Mixed Member Proportional Representation - Term Paper Example

 Mixed Member Proportional Representation Introduction Mixed member proportional representation is also known as mixed-member proportional voting and commonly abbreviated to MMP. It is nothing but one of the most important voting systems used to elect representatives to numerous legislatures around the world. MMP is similar to other forms of proportional representation in that the overall total of party members in the elected body is intended to reflect the overall proportion of votes received. However, it is different from prportional representation as it includes a set of members elected by geographic constituency who are deducted from the party totals so as to maintain overall proportionality. It took different shapes in different countries. While examining its relevance in Canada, one must analyze its nature in some countries like United Kingdom and Germany. MMP is partially implemented in United Kingdom and is commonly known as the additional member system (AMS). Similarly, in Germany it is called as personalized proportional representation. Opinion of some authors regarding MMP Different theories emerged during last five years regarding the pros and cons of mixed member proportional voting system. However, it is relevant in the present context to examine the views of some authors like John L. Hiemstra, Harold J. Jensen, Christopher Kam, Mark Charlton and Paul Barker regarding the prospects of implementing mixed member proportional representation in Canada (Mark Charlton and Paul Barker. 2005). John L. Hiemstra and Harold J. Jensen opined that the implementation of mixed member representation system certainly benefits the democratic set up of Canada as it allows better representation of higher number of people while progressing towards people’s development. However, they felt that the minor modifications in the existing MMP by taking the experience of some countries like South Africa, Venezuela, New Zealand and Bolivia where MMP is already in practice. By implementing the positive aspects of MMP, Canada would certainly get benefited significantly and the voters would be in a position to derive maximum benefit from democracy. At the same time, more favoring comments from Christopher Kam (2006) encourages the government functionaries of Canada to implement this MMP system immediately with out any second thought. They further pointed out the limitations of the existing voting system in the form of non-uniform representation and hence favored electoral reforms immediately in the form of MMP. However, they cautioned that the people’s awareness regarding the structure of MMP should be enhanced, otherwise, it may result in negative effects. It was observed that the lack of sufficient knowledge on structure and rules of MMP in countries where it was initially implemented led to confusion among the voters and hence resulted in false voting questioning the basic essence of MMP. My views on MMP in Canada It is certainly essential to implement MMP in countries like Canada as it facilitates the higher representation of major sections of the society in more meaningful manner. The general procedure for MMP in Canada must be as follows: The total number of seats in the assembly may be allocated to parties proportionally to the number of votes the party receives in the party portion of the ballot. At the same time, subtracted from each party's allocation would be considered as the number of constituency seats that party wins. The number of seats remaining allocated to that party would be filled using the party's list. However one must note that in case a candidate is on the party list, but wins a constituency seat, they do not receive two seats. They would be crossed off the party list and replaced with the next candidate down. This would allow uniform representation of voters compared to the present system followed in Canada. However, some variants based on the previous experience of MMP in other countries may be considered. The favoring factors for MMP in Canada are as follows: 1. MMP was recommended in Canada by some notable commissions after studying various factors. For example, in March 2004 the Law Commission of Canada proposed a system of MMP for the Canadian House of Common. However it was not adopted by the government. It was also unfortunate to find that the proposal to adopt MMP for elections to the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island was defeated in a referendum in 2003. 2. Most importantly, recent deveIopments are in favor of its implementation in Canada as the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in Ontario, Canada, opined in favor of the use of MMP in future elections to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It recommended a ballot similar to that of MMP in New Zealand. It gives us again a disappointing feeling that this proposal was again defeated in conjunction with the provincial election in secon week of October, 2007. It doesn’t mean that the efforts of considering MMP have to be left in the present state, but to critically analyze the factors of MMP in Canada. One must not forget the fact that the public opinion on implementation of MMP has been increasing in its favor day by day and they are debating it regularly. 3. As the voter makes two votes i.e. one for a constituency representative and one for a party it gives immense scope for broader representation. The MMP in Canada can take the best results of Germany. In Germany, both votes were combined into one, so that voting for a representative is nothing but also voting for the representative's party. It is important to note that Germany transformed to the two-vote variant to make local MPs more personally accountable. Hence it will aid in successful implementation of MMP in Canada. As proposed by some commissions to follow the MMP model of New Zealand, Canada would get tremnedously benefited as it was observed that in New Zealand's last election, 20% of local MPs were elected from electorates which gave a different party a plurality of votes. It otherwise ensures more diverse representation and efficient functioning of government. The negative factors for implementing MMP in Canada are as follows 1. MMP implementation may result in overhang seat problem. It can happen due to the fact that a party can gain fewer seats by the party vote than needed to justify the won constituency seats. It is a common problem as opined by several commissions as Canada is expected to folllow the model of New Zealand which already faced this overhang seat problem. In New Zealand's 2005 General Election the Māori Party won 2.1% of the Party Vote, entitling them to 3 seats in the House, but won 4 constituencies resulting in an overhang of 1 seat, which results in a 121-member house instead of a normal 120-member house. However overhang seats may be tackled if Canada follows the example of the British and Italian models where proportional allocation is applied only to list seats. 2. There is a potential for tactical voting in MMP If MMP is implemented in Canada, there is a probability of occurrence of tactical voting which means that the vote for the constituency representative is normally much less important than party vote in determining the overall result of an election. At the same time, a party may be so certain of winning seats in the constituency elections that it expects no extra seats in the proportional top-up. It gives the scope for some voters to go for a double representation by voting tactically and splitting their votes. 3. There is a scope of manipulation from side of political parties under MMP. MMP, if implemented in Canada may face the problem of splitting of a single political party in to two or more for their tactical advantage. They may separate their party in to two. One contests the electorates seats, where as the other contests for the list seats resulting in an overhang. This may benefit them in getting more party funding. But it is detrimental in terms of meaningful representation of all sections of canadian society. 3. There is also a problem of voter confusion due to lack of awarteness regarding MMP in Canada. As the present awareness of people regarding MMP is quite low, there is possibility that they may be confused and vote for a wrong candidate. Conclusion Overall, the implementation of MMP certainly benefits the democratic set up of Canada in several ways. What ever the shortcomings, that may arise can be tackled by making necessary amendments or variations to the general structure of MMP based on the experiences of other countries. References: Christopher Kam. 2006. "Demotion and Dissent in the Canadian Liberal Party." British Journal of Political Science 36: 561-74. Mark Charlton and Paul Barker. 2005. Contemporary Political Issues, 5th edition. Nelson college Indigenous publication. ISBN-10: 0176415157. Read More