Putting MMP In Perspective

Lorne Gunter on what Monty Python and the Holy Grail has to do with proportional representation

Whenever I hear someone making an earnest pitch in support of proportional representation (PR) -- including mixed-member proportional representation (MMP), the version Ontarians will be asked to vote on in a referendum tomorrow -- I am reminded of Dennis, the muck-tilling peasant from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. King Arthur comes upon Dennis squatting in a "filth field," and the two almost immediately launch into a pitched debate over the best form of government. Dennis insists his "anarcho-syndicalist commune" is infinitely superior to Arthur's "self-perpetuating autocracy" with its "outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society." In some theoretical sense, Dennis is probably right. Marxism, too, looked good on paper until every attempt to implement it in the real world led to a disparity between rich and poor (party members and non-members) that would have made John D. Rockefeller blush, as well as a level of state violence against the citizenry comparable to the worst of fascism. Still, Dennis is such a pinched, humourless evangelist for his utopian ideals that by the end of the scene you find yourself rooting for Arthur to repress him. After the polls close on election night, Ontario's provincial Vote-for-MMP committee is having a "BYO Beverages" celebration. The room will likely be packed with Dennises. Proportional representation, including MMP, appeals to the sort of solemn soul who sees him-or herself as slightly smarter than the rest of us and above anything so crass as partisan politics. Like the advocates of Esperanto as an international language, or Linux operating systems over Windows, Macs versus PCs, Beta versus VHS, alphabetical keyboards instead of the common QWERTY kind, they are only too happy to show the rest of us the error of our ways using the light that has been given only to them. As with all kinds of PR, MMP would create just as many problems as it solves. In some abstract sense, it might distribute seats more fairly than our current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, but it would instantly create new problems every bit as bad as giving a majority of seats to a party that wins just four out of every 10 votes. All forms of PR weaken the connection between voters and their elected representatives. For centuries, we have struggled to establish the local elector as the sovereign in democracy; PR undermines that. MMP seeks to fudge this a bit by letting voters choose some of their MPs or MPPs locally, then grafting on "list members" chosen by political parties in proportion to their shares of the popular vote. But list members don't really seek election. Instead, they audition for the party bosses who set the list. To get elected they do not have to appeal to local members to be nominated. Nor, once nominated, do they have to seek a mandate from local voters. Most don't knock on doors or attend debates and all-candidates forums. If elected, they don't have to do weeks and weeks of constituency work each year for voters because they don't have to please voters to get re-elected. It's natural for politicians desirous of keeping their seats to concentrate on the demands of those who put them in office. When those are the party bosses who set the electoral lists, how much influence will local voters have over list-member MPPs? While FPTP may give big parties more power than their vote totals warrant, MMP gives small parties outsized influence. By making it more difficult for any one party to win a majority, MMP would increase the likelihood of coalitions in which tiny parties with extreme agendas are given an influence over policy far beyond their percentage of the popular vote. In jurisdictions with PR, it is not uncommon for parties with 5% of the popular vote to have 8% to 10% of the cabinet posts. So PR tends to correct one problem-- too many seats for the big parties -- with another-- too much power for little ones. Only a Dennis would view this as an improvement. lgunter@shaw.ca