Right now, as Ian notes, we essentially have a dictatorship of the Prime Minister. But this leads us to two problems: first, I don't get to choose who the Prime Minister will be, except in the most indirect way possible, and second, it also begs the question "So, why do we have MPs, anyways?". If they're just there to line up behind their party leader and vote obediently in favour of whatever the leader wants, why not just save on salaries by weighting each party's parliamentary vote by the number of ridings they'd've won?

Ah, but wait, you say, MPs have important functions in representing their constituents, greasing wheels, or filling committee spots. The first is immaterial if you've said they're beholden to their party on everything (and if they're not subject to the whip all the time, when should they be subject to it, and what makes some things out of bounds?). The second can easily be accomplished by just hiring someone to attend to constituents' problems, while the third can be finessed by just having the parties name people to go mark up legislation without the need for messy and expensive elections.

Having then rejected the notion that we shouldn't have MPs, we then need to find something for them to do. I happen to think that it's a bad thing to elect people to represent me and then have them be effectively useless at, well, actually representing me. (As an aside, this blog has generally been strongly in favour of this line of argumentation.)

Is it a good thing to reject the devil we know in favour of at least trying the devil we don't? Maybe it is, maybe not. I have a fundamental inclination in favour of seeking change to systems in order to try to improve them. Others may be, well, more conservative. But the status quo is clearly dysfunctional, and ought not to stand.

As an aside, I'll have to try this recipe for Chocolate Swirl Cheesecake, once I have an oven again.