Hill Times Letter: Misinformed on MMP

Letter to the Hill Times Editor published October 22, 2007

2025 update: I have learned more since 2007, and now strongly oppose any type of party block voting or party lists, which includes MMP. I oppose the current system (Single Member Plurality), even if I agree it is better now than if party lists were added.

Re: “Proportional representation is a consolation prize for losers,” (The Hill Times, Oct. 1, p. 17).

Tom Korski used many common points of misinformation in his column to make his point. It’s true that the MMP, now defeated by Ontario voters, was opposed by certain special interests such as previous MPPs and reporters who fare better under the current system. The media like to be able to concentrate their election coverage on a few ridings that have a few interesting “horse races.” Under MMP, the vote would have counted in every riding.

Moreover, there is a lack of understanding of the current first-past-the-post system.

Currently, parties nominate candidates to run under the party banners in ridings. Ontario voters, with few exceptions (I am one), vote entirely based on their party preferences. This means that these party-nominated candidates are “appointed” in the same way that is alleged to be a problem with the 30 per cent province-wide seats under MMP. This means that nearly every MPP in Ontario’s Parliament since Ontario was founded was “appointed,” according to Mr. Korski’s logic. Under the MMP proposal, the nomination process would have been much more open.

The MMP proposal would have kept 70 per cent of the seats elected the way they are today, and 30 per cent under an easy to understand system that reflects the way Ontario voters would actually vote for parties. This was not a radical change to Parliament, but a simple incremental improvement.

Russell McOrmond
Ottawa, Ont.