Appointed Politicians

We do need something like MMP "to happen", but I fear it's not going to this time around. See re poll http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM... . Over a decade ago in New Zealand MMP finally passed with 54%, the interestingly same figure in the Globe poll. The route to MMP in N.Z. was very different (see http://www.elections.org.nz/study/history/history-... ). But like here, "both [main parties...] did not really want [electoral reforms]".

I don't know, however, that cabinet appointment of senators is as bad as all that. Consider the respectable preference for a Senate filled via some proportional representation method, less unlikely than Commons electoral reform. See http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/1678 , although that particular prospect is now defunct. If Greens were only in the Senate, would Jim say the same thing about appointment to cabinet?

Even with the impurity of the MMP proposal before us, the political moment is so important, what little time I have in this busy season for me I've spent putting up posters in our area (even posters I'm uncomfortable with). I've spent much time debating with recalcitrant neighbourhood acquaintances, all too given to the Ontarian-Canadian penchant for reflexive nay-saying. The primary irritant does seem to regard a perceivably possible retrenchment of an uglier side of party politics in constitution of party lists.

Chris addresses this some, but insufficiently to dissuade my interlocutors from their opposition. They would retain a sense of democratic betrayal that parties would still possibly fill their lists ab initio unaccountably, feeling irritated at having to counter this at ballot time, per Chris' scenario. They would not accept this negative good as sufficiently beneficial. N.Z. seems to require party-wide voting to constitute lists, which might not satisfy my neighbours either, since antipathy to party politics seems really at the root of their opposition, so urging party membership might be unattractive.

There is a positive counter in respect of their concerns about party politics. Apparently, & in this context a bit ironically, prior to this election (I hadn't noticed!) in Ontario party names did not appear with candidates'. With MMP, it seems to me that independents might possibly have a better chance, thus breaking the usual hold of party politics, & redundant accompanying party names should disappear from the ballot. This would highlight a reversion to emphasis on the respectability & desirability of the individual candidates themselves.

After tiring of my trumping all his arguments contra MMP, one acquaintance resorted to the phrase (which I refuse to use), "agree to disagree". He pointed out that a majority vote resolves such impassses between democratic arguers. But he was fairly silenced when it was pointed out that a more truly representative majority would be required, as close to our representing our own opinions with our own votes, which MMP much more closely approximates.

I know this person to be not unsympathetic to smaller parties' plight. So I'm afraid regular supporters of both main parties are little likely to be forthcoming for MMP. The same person appreciates problems with FPTP. My rejoinder noted that it seems more likely that MMP get in, then itself get reformed if desired, than MMP not get in & we Ontarians get another chance soon to vote on another system. Now is the time!

I cannot "agree to disagree", unless this is merely deferral to a more propitious time for rational debate. But even this deferral is not for now, the most propitious time for momentous political change.