If you’ve read his columns dating back the past year, it will not shock you that Ian Urquhart has come out against MMP this morning in his column in the Toronto Star. His rationale is interesting - apparently it comes down to more parties is a bad thing and we MIGHT get that under MMP, and it might allow another Mike Harris type government.
As stated over here, there are not many cases in MMP in other jurisdictions where Urquhart’s scenario has occurred, but regardless of what parties get elected to the legislature, MMP is going to ensure that any legislation passed will have the support of parties that represent over 50% of the popular vote in Ontario - in otherwards, a majority of people. I think quite frankly, that gives whatever legislation is passed legitimacy and a mandate that it might not have under the current system.
Looking at Ian’s main claim in his column, I’m still not sure where all these voters for the Freedom Party and the Family Coalition Party are coming from to give them a minimum of 3% support, which Urquhart claims could happen. Yea, it could, but a) I find it unlikely, and b) if they somehow manage to get 3%, then quite frankly, they’ve earned enough support to be represented in the legislature, so good for them. In addition, if the mainstream parties wanted to (and I’m talking the “big 3″ parties), they could easily band together to prevent so-called radical fringe parties from controlling the legislative agenda.
This isnt quite as bad as Sheila Copps claiming a radical Islamist party would hold the balance of power in the legislature under MMP, but it’s close (On a side-note, I don’t consider the Greens to be a “quirky environmentalist party” - but maybe that’s Ian preferring we have as little parties as possible. He must love the 2 party system the US has).
For a more thorough rebuttal to Ian’s column, check this blogposting out.
Had the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly chosen a different proportional voting system, Urquhart would have found reasons to oppose it.