Wednesday, October 03, 2007

MMP - good people still don't get it

Here is my conversation with friend of mine, politically involved and educated young man who wrote to me:

Unfortunately, considering the political climate, there is a very clear danger that Gwen may be right in a sense... I would not be surprised if the Liberal and NDP and maybe Green party lists did exactly that type of "inclusion"... and this would weaken our already weak Legislature.
I have to vote for the current system, even though it would be nice to see a couple of FCP MPPs.

I am really surprised by your stand after all the information I've sent your way.

You say yourself that that the current legislature is weak. Sometimes the only way to fix a broken leg is to break it again and set it anew. Yes, that's true that, in a short term, the the culture of death may benefit from the change. But so would culture of life. Aren't we as Catholics directed to choose a greater good?

Once pro-life side has a presence in the parliament (sorry but pro-life MPPs representing pro-abortion party don't count) our efforts at grassroots level will be supported and have a voice. We know that in the current system there is no hope for pro-life cause. Show me even one legislative (federally or provincially) pro-life victory in the last 40 years! As far as I can see, we're heading the other way, loosing with every step.

On personal note, the MMP system would solve my dilemma in Essex riding. With no FCP candidate locally, it would allow me to vote for Richard Knaziew without voting for rabidly pro-abortion, pro-homosexual John Tory and his party. With the present system I will not vote for anybody who promotes himself as "John Tory candidate" as Richard does on his signs and in his speeches. I don't see him as an effective pro-life witness when he is so enamored with a looser like John Tory as his leader.

BTW, as much as Richard was pretty good in the radio debate, his referendum answer was just plain stupid. The electoral change is not an issue worth debating during election campaign? Give me a break!

Good job with getting Richard on the second page of Windsor Star today. It is great to have pro-life issues up in front. However isn't a bit disingenuous if he promotes his pro-life stand without also explaining militantly anti-life stand of his leader? It seems like our pro-life cause is used here for dirty politics to confuse voters and get them to vote for PC party that has exactly the same stand on life issues as Liberals.

Here is what Giuseppe Gori says on radical left gaining with MMP:

Simple ethics

a) Why are we really talking about the NDP and the left?
Because the people using this argument want to scare their audience (people who are small "c" conservatives and undecided).
If they were talking to a Workers' Union meeting they would never raise that point!
This tactic of course is unethical. It is called scare-mongering.

b) The system we will choose on October 10th, after more than a hundred years of FPTP, would have to be in place for a long time.
Who knows which parties Ontario voters will form and support just FOUR years from now? Imagine 40 years from now!

c) An electoral system must be fair, at a meta-level. It is a constitutional matter, and should not be a political matter.
On this I wrote another article. This is actually the main point.
See: "Ontario, Why Change? MMP - A synopsis"

d) Judging the electoral system change on the basis of who benefits from it is dangerous and unethical:

- Dangerous because the alternative to more democracy is more oligarchy (or even worse.)

- Unethical because someone justifies a choice of method (the means) on the basis of the objective (the end).
"The end justifies the means" is a proposition widely rejected by Christian ethical standards.

No comments: