'Great in theory - chaos in practise'
One of the most popular tactics used in politics is that rather than sell your ideas, you dump on those your opponent prefers.

Witness the current referendum in Ontario, where advocates of election "reform" want you to trudge off to the polls next week and approve a proposal to radically transform the way we will elect our politicians in all future elections.

For those who still don't know - and polls suggest many don't - you're asked to choose between our existing system, i.e. first-past-the-post, or FPTP, and something called mixed-member proportional representation, or MMP. Most of our political academic-journalistic elites, alas, are hoping you opt for MMP rather than maintain a system which, despite it's flaws, has served us exceedingly well since Confederation and, in fact, serves the vast majority of western democracies rather well also.

The last time the elites circled their wagons was in promoting "reform" during the Charlottetown Accord referendum, when they outspent opponents by about a 10-toone margin but still lost.

Let's hope history repeats. Most pro-Charlottetown advocates opted to justify radical change by attacking our existing governance system, the same negative approach so common in this current Ontario referendum. Less about the wonders of MMP, except in vague, academic terms, and more about the shortcomings of FPTP.

I beg to differ. While our current system isn't perfect - no system is - it' s far superior to the tangled web being offered under MMP.

Why? First, the new system adds 22 more politicians at Queen's Park. Quite apart from the enormous extra cost to the taxpayers, is there anybody out there - anybody - who really believes we need MORE politicians?

Second, under FPTP, we elect all MPPs directly. Under MMP, we wouldn't. Thirty-nine "representatives" - 30 percent of the Legislature - would be chosen from "lists" concocted in political backrooms by party operatives.

With MMP, you'd get two votes: one, like now, for your local candidate; the other for the political party of your choice. The number of "list" politicians representing each party would directly reflect the percentage of the votes received by each party.

Advocates say this is more "democratic" because the Legislature would better reflect the actual percentage of votes won by each party. This is their best argument, but it's still flawed. Currently, governments routinely win "majorities" with 40 percent or less of the vote. Thus, MMP advocates claim, if you vote Tory say, and the NDP wins your riding, your vote is "wasted."

But if your party vote counted towards the number of hopefuls on your party "list," then your vote will not be wasted.

Great in theory. Chaos in practice. Why? Well, even if your chosen candidate loses - which always happens to me - you are still represented in the Legislature. My local MPP, for example, is NDP Michael Prue, a lock for reelection. But he represents me too, not just those who voted NDP. History has shown that politicians who don't understand that find their political careers are short-lived. True, he doesn't hold my particular philosophy - but then, is there any politician, or party, which concurs with all your beliefs? Also, I don't consider voting being a "waste" no matter who wins. (Oh yes, MMP advocates claim their system means larger turnouts. Not true. Ontario's turnouts are smaller than some countries with MMP, but other provinces, with FPTP, get bigger turnouts than MMP countries. It's not the system that discourages turnout. It's the politicians and the sad lack of teaching governance in our schools.)

To me, the idea of having at-large "representatives" chosen by party hacks instead of by direct election is reason enough to nix MMP. We already have the Senate for that. We don't need a pseudo-Senate where people gain power without having to publicly seek office.

Worst of all, the proposed election "reform" would guarantee perpetual minority governments, sparking a cottage industry of fringe parties - from both left and right, it's equally troubling -who would need a mere three percent of the party preference votes to have their "list" candidate sitting at Queen's Park.

Instead of electing people who could make decisions - and be judge accordingly by the electorate next time out - our "leaders" would spend their time closeted behind closed doors offering trade-offs to the smaller parties to secure their support. It's true that FPTP often means bigger parties don't get the seats to match their overall vote totals, but under MMP, the opposite is true: smaller, usually more extreme, parties would have inordinate clout in governance. I prefer the current system, flaws and all, to one which allows fringe parties to hold us all to ransom. Consider Belgium.

It uses a version of MMP, and more than 100 days after the election still can't field a government. Why? Because the main parties can't finagle enough support from the small parties to form a government, so chaos reigns.

I don't want this for Ontario. Do you?