Andrew Coyne in National Post writes:
(...) apologists for the status quo have more or less given up arguing for first past the post on its merits. The pretense that it delivers "stable majorities" can no longer be sustained: recent elections in Ontario have produced, in order, NDP, Conservative and Liberal governments, none with a majority of the votes, yet each interpreting the support of its own minority as a mandate to impose a succession of radically different policy regimes on the rest of us.
So instead first-past-the-posties have focused on raising fears about the alternative. These fall into two broad categories: fears about proportional representation in general, and fears about mixed-member proportional in particular.So weak are these general arguments against PR that opponents have lately shifted their focus to the alleged failings of the mixed-member system. I'll deal with these next time.
Giuseppe Gori clears
The "Against change" side relies on people's mental inertia for defending the status quo, but some people are also using misinformation and fear as weapons in their arsenal. We do not think this tactic is ethical.
The "For change" side criticizes the FPTP system based on facts. This is because people are familiar with the current system and would immediately spot misinformation.
The people who want change have the burden of proof and must also overcome a two-folded supermajority to effect change.
Steve Paikin leads a debate on The Agenda click on the video for Sept 27th show (left column)
LFL&A blogs exclusively for MMP:
Voters Win!TVO.org's Battle Blog of Sept. 17 asks Who's Afraid of MMP? Who has the most to gain and who has the most to lose if Mixed-Member Proportional representation goes forward?
CBC has a handy pro-con table on MMP (scroll to the bottom of the page)