Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:


“The end of civilization as we know it!”

Check this out from Don Ferguson of Royal Canadian Air Farce.

This is a light-hearted look at how defenders of the status quo over the years have been on the wrong side of history where improvements to our electoral systems are concerned.


6 comments to “The end of civilization as we know it!”

  • Jason Townsend

    Actually I suppose that glosses over the other MMP drawback of 'voter understanding of the system' and 'voter confidence in the system.'  MMP is, on the face of it, more complex; and bombarded by its critics people might think it to be more (as opposed to less) abstracted from the popular will than FPTP.

    This reasoning, however, overlooks both the fact that voters don't realize how FPTP works – and believe me, having worked in the electoral machinery, practically noone understands that only 'winning votes' count for anything in our democracy – and that FPTP absracts the results from the popular will in a far realer way than MMP. 

  • Jason Townsend

    I'll never understand why someone can logically believe MMP-elected members elected, in an election, by voters, are unelected hoo-hahs, while simultaneously believing that a majority in parliament elected by a minority of the electorate is democratic, or on an individual level that someone winning a very small plurality in a riding is that riding's most democratic respresentative.

    I will grant that one's perceptions and political convictions cross-pollinate and good people in good factions have convinced themselves that FPTP can have the best outcome givne the right circumstances.

    But FPTP more democratic than MMP?  Somewhere, Logic Jesus is crying. 

    The [i]only[/i] argument for FPTP is that it might bring about better government through easier majorities, an argument which fails utterly in a multi-party system.  (With the possible exception, in the Canadian context, of the united right.)  By any democratic measure – the value of an individuals vote, the accurate representation of each riding, the correlation of the popular vote to the parliamentary makeup – MMP is vastly superior.

  • Aaron: considering I said "electoral system" in my description of the video should have removed all doubt. Apparently you skimmed that part – I thought lawyers were trained to read carefully all the fine print and statements. You’d better work on that.

  • That is a falsehood, Vicky.. those people are being directly elected by the voters of Ontario. As we've stated before, other MMP countries have regional districts – I see no real reason why the electoral reform commission wont do the same here.

    In those other countries, those List MP's open up constituency offices in those districts where they are from and when they’ve been elected.. so they DO represent the people. Again, no reason to see why that wont happen here.

    It's sad to see you and John Tory sharing the same anti-MMP rhetoric, Vicky.

  • ALW

    For a minute there I was shocked that you'd support a change to the system.  Then I realized you meant the electoral system, not the health care system.

    The irony is lost, I am sure.

  • The problem is not the IDEA of a reform Scott, the problem is MMP BEING the reform…

    MMP is not an improvement.  It's a bunch of un-elected (by the people) hoo-haas sitting in legislature and being paid.

    It's the creation of super-ridings, REDUCING the current number of ridings (107) to a mear 90. 

    Yes, Iknow, there will be more MPPs BUT, there are still far less ridings…

    Your co-partisans on the pro-mmp side state that Ontario is under represented compared to other provinces across Canada..well we're definitely under represented now… basically at the levels of 1890…last time Ontario had so few ridings….

    Only one of many reasons, albeit an important one, why I cannot support MMP 

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.