With MMP I am hoping for the best, but expecting the worst
I don’t think it has much chance of passing unfortunately. When you have the Liberals and Conservatives united against something, they’re generally going to get their way.
http://www.thestar.com/article/261809
Province divided, undecided over electoral reform vote: Poll
September 29, 2007
Robert Benzie
Queen’s Park Bureau Chief
Ontarians are divided and confused when it comes to the Oct. 10 referendum on electoral reform, a new poll suggests.
While more than a quarter of respondents say they support reforming the way MPPs are elected, more than a third want the system to remain the same, the poll says. Another third are undecided.
An Environics poll of 504 people conducted Sept. 21-25 found 28 per cent will choose the proposed new mixed member proportional representation system (MMP) in the referendum.
But 37 per cent plan to stick with the existing first-past-the-post system and 35 per cent are undecided as to how they will vote.
The poll, which is accurate to within 4.4 percentage points 19 times out of 20, found 47 per cent are not familiar with MMP compared with 50 per cent who are familiar with it.
According to the rules set out by the Liberal government, the referendum requires a 60 per cent “super majority” to pass and must be favoured by at least half the ballots cast in 64 of Ontario’s 107 ridings.
Under the proposed system, if passed, 90 MPPs would be elected in the traditional manner, while another 39 MPPs would come from lists of candidates provided by the parties. If a party elects fewer MPPs than its share of the popular vote indicates, candidates from its list are chosen by the party to compensate for the difference.
The Environics poll also forecast a tight race in the election.
Premier Dalton McGuinty’s Liberals are at 39 per cent, compared with 34 per cent for Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory and 20 per cent for NDP Leader Howard Hampton. Green Party Leader Frank de Jong is at 7 per cent and 21 per cent of voters are undecided.
Although a minority Liberal government may loom, McGuinty said he has no plans to quit as leader regardless of the election outcome.
Response to the NO MMP Campaign
This was written by Martin Hyde:
The No MMP campaign’s distributing a pamphlet. One side has “MMP
myths and facts” and the other asks some (mis)leading questions. If
you’re interested, here’s my response…
Some answers to the No MMP campaign’s questions
The No MMP Campaign asks:
Do you want 17 fewer local ridings, covering more territory, with
less contact with your local representative?
- Sure. Why not. My local representative has invariably not been
someone I voted for or whose position on issues I agreed with. I
would like to be able to vote for a party whose principles I do agree
with so that if 3% of the rest of the province (over 100,000 people)
feel the same way, we will have someone in the legislature who
actually represents us.
Do you want 39 politicians chosen by other politicians… not you?
- I didn’t choose the politicians standing as candidates in my
riding, either. Under MMP at least I will be able to choose both a
representative from among the appointed candidates on offer in my
riding, and choose a party on the basis of the diverse lists of
candidates put forward by the parties.
Do you want closed door party deal-making, for weeks after elections,
to decide who governs the Province?
- Instead of the closed door deal making that currently occurs within
the winning party to decide whose going to govern the various
ministries despite the fact that these governments invariably win
with less than 50% of the popular vote? Yes, of course. The deal
making under MMP may actually help form governments that address some
of the concerns of the other 50% of the electorate.
Do you want tax dollars paying for 22 more politicians and their
staff at Queen’s Park?
- Well, dictatorships are cheap to run. I’d be willing to pay a
little more (and it would be very little, relatively speaking) for
representation on matters that currently don’t see the light of day.
Do you want a confusing ballot and vote counting system?
- You’re kidding, right? In the new system you vote for the local
candidate you prefer, and you vote for the party you prefer. Two
votes on one ballot: one for the candidate, another for the party.
It’s not complicated. We’re not stupid. Really.
Do you want a weaker, indecisive Ontario?
- Minority governments tend to be weak and indecisive. We get
minority governments under FPTP. The coalition governments formed in
those countries with MMP historically have not had those traits. (And
no, Italy’s system is not MMP.)
Do you want fringe parties holding the balance of power with 2 or 3
seats?
- If you mean that the couple of hundred thousand people in Ontario
those 2 or 3 seats would represent would have their concerns factored
into policy decisions, then yes, I want that. Those parties are not
going to be able to make policy decisions, and to imply that they
would be able to is just fear-mongering.
No MMP Claims: MMP will not produce higher voter turnout.
It’s difficult to see how it could result in lower turnout. Only 58%
of our population turned out in the last provincial election.
