It’s the one people talk about most for a new Canadian system, but honestly it just seems unnecessarily complicated to me. It’s a minority that can even name their representative.
I actually really like it as a system. Though I prefer a version where instead of using a party list you use the “nearest loser” to decide who fills the proportional seats. It or STV (though preferably on a slightly larger scale than how Australia currently uses it in our Senate—electing 10–20 representatives per electorate rather than our 6) would be my favourite systems.
MMP, if we’re comparing it to a fully proportional system, has a few distinct advantages. Many but not all relate to it having a local representative. You might not know who yours is, but plenty of people do. Even if you don’t though, having one specific person be your primary contact with politics is useful when public pressure campaigns happen. It’s easier to say “write to your MP” than to say “write to a whole bunch of MPs. Which ones? I dunno, all of them I guess?” It also means you have a politician who is specifically supposed to help look after your area’s needs. Who can push for local infrastructure upgrades etc.
It also gives you the option of doing something other than party-list proportional representation. If you don’t do local representatives, the only feasible way to decide which MPs are elected by each party is for the party to decide. Which, IMO, I don’t like. If a party puts someone near the top of their list who is deeply unpopular, despite the party as a whole being popular, voters should be able to say “nah, not him”. With MMP, you can use a system like “nearest loser” where the people who get elected via the proportional system are the people who came closest to winning in their local seat, demonstrating that, out of the people who were not directly elected locally, they are at least the most popular in their electorate. I don’t believe either Germany or New Zealand actually do this, but it’s at least an option.
You might not know who yours is, but plenty of people do.
To be clear, I’m in politics “like a dirty shirt”. I definitely do. Most people I know wouldn’t off the top of their head, and the people who’s doors I knock on are prone to not even understanding that there’s multiple levels of government.
It’s easier to say “write to your MP” than to say “write to a whole bunch of MPs. Which ones? I dunno, all of them I guess?”
That’s definitely true. My local guy uses those letters as toilet paper, probably, but the ones in unsafe ridings or who are young and idealistic might actually care. I have to assume there would be alternatives that grow up, though, including petition signing which is already quite prominent here.
As for keeping out unpopular individuals, that’s true, although Justin Trudeau himself is the only person in my country right now with that kind of notoriety.
I say we do a zero-representation system. No one gets elected. No kings either. Government posts are filled by sortition.
No one who most desperately wants power should have it. Solve this problem by filling offices through a lottery. I’m in the US, and I personally think we would be doing a hell of a lot better with a Congress made from 535 randomly selected Americans than the 535 we have up there right now. Or maybe some sort of hybrid system, where you get to choose between a few randomly selected candidates.
I unironically really like the idea of sortition. I’m not convinced it could or should make up the totality of all governance, but for at least broad strokes/high level decisionmaking I think a group of random people given access to a variety of expert opinions and the resources to help consult more broadly could come up with something that is genuinely a good outcome. I’d especially like to see it tried out at the local level, around things like development approvals/zoning laws, street design, locations of parks, libraries, and other public facilities, and the other important work done by councils. I believe the power of local people making decisions about their local community would be a really powerful way to get around NIMBYs.
Yeah, it’s definitely something that would need to be experimented with locally first. I mainly like the idea because it removes the ability for the most depraved and power-hungry people to achieve high office with any frequency. The real problem with power is that it attracts evil people like moths to a flame. They seek power for its own sake. Not because they have a vision of how to improve the world, or because they want to help people. They simply want power over other human beings. I’m firmly convinced that any presidential candidate for instance is almost certainly almost demonically evil. You simply don’t get to that level of power and influence, in our current system, without leaving a whole bunch of bodies along the side of the road on your path to the top. You have to cheat, betray, lie, and stab people in the back. You have to abandon your closest supporters in the name of political expediency. You have to hide your real beliefs lest you angering the wrong people. Our existing system just selects for the most dishonest and evil sociopaths among us. The higher the level of government, the more depraved and evil you can expect the politicians to be.
Sortition solves this problem entirely. I like the idea of maybe just using it to select 3 candidates. That way the voters can hopefully prevent the real crazies from winning office, if one happens to have their lot drawn. Just by voting, you probably can’t weed out a power monger that happens to get picked randomly for a presidential candidate slot. But you can at least prevent the legitimately crazy person whose campaign platform is just, “I’m going to launch all the nukes the minute after I get sworn into office.”
But with sortition, you prevent the worst of the worst from ever getting into the halls of power. Look like someone as sociopath and conniving as a Mitch McConnell. That man should have never been let anywhere near high office. But he wormed his way to the top. With sortitition, the only way he would ever see office is if he managed to win a million:one odds lottery first.
I think that generally, most people are good people. And yes, as you alluded to, they likely will need to rely heavily on expert opinions. But elected leaders already do that. But most people do want to seek compromise and work for the greater good.
As a plus, this would completely kill political parties as we currently know them. You don’t need the party to win election. And if each representative only serves a single term, there’s really nothing to be gained by sticking to a persistent political alliance like a party. Better for representatives to just form ad hoc coalitions as they go through their terms.
