|
Ontario Election 2007: (Vote October 10th) (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| djbruuen |
| one final bump to remind everyone to vote tomorrow. (if the banner at the top dinner already catch your eye) |
|
|
| chinamon |
im not voting.
cuz i have no idea what the voting is for
and i dunno the difference between liberal, conservative, ndp, green or whatever other parties there are. i'll just let you guys decide on the future of canada's government so if something goes wrong i have someone to blame. :) |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
I still can't decide on the MMP .. i like the fact that i can indicate my party of choice since often at times i really like a certain candidate in my riding but i don't necessarily like the party at the provincial level. i know it's happened to me a lot in Federal elections such as the past one where I liked the Liberal candidate but not the party.
On the other hand I don't like the idea of party lists and politicians who are not directly responsible for/or answer to constituents. I think this reason alone may cause me to vote NO on the issue.
As for who I'll vote for, again right now I'm still undecided. Not liking the Liberal Party but not liking John Tory either, not that McGuinty is a lot better. Just wish we had more choices..
|
|
|
| djbruuen |
i'm for the mmp because of the federal election if anyone remembers:
Green Party: 665,940 votes - 0 seats
Block Quebecois: 1,553,201 - 51 seats
how does this represent canada's best interest? |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by djbruuen
i'm for the mmp because of the federal election if anyone remembers:
Green Party: 665,940 votes - 0 seats
Block Quebecois: 1,553,201 - 51 seats
how does this represent canada's best interest? |
better than party hacks being MPs only to serve party's interests |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
| quote: |
Q: What is MMP?
A: MMP or mixed-member proportional representation is a political system used in places like New Zealand and Germany, where voters cast a two-part ballot, selecting both a preferred local candidate and a political party.
In Ontario's version, voters would choose "local" MPPs in the traditional way in 90 newly created, larger ridings instead of the existing 107 constituencies. With their vote for the party of their choice on the second part of the ballot, they would also select an additional 39 MPPs from lists of candidates compiled by the parties.
These "list" MPPs would be elected based on their parties' popular vote, to top up a party's tally of "local" MPPs and more accurately reflect results across the province. The Legislature would be expanded to 129 MPPs to accommodate the changes.
Q: What are the advantages of MMP?
A: Smaller parties like the Greens, the Family Coalition and the Freedom Party would have a chance at winning seats in the Legislature even if they cannot win a riding outright. Any party that wins at least 3 per cent of the popular vote would be awarded four "list" seats. It would mean the end of majority governments when a party has won less than half the vote and prevent scenarios like former NDP premier Bob Rae's landslide victory in 1990 with 37.6 per cent of the vote.
Q: What are the disadvantages of MMP?
A: Critics charge the 39 "list" MPPs would not be directly elected and the parties could use the lists as a sort of Senate to reward party apparatchiks, financial donors or others. As well, it would likely spell the end of decisive, majority governments since no party has won 50 per cent or more of the popular vote since 1937.
Q: What is "first past the post"?
A: "First-past-the-post," or FPTP, is the current method of electing MPPs and is how Canadians have traditionally chosen federal and provincial representatives. It is a winner-take-all system, where the candidate with the most votes wins a riding. The political party that wins the most electoral districts forms the government.
Q: What are the advantages of FPTP?
A: Simplicity and familiarity. The system is in use in countries around the world, including Britain and the United States, and has served Ontario and Canada for generations.
Q: What are the disadvantages of FPTP?
A: The winner-take-all nature of it means that the majority's voting intent may not be honoured. In recent history, most Ontario voters did not want Dalton McGuinty, Mike Harris or Bob Rae as premier, yet all three were elected with majority governments. It also means the ballots of dissenting voters in ridings won by the Liberals, Tories or New Democrats are meaningless province-wide. In theory, a party could win all 107 seats by winning every riding with a little over one-third of the vote.
|
http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/252176
btw. i actually live in a 'swing' riding .. so my riding's votes could have a direct impact on the outcome of the election if it's close.. should be interesting..
http://www.thestar.com/ontarioelect...gprofile/251454
http://www.thestar.com/ontarioelection/article/262898
|
|
|
| exstasie |
WOOT WOOT!
IT's ELECTION DAY! :D :D :D
Don't forget to vote! |
|
|
| djbruuen |
| quote: | Originally posted by EvilTree
better than party hacks being MPs only to serve party's interests |
yes and no.
without being able to pull an accurate number out of my head, i could assume that the majority of canadians vote for the party itself, rather than specifically regarding what the local MP is offering. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
I'm ready to pick my candidate/party.
However...
I'm still on the fence regarding the referendum. Does anyone really know the strengths an benefits and possible future implications of this referendum. I have read the explanations in the ads in the daily papers, but I can't find any discussions on it.
Does anyone even know what I'm talking about? |
|
|
| exstasie |
| quote: | Originally posted by Abercrombie
I'm ready to pick my candidate/party.
However...
I'm still on the fence regarding the referendum. Does anyone really know the strengths an benefits and possible future implications of this referendum. I have read the explanations in the ads in the daily papers, but I can't find any discussions on it.
Does anyone even know what I'm talking about? |
On the radio they were talking about how the whole referendum was an idea to possibly increase voter turn out.
The primary advantage is that it can give smaller parties somewhat of a say.
Right now there are apparently 103 ridings (maybe 105, can't remember) but the new system would reduce the ridings to 90.
There would then be another 39 seats which would be divided up based on the popular vote.
Therefore, if a party gets roughly 2.5% of the popular vote, they will be giving one of the 39 seats.
This could help out the Green Party or some other party as they would have atleast one representative.
This is what I've learned about it. If i'm wrong or a little off, can someone clarify thing for me? |
|
|
| Orko |
 |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| quote: | Originally posted by exstasie
Therefore, if a party gets roughly 2.5% of the popular vote, they will be giving one of the 39 seats.
|
I'm sure you made it a lot easier for us, thanks.
Can anyone give an opinion on any worst case scenarios? or best case scenarios?
I listen to CFRB and other talk radio on the way to and from work recently and don't hear much about it (side note...I was on the radio with Jim Richards last night on another topic: Men who go to clubs just to dance). |
|
|
|
|