No MMP mentions a global decline in voter turnout. New Zealand, in
the four elections since bringing in MMP has posted a 5.7% decline in
voter turnout in comparison to the four elections prior to bringing
in MMP. Canada, using FPTP, has seen its voter turnout decline by
8.9% in the last four elections compared to the four preceding ones.
In other words, Canada’s FPTP system has seen voter turnout decline
by almost 33% more than New Zealand’s MMP system.
No MMP Claims: MMP will not increase diversity in the Legislature.
Any party that wants to earn votes will have to create a list with
the broadest and deepest appeal possible. If a party failed to put
women on the list, for example, it would run the risk of alienating
50% of the electorate, and would rightly deserve to lose on the basis
of stupidity, let alone ideals of fairness and equality. MMP has
unquestionably increased the diversity of New Zealand’s parliament.
No MMP Claims: MMP will not bring harmony to the Legislature.
The job of elected politicians is to advocate for the people they
represent. Sometimes this involves compromises. Other times it
involves advocacy. Dictatorships appear harmonious – they brook no
opposition. But that’s not democracy.
No MMP Claims: Our current voting system is not out of step with the
rest of the world.
Citing the four countries in which FPTP is used, and claiming that
they account for 45% of the world’s people living in democracies may
be true, but it’s disingenuous when one of those countries is India,
the second most populous country on Earth. More telling are the many
European and other democracies which use some form of proportional
representation. FPTP was designed for a world that communicated by
riders on horseback. We’ve moved beyond that.
A tremendously important article providing a philosophical understanding of how MMP improves our democracy.
This was sent to me by Doug Woodard:
http://www.voteformmp.ca/en/node/559
The is a good treatment of one of the major problems with single-member
plurality voting (first-past-the-post) and identifies a reason for
expecting that MMP (or another good system of proportional
representation) would improve the way Ontario is governed.
Press Release: TWO-TIER DEMOCRACY: UNDER FPTP, SOME 75,000 “SUPER-VOTERS” TO DECIDE OCT. 10 OUTCOME
For Immediate Release
Two-tier democracy: Under FPTP, some 75,000 “super-voters” to decide Oct. 10 outcome
Millions of other Ontario votes relegated to secondary importance
TORONTO: September 26, 2007: Under Ontario’s outdated voting system, the outcome of next month’s election will once again be decided by about 75,000 “super-voters”, whose lucky location and vote-changeability mean their votes count for a whole lot more than the other millions of Ontario voters, says election expert Greg Morrow of democraticSPACE.
“One would think that in a democratic system, the votes of all Ontario voters should count equally,” says Morrow, who also works with Ipsos Reid on election seat projections. “But in reality, under Ontario’s unrepresentative first-past-the-post voting system, only a small fraction of votes end up deciding the outcome one way or another.”
Based on past elections, an estimated 4.7 million Ontarians will vote on Oct 10. In a recently-published online report, Morrow estimated that only about 1.5% of voters will determine the outcome of the election (http://democraticspace.com/blog/2007/09/15-of-voters-will-determine-elec…). Under today’s FPTP system, “since the government is decided by a series of one-on-one riding battles, it will be determined by 5% of voters in the closest 30% of the ridings.“
“The new MMP system recommended by Ontario’s Citizens Assembly reverses this profoundly undemocratic imbalance between a handful of ’super voters’ and all the rest of us,” said Rick Anderson, campaign chair of Vote For MMP (www.VoteForMMP.ca). “Instead of today’s FPTP system wherein provincial election outcomes come down to a handful of voters in a handful of ridings, MMP’s new two-vote ballot system would mean every single vote counts equally towards determining the crucial province-wide question of who forms government.”
Morrow’s analysis is another convincing illustration of how badly the current voting system warps the way we do politics. “Rather than court all voters in all parts of the province, the undemocratic first-past-the-post system encourages parties to focus on a tiny minority of strategically-targeted voters,” said Anderson. “A proportional voting system such as MMP gives equal weight to all voters, meaning that parties need to compete for votes in all parts of the province. Whether a vote is cast in Timmins or Toronto, for party A or party B, in a swing riding or a safe one – they will carry the same weight and value under MMP.”
“This deeply changes the way parties compete for votes – and how they govern when in power,” said Anderson. “Under first-past-the-post, parties know they can win overwhelming control of the legislature and governing agenda with as little as 40 per cent of the votes. When parties focus on swing ridings, other voters, other ridings, and entire regions become a less-than-equal part of the picture when the cold hard calculus of policy-making is applied.“
“It’s time to replace the two-tier democracy and ’super voters’ of our winner-take-all system, and modernize our democracy by adopting MMP on October 10.”