It’s the one people talk about most for a new Canadian system, but honestly it just seems unnecessarily complicated to me. It’s a minority that can even name their representative.
I actually really like it as a system. Though I prefer a version where instead of using a party list you use the “nearest loser” to decide who fills the proportional seats. It or STV (though preferably on a slightly larger scale than how Australia currently uses it in our Senate—electing 10–20 representatives per electorate rather than our 6) would be my favourite systems.
MMP, if we’re comparing it to a fully proportional system, has a few distinct advantages. Many but not all relate to it having a local representative. You might not know who yours is, but plenty of people do. Even if you don’t though, having one specific person be your primary contact with politics is useful when public pressure campaigns happen. It’s easier to say “write to your MP” than to say “write to a whole bunch of MPs. Which ones? I dunno, all of them I guess?” It also means you have a politician who is specifically supposed to help look after your area’s needs. Who can push for local infrastructure upgrades etc.
It also gives you the option of doing something other than party-list proportional representation. If you don’t do local representatives, the only feasible way to decide which MPs are elected by each party is for the party to decide. Which, IMO, I don’t like. If a party puts someone near the top of their list who is deeply unpopular, despite the party as a whole being popular, voters should be able to say “nah, not him”. With MMP, you can use a system like “nearest loser” where the people who get elected via the proportional system are the people who came closest to winning in their local seat, demonstrating that, out of the people who were not directly elected locally, they are at least the most popular in their electorate. I don’t believe either Germany or New Zealand actually do this, but it’s at least an option.
To be clear, I’m in politics “like a dirty shirt”. I definitely do. Most people I know wouldn’t off the top of their head, and the people who’s doors I knock on are prone to not even understanding that there’s multiple levels of government.
That’s definitely true. My local guy uses those letters as toilet paper, probably, but the ones in unsafe ridings or who are young and idealistic might actually care. I have to assume there would be alternatives that grow up, though, including petition signing which is already quite prominent here.
As for keeping out unpopular individuals, that’s true, although Justin Trudeau himself is the only person in my country right now with that kind of notoriety.
I say we do a zero-representation system. No one gets elected. No kings either. Government posts are filled by sortition.
No one who most desperately wants power should have it. Solve this problem by filling offices through a lottery. I’m in the US, and I personally think we would be doing a hell of a lot better with a Congress made from 535 randomly selected Americans than the 535 we have up there right now. Or maybe some sort of hybrid system, where you get to choose between a few randomly selected candidates.
I unironically really like the idea of sortition. I’m not convinced it could or should make up the totality of all governance, but for at least broad strokes/high level decisionmaking I think a group of random people given access to a variety of expert opinions and the resources to help consult more broadly could come up with something that is genuinely a good outcome. I’d especially like to see it tried out at the local level, around things like development approvals/zoning laws, street design, locations of parks, libraries, and other public facilities, and the other important work done by councils. I believe the power of local people making decisions about their local community would be a really powerful way to get around NIMBYs.
Yeah, it’s definitely something that would need to be experimented with locally first. I mainly like the idea because it removes the ability for the most depraved and power-hungry people to achieve high office with any frequency. The real problem with power is that it attracts evil people like moths to a flame. They seek power for its own sake. Not because they have a vision of how to improve the world, or because they want to help people. They simply want power over other human beings. I’m firmly convinced that any presidential candidate for instance is almost certainly almost demonically evil. You simply don’t get to that level of power and influence, in our current system, without leaving a whole bunch of bodies along the side of the road on your path to the top. You have to cheat, betray, lie, and stab people in the back. You have to abandon your closest supporters in the name of political expediency. You have to hide your real beliefs lest you angering the wrong people. Our existing system just selects for the most dishonest and evil sociopaths among us. The higher the level of government, the more depraved and evil you can expect the politicians to be.
Sortition solves this problem entirely. I like the idea of maybe just using it to select 3 candidates. That way the voters can hopefully prevent the real crazies from winning office, if one happens to have their lot drawn. Just by voting, you probably can’t weed out a power monger that happens to get picked randomly for a presidential candidate slot. But you can at least prevent the legitimately crazy person whose campaign platform is just, “I’m going to launch all the nukes the minute after I get sworn into office.”
But with sortition, you prevent the worst of the worst from ever getting into the halls of power. Look like someone as sociopath and conniving as a Mitch McConnell. That man should have never been let anywhere near high office. But he wormed his way to the top. With sortitition, the only way he would ever see office is if he managed to win a million:one odds lottery first.
I think that generally, most people are good people. And yes, as you alluded to, they likely will need to rely heavily on expert opinions. But elected leaders already do that. But most people do want to seek compromise and work for the greater good.
As a plus, this would completely kill political parties as we currently know them. You don’t need the party to win election. And if each representative only serves a single term, there’s really nothing to be gained by sticking to a persistent political alliance like a party. Better for representatives to just form ad hoc coalitions as they go through their terms.