MMP represents a significant step forward for party 
politics over voter politics. In NZ, it  allows parties to 
determine who sits in half the seats in parliament, restricting 
voters to electing the other half.

And despite knowing that MPP would be voted out tomorrow by the 
electorate if it were allowed the chance, the NZ parties are now 
plotting to force voters to actually pay for all party advertising 
and marketing at Election time from tax monies -  when total 
political perversity will permanently prowl our precincts.

 DW> If you were an Ontarian, which way would you vote in the
 DW> referendum?

Against any proportional notion of any kind.

Democratic elections are for voters, NOT for parties.

The `popular vote' `problem' goes away with Single Transferable 
Voting (STV) or with 2 stage voting (if there is no 50%+ winner, 
then a run-off between the two top contenders provides one).

And if you really want to be democratic,  then there is the jury 
system.

In it,  each electorate gets to be represented by one citizen 
chosen at random from the roll.  Selected persons get a full MP's 
pay and perks,  their previous life gets maintained by managers 
and after one term of office they recieve immunity from re- 
selection and an MP's pension.

National elections are retained for prime office holders such as 
premier, treasurer and the like.  Their job in life is to oversee 
their ministry's work, propose new measures and laws for the 
representatives to judge, implement or dispose of.

And that gets rid of political parties and their untried social 
theories in favour of well-judged evidence-based plans and 
strategies....

(Takes to diaphragmmatic breathing...)

I'm being to rave - have I answered your query ?

Is there some specific NZ experience you'd like covered ?  The 
technical ins and outs are lengthy and horrendous in natuer and 
outcome,  with consequential party-swapping and evictions a 
Keystone farce....
 
What are the key features of the Ontario campaigns for and against 
- NZ detailed experience in them might be illuminating.

Miles

PS -  the NZ promoters of MMP worked very hard to put the usual 
66% or 75% level of approval used in ordinary referunda aside in 
order to ensure a decision of some kind.

The 66% or 75% level is used to ensure that two successive votes 
won't have different outcomes - say 55-45 this week and 45-55 next 
week.

Politics was in deep disgrace at the Election involved with 
turnouts dropping to record lows;  MMP received 51% of the 
recorded vote,  equal to 41% of the enrolled electorate....

Travesty !

I do hope that your electoral office has set a 66% or 75% approval 
level for October 10,  thus ensuring that your voters really do 
want it if it passes;   our's thought they'd just frighten their 
politicians a bit, and ended up with an outcome 60% of them would 
now cheerfully dump.

+--------------------Miles-Maxted-------------------+
| 116 Sunrise Avenue, North Shore City, New Zealand |
| Ph/Fx/As: ++64-9-478-3138   Mob: ++64-21-296-3891 |
+---------------------------------------------------+
 
___ MultiMail/Win32 v0.47

--- Maximus/2 3.01