mmp has been thoroughly rejected by voters, and for good reasons: it creates party lists, which is really *less* democratic. this would turn the mp selection process into something similar to the senate selection process. it can maybe work in very small countries. like luxembourg. germany, even, is really pushing it. it makes no sense in canada. the entire political system would become a game of insider politics in ottawa.

i prefer the ranked ballots option, and would wholeheartedly vote for it. stephane dion was pushing this in 2008. it's probably what the liberals would come up with. but, i don't pretend it's perfect. after all, liberal party support for this is likely not coincidental; they would benefit dramatically from it, as they get disproportionately high second-choice votes from both of the other parties. then again, that merely suggests that the liberals are consistently the best compromise choice and the other parties have work to do if they want to fight that reality. and, there's not really a perfect system.

i'm somewhat of an anarchist; i'd ideally like to see more referendums - direct democracy. but, that's not on the table. or at least it doesn't seem like it is. trudeau's father proposed this early in his career. i think it will likely at least be discussed, and a little pressure could move on it. this would be a much bigger change, though. it would squeeze the individual mp out, between the roles of direct voting, the civil service and the executive branch. it's really the constitutional changes it would require that put it off in the distance a little. i would at least like to see it seriously analyzed. in the mean time, i'm willing to support ranked ballots ("preferential voting") and would not support any form of proportional representation, due to the party list issue.

something that would be very interesting in a preferential system is that it would reveal opinions that are currently kept under wraps. for example, an anti-abortion voter could rank the chp at the top and the conservative party second without fear that they're wasting their ballot. the resulting data would be immensely useful in setting policy, even if it doesn't elect anybody from the smaller parties - it would give the larger parties a better idea of where their voters really are and what's really driving them,

as stated, i'm an anarchist. i don't support any of the parties (i've voted for both the ndp and the liberals in the past for a variety of shifting reasons, and am undecided this election between the greens and the liberals; the ndp have taken themselves out of the running via their openly right-wing positions and their choice of candidate in my riding, who is basically a rubber stamp for the party). and i repeat that party lists are deeply undemocratic. you want mike duffy or pamela wallin in the house? that's what mmp will get you. it will reward party loyalty at the expense of independent representation.

it matters little whether you have an open list, a closed list, whatever.

there may be the odd example where a specific individual may rise up the list on their merits. elizabeth may might be such an example. these are going to be exceedingly rare. the way this would work in practice is that people will vote based on a party representative that is located in ottawa and serves the interests of ottawa. they will not take the time to sort this out. and the parties will quickly learn to exploit this.

advocates of these systems are the type of people that see a parliament as a collection of voting blocks that vote their respective party lines, rather than a collection of individuals. and, this is a fine system if that is what you want. but, if you're looking to break down the party system and reassert a more accountable parliament with more independent mps that more frequently vote against their own party, then mmp is a step in the exact wrong direction.

globalnews.ca/news/2196914/election-primer-what-are-canadas-electoral-reform-options-and-how-might-they-work/