About Vote for MMP: Vote for MMP is a multi-partisan citizens’ campaign supporting the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system presented to Ontarians for adoption in the referendum on electoral reform referendum on October 10. MMP was proposed by the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, an independent body of 103 randomly chosen Ontario voters. Assembly members were asked by the Ontario Legislature to (a) determine whether Ontario needs a new voting system, and (b) if so to recommend an improved system. The Assembly studied proportional electoral systems used in 81 democracies around the world, and selected MMP as the approach best-suited for Ontario. Vote for MMP is funded by donations from citizens and organizations who agree with the Citizens’ Assembly recommendations, and believe it is time to strengthen democracy and modernize Ontario’s voting system that gives voters more choice, fairer results and stronger representation.
-30 -
Media contacts:
Steve Withers, Media Coordinator, Vote For MMP Campaign
Tel: (519) 282-1078
e-mail: steve.withers@VoteForMMP.ca
Rick Anderson, Chair, Vote For MMP Campaign
e-mail: rick@asci.ca
Website: www.VoteForMMP.ca
Some additional points on MMP accountability
This is also from Erich Jacoby-Hawkins:
People opposed to MMP who feel the list members will be inaccessible to the public are ignoring the reality of the current situation.
1) Most voters NEVER even try to contact their MPP. Perhaps 10%?
2) Most voters who do contact their MPP do so by telephone, email, fax, or letter – very few physically visit the constituency office. I’d be surprised if even 1% of voters have ever been inside a constituency office. This is even more so in the north or large rural ridings, which is ironic since the claim is that such ridings will ‘lose representation’ – they are already accustomed to dealing with an MPP who is often hours away even within the same riding. (Do they not know how to use a phone, can they only communicate face-to-face? Do they normally spend all day driving somewhere just to have a conversation?)
3) The comment from the ‘NO’ guy on TVO that local MPPs are accountable because “they live in your community, you can grab their arm on the street and ask why they aren’t doing a good job” does not apply to many MPPs – especially the ones nominated/selected/appointed by their parties to parachute into safe ridings so they can be on cabinet. Even if your MPP is local, he can be notoriously hard to find, like ours (unless there is a media camera around - they don’t call him “Photo Joe” for nothing). I’m not sure that our system of democracy should be based on physical assault in the street, anyway.
4) For many issues, the most effective person to contact is not your local MPP, but the relevant cabinet minister, parliamentary secretary, party critic, or the premier, or other MPP with a special interest in and knowledge of your issue. In all those cases, these MPPs are accessible (or not) despite probably not having an office in your riding. Pick up a phone!
As to the new system:
5) On average, there will be 1 list member per 3-4 ridings. That means that if no list member has an office in your riding, there will likely be one in the next riding over. In cities, that means a 10-minute further trip; in the countryside, the neighbouring riding is often closer than the other end of your own riding.
6) Every list member lives SOMEWHERE – they won’t just hover over Queen’s Park like gargoyles. They will come from communities all over Ontario, they will be drawn from the ranks of those who are already active in their local communities, regions, and province, and will continue to be active, including having an office in their home town where they can work with the public when the Legislature is not sitting.
The strongest improvement with MMP is it will improve your local representation. Right now, many MPPs are elected because of their party, not because of their own merits. (They say the local candidate is worth 5-10% of the vote – that leaves most votes determined by party/leader/platform). Under the new system, we won’t be electing lousy local reps just to get their party in office. You can vote for your favourite party, AND vote for the best person for your local riding – even if they aren’t the same person. Since holding the party banner will no longer guarantee their election, they will have to actually do a good job for the riding if they want to keep it. Parties who nominate a talentless hack for the local seat will see him lose, even in their strongest riding, as voters support the party but not the person. Plus, since party affiliation will have less effect on who gets elected locally, the party will have less power to force local MPPs to vote the party line – ejection from the party will be a weaker threat.
For those who think that the List MPP are unaccountable…
This is from Anita Payne, the GPO candidate from Perth-Wellington
One woman that I met before the campaign started was at this debate. At our first meeting she had asked who the list MPPs were responsible to. She had the idea that they were not going to be accountable to anyone. I told her that they would be responsible to the people of Ontario. She didn’t buy that then and she still has not changed her mind.
