I just wrote a long response to a friend on some questions about list candidates in MMP and I thought my readers might be interested in it.
It is tough to get good information on the referendum. You can take what I say for what it's worth, after all I do work for the pro-MMP campaign (if you support what we're doing, consider making a contribution - we could really use it). To be frank, I'm most frustrated by how those opposed to this are so willing to ignore/distort/disregard the evidence on how proportional voting systems work in the real world.
Certainly, the list members in Ontario would all have constituency offices, as they do in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales. They would function just like locally-elected MPPs in that regard. Evidence from those countries indicates that voters make no distinction between local and list members.
Because the list seat to local seat ratio is so low in the proposed Ontario MMP system, there are important incentives built into the system that encourage list MPPs to stay attuned to local concerns where they live. It is likely the first place party will win lots of local seats and therefore get less list seats. This means that a higher proportion of list seats will come from opposition parties. Obviously, all opposition parties hope to be in government someday, but if an opposition party become government, they'll no longer elect so many list candidates. This means that list MPPs can't rely on being on the list to get re-elected. Therefore, politicians being the rational, self-interested beings they are, I think MMP means more attention being paid to local concerns, not less.
There will be some ridings that will have two (possibly even more) MPPs who ran locally in that riding (I anticipate all parties will still run as many local candidates as they can). As my colleague Steve Withers, a Canadian who moved to NZ and loves MMP so much he came back for this campaign, likes to talk about, his riding in NZ (Otaki) has three members. First, the locally elected Labour MP, who won the riding by about 300 votes. Second, a National Party MP, who came second and got elected because he was near the top of the party list. Finally, one of the Green list MPs is from the area and has a office in his city.
So for voters under MMP, they have multiple elected representatives to go to for help. This system might not be to the delight of our current elected representatives, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me it isn't good for voters.
On the practical question of where exactly will list MPPs come from? I think my friends at Liberals for MMP propose a good example of how list candidates would be selected here.
If MMP passes, I think it's clear that the question of "who's on the list" will be a big focus of the media in the lead-up to an MMP election. This provides strong incentives for parties to create lists that are broadly representative of the province. In practice, I think this means that parties are likely to convene regional conventions to make regional lists of candidates which will then be folded into a provincial list - as they do in New Zealand. This will ensure good regional balance - a representative number of candidates from the North, Eastern Ontario, Southwestern Ontario, the GTA, etc. etc. Otherwise, parties risk being roasted in the regional media in areas that are under-represented on their lists.
Let's not forget that the logic of MMP is that every vote, in every part of the province counts towards electing members, so there's no incentive for parties to over-represent any part of the province. Unless they like bad press.
To go back to the example you gave of where would 10 hypothetical Liberal list MPPs come from, they would be the 10 highest ranked candidates on the list who didn't win a local seat. I think it's reasonable to assume that those 10 candidates would be broadly reflective of Ontario, with a slight bias to areas of the province where the Liberals don't do as well in local races and therefore didn't win seats there(such as rural and Eastern Ontario). So there's another wonderful aspect of MMP, it works to ensure more regionally balanced party caucuses!
By the same logic as for regional representation, I think MMP will mean a legislature with more women and visible minorities. The numbers of those groups on party lists will be publicized by the media and parties that fail to adequately represent those groups will risk the wrath of voters that care about those issues. Because if a party doesn't find good lists spots for those groups, you can bet the media will let voters who care about that know.
