I, Ectomorph has some interesting comments on FPTP:
The 8 or 9 NDP members currently in the Ontario legislature are probably "heard" in the legislature and in the media more than any randomly selected group of 8 or 9 Tory MPPs or Liberal backbenchers. In other words, the extent that one's party is part of "the national discourse" is not necessarily restricted by FPTP to the extent that one's party's representation in the legislature may be restricted by FPTP.
True, but it's very difficult for parties that aren't elected to be heard.
This is why MMP would be good for small parties. Sure, a caucus of 8 or 9 MPP's may not sound like much, but if they speak up, their voices are louder than 8 or 9 random MPP's, like the blogger said.
This would be a great advantage to pro-lifers. Right now, what are the main parties doing for social conservative issues? The answer: squat. Even if the main parties elected more pro-lifers, it wouldn't do much, because their focus is on a socially liberal agenda. The proof? Look at the Federal Conservatives. Lots of so-cons there. What are they doing for the social conservative agenda? Not a heck of a lot. In fact, they are sometimes muzzled. Look at the Harris government. What did it do for so-cons?
Elect a handful of good so-con MPP's from the Family Coalition Party, and then our issues get onto the table.
(And the same could be said of other parties).
_________________________
Visit Opinions Canada
a political blogs aggregator
_________________________