Now I think I have an answer for her. Think of it from the point of view of a citizen. In the current system you have one representative in the Ontario legislature and one in the federal legislature. If your riding has happened to elect a totally ineffective representative, you are out of luck. Right now when I have concerns that I want taken to Ottawa, I have to deal with Gary Schellenberger, who got elected on the basis that he is a Conservative. I don’t think the people that voted for him actually attended any debates. He is not a very effective speaker and has not performed well for us. I particularly do not like to deal with him because he is a Conservative and their views differ substantially from mine.
With MMP I would have 40 MPPs that I could go to with my concerns, my local MPP and the 39 list MPPs.
If my local MPP represented a party that I did not like, I could go to one of several from the party that I feel more aligned with. Also if I had a particular concern that specifically affected a widespread group of Ontarians, I could approach a list MPP to take on our cause. For example, as a teacher I could be a list MPP that specialized in education issues.
Does anyone have other positive points to say about MMP?
Since this debate I have been pushier about asking about the referendum while canvassing. Some people are well informed, while many are not, some have not even heard of it, still!
Let’s really push for MMP!
_______________________________
Another nice argument for MMP
This is from Chris Tindal’s blog:
http://www.christindal.ca/2007/09/24/appointed-politicians/
Imagine a voting system where politicians or “party hacks” can be appointed in back rooms by other politicians and be practically guaranteed a spot in the legislature, regardless of what the voters really want.
Stop imagining. That’s the system we have now. When it comes to how parties appoint their candidates, there are almost no requirements for transparency. And, if party bosses decide they’re going to parachute a candidate into a “safe” riding, local people have nothing to say about it. Possibly even worse, at least some people will feel like they have to vote “strategically” for that candidate even if they don’t like them or object to how they were appointed, because they’re too afraid of who else might get elected.
Now, imagine a system where parties are required to disclose the process they use to nominate their candidates. A system where the make-up of their candidate list (gender balance, regional balance, ethnic diversity, etc.) as well as the democratic (or not) process they used to create it becomes an election issue.
Stop imagining. That’s just one of the advantages of MMP, the new voting system proposed by the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly. And, since voters get two votes (one for the candidate, and one for the party), they’re able to reward or punish parties and candidates accordingly. For example, if a party foolishly nominates unpopular candidates to their list, voters can punish them without needing to vote against their preferred local candidate. On the other hand, if a voter is happy with a party overall but dissatisfied with their local candidate, they can express that with their vote (by voting for the party but not the party’s local candidate). In that way, parties and candidates are even more accountable to voters.
To learn more or get involved with the campaign, go to voteformmp.ca.
A great response to some common MMP myths
This is an email that is circulating from the No To MMP crowd.
It never ceases to make my blood boil when I see this kind of disinformation going around.
The bolded responses are by Erich Jacoby-Hawkins
>>Subject: Fw: Referendum – Vote for the EXISTING
>>ELECTORAL SYSTEM (here’s why)
>>
>>Continue to pass this along; it’s about our future.
>>========================================
>>
>>Did you know a referendum was taking place on October
>>10, 2007?
>>
>>On October 10, 2007, as part of the next Provincial
>>election, the people of Ontario will be asked if they
>>want to replace the current electoral system. In
>>essence, they will be asked if they want to shift the
>>power from the people of Ontario (local voters and
>>ridings) to the politicians at Queens Park. There has
>>been no education on this referendum, and its timing,
>>coinciding with the October 10 Ontario election, may
>>allow for an easy pass by sheer overshadowing.
>>
>>What is being proposed and how does the Alternative
>>Electoral System impact all of us?
>>
>>1. Decrease the current number of MPPs elected by us
>>the people from 103 to 90.
Not true. All 129 MPPs will be elected by voters based on the vote tally. 90 will be elected in local elections, the other 39 by voters across the province as a group.
>>2. Incorporate 39 new NON-ELECTED number of MPPs
>>(called List Members) to be Selected or Appointed by
>>politicians.
Completely a lie. Candidates will be selected for the list by the parties based on their own criteria, which they will have to publicize. They will then be elected based on voter support for party lists. You will know who a party has selected before you decide whether to vote for them.
This will be more open and transparent than the current system, where parties appoint members to appear on your local ballot but have no requirement to tell you how they are selected.
>>3. Enlarge the total number of MPPs to 129.
Yes. Before the Harris government reduction, Ontario had 130 MPPs. As our province continues to grow, our representation shrinks. We now have less representation than any other province in Canada by half or more.
>>4. 17 fewer local ridings and decreased accessibility
>>to government, esp. in remote areas
This is simply untrue. The 39 list MPPs will be accessible to citizens across Ontario, and will have offices across Ontario. Most voters never contact their MPP; those that do usually do so by letter, fax, phone, or email – all of which are fully accessible to remote areas. In fact, that’s already how remote voters contact their MPPs.
>>5. Elected members will have local riding issues to
>>manage AS THEY ARE directly accountable to
>>constituents
Just like now.
>>6. Politically appointed MPPs (or List Members) would
>>have NO such RESPONSIBILITIES
They will have DIFFERENT responsibilities, not no responsibilities. Just as the premier and cabinet members have responsibilities that go beyond their own ridings, list members will be responsible to the electors, and for special areas of interest, and in the regions where they have their office.
>>7. Non democratically elected and Party elites would
>>REPRESENT PARTY INTERESTS, NOT CONSTITUENTS’.
This is speculation. However, under our current system, ‘local’ MPPs often represent their party interests over local interests, despite claims to the contrary – just look at their voting records, which are rarely against their own parties.
Under the new system, local MPPs would be better able to represent their own ridings and less subject to party discipline, because they would be chosen locally based on their own merits rather than party affiliation.
>>8. Appointed MPPs don’t even have to make promises to
>>voters, never mind keeping them when in office.
This is a meaningless statement. No candidates have to make or keep promises. ELECTED (not appointed) MPPs would be free to make promises and keep them or not – if not, they would be held accountable in the next election.
>>9. Special Interest Groups will have the potential to
>>corner the political agenda.
Sorry, but this is already the case. It would not be any more or less so under MMP.
>>11. Brokerage Politics makes changes more difficult
>>and promotes stalemates so less gets done for more
>>money.
This is simply untrue. Most democracies around the world have representative governments like MMP yet often change more quickly to meet changing circumstances or voter desire.
On the other hand, MMP would reduce the current tendency for a minor shift in voter preference to cause a radical change (pendulum swing) in government – e.g from Rae NDP to Harris PC to McGuinty Liberal all within one decade.
>>12. The Alternative Electoral System means bigger
>>government and less accountability to the voters.
This is simply untrue. More MPPs means more accountability. The size of the government is unrelated to the number of MPPs – it depends on the size of government programs. It takes a certain number of people to oversee government and write legislation. The less of them are elected (MPPs), the more of them are staffers hired by parties. Would you rather have more elected representatives or more hired staffers?
>>How did it happen ?
It happened because McGuinty promised to do this in his 2003 election platform. It’s one promise he actually kept.
>>Did you ask for this referendum and the associated costs?
The costs are rather minor compared to the benefit of better, more representative government.
>>This proposed two-tier government system called “Mixed
>>Member Proportional” = MMP)
This is not two-tier government. In countries with MMP, neither local members nor list members are treated as superior or inferior, and each has equal power – one vote in the legislature.
>> is the government’s solution to reduced voter turnout in the current
>>electoral system.
Dropping voter turnout is one of the current problems this new system hopes to address. What’s wrong with that?
>>The government spent millions of our
>>dollars on a Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform.
Sure. Any study of a complex system costs money, especially if you want to widely consult with the public. You get what you pay for.
>>Purportedly, the members of the Citizens Assembly were
>>chosen randomly but no one can establish which
>>database or what information was used to determine
>>such random participation, or its history making
>>participants. The people of Ontario need more
>>transparency.
This is a lie. The participants were randomly chosen from the Ontario voters list, just like juries. If a chosen person declined, another was chosen until someone accepted the responsibility. The members of the Citizens’ Assembly were publicly identified on their website, and you were free to contact the member for your riding or attend any of their many public consultation sessions and present, question, or discuss. (I know, because I did just that).
>>Alternative Electoral System means:
>>
>>1. A more elite legislature
Not true. This is just one person’s interpretation. To me, it means a more representative legislature.
>>2. Reward for faithful party service
Not true. Parties which use their list for patronage will lose votes and have no list members elected.
>>3. Delivery of votes
A voting system that generates votes? Is that a problem?
>>4. Financial help for special interest groups
There is no evidence for this whatsoever.
>>5. Decreased accessibility to politicians
Exactly the opposite. You will have more access, because if you have trouble reaching your own local MPP (because of their incompetence, or disagreement on partisan grounds) you will be able to contact any number of list MPPs who may be more willing to listen or provide help.
>>6. Less Democracy, More Stalemates
Not true. Countries with MMP have no trouble forming majority coalition governments.
>>There is a risk that this referendum question will be
>>overshadowed by the debate of who will form the next
>>provincial government, and could result in the people
>>giving up their historic power in the way we govern
>>ourselves.
There is a risk that people will believe disinformation like this email.
>>Vote for the Existing Electoral System – tried and
>>true for over 200 years !
We’ve had 200 years to learn about its shortfalls – why wait even longer before fixing it? It works great if you want a one-party rule by the Conservatives or Liberals – if you want more cooperative government or support another party, it is not so true.
>>The Alternative uses your tax dollars to pay for 26
>>more politicians
Which will provide for better, fairer representation
>>representing party interests – not voters -
Not true – MPPs who represent party interests rather than voters will doom their parties to lost votes.
>>and their
>>staff and their pet projects at Queens Park, and it
>>just doesn’t make any sense for the people of Ontario.
Go to http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/default.asp to see how much sense it does in fact make. It may not be the perfect system – such a system does not exist – but it better achieves what we need from democracy than our obsolete first past the post.
Two excellent letters to the editor on MMP
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/260472
Take a good look at reform
September 26, 2007
As a former member of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, I have followed the Star’s coverage of the Assembly and the upcoming referendum with interest. Why is it that when Star writers refer to the Assembly members who are recommending the alternative electoral system, they feel it necessary to refer to them as “ordinary citizens,” enclosed within quotation marks? The implication is that, despite being strangers to one another, coming from every riding across the province, sharing no political stripe and holding no political office, they had some common, hidden objective.The effect of this is to remove the most knowledgeable, yet unbiased voice from the discussion. By unbiased, I mean that we have nothing personally to gain. Political parties have lined up on this issue according to whether the reforms will be detrimental or advantageous to them. In the B.C. referendum on electoral reform in 2004, a large number of voters chose electoral reform simply because they were willing to believe that an impartial group of fellow citizens who had thoroughly studied the matter could be relied on to provide good advice. The mocking attitude of the Star toward the Assembly seems intended to discourage this.If an individual wanted to make an informed decision on this issue, there is a wealth of information available. If you have eight months, as did the members of the Assembly, to examine the issues in detail, I encourage you to do so. If you do not, then you may have to rely on someone’s recommendation.
The Star wants to see more coverage, but more of the same type of coverage will not produce any more knowledgeable voters.
Patrick Heenan, Mississauga
In the October 10 referendum on the way we vote, I will vote in favour of change. Here’s why:We have a multi-party system comprised largely of the PCs, Liberals, NDP and Greens; each claims their share of the popular vote. Recent history proves that no one party has any chance of achieving a true majority.
The last time an Ontario government won an election with more than 50 per cent support from the electorate was in 1937. In the 70 years since, all our so-called majority governments have governed with a minority of the vote – recently in the range of 38 per cent (Bob Rae) to 46 per cent (Dalton McGuinty).
In other words, in every so-called majority government since the Depression, more than half of Ontario voters voted against the government that came to power.
Without reform, this state of affairs will continue.
The alternative on the ballot (mixed member proportional) sounds complicated and is hard to understand. But for the first time it would help give Ontarians the provincial parliament they actually voted for as representation would be based, in part, on the popular vote.
What will be the result without change? We will continue to lurch from left to right and back again, building up programs and tearing them down. Long-term policy, with few exceptions, will remain an oxymoron. We will continue to lose confidence in government as an institution. We will continue to waste our votes and young people will continue to stay away in droves.
In the referendum, I fear that Ontario voters may vote against a complicated process, but in so doing reject the achievement of the real representation they long for. Let’s hope there is enough time for them to learn not to make that error.
John Stapleton, Toronto
Lack of awareness of the referendum on electoral reform is the biggest problem by far in this election.
http://www.thestar.com/article/260083
Get message out on referendum
September 25, 2007
How much do Ontarians know about the Oct. 10 referendum on electoral reform, which could dramatically alter the way we elect MPPs?
Not much, it turns out. In fact, recent polls show nearly half of Ontarians know nothing at all about the referendum, which will ask voters to choose between our existing system and an alternative called “mixed-member proportional.” And other people know a little about the issue, but likely not enough to make an informed choice.
With barely two weeks left before Ontarians vote on the possibility of fundamentally changing for all time how seats in the Legislature will be allocated among political parties, such widespread lack of awareness is deeply troubling. The referendum, which will be held at the same time as the provincial election, is far too important to have so many voters admit they do not understand what they will be voting for, and what the outcome will mean.
To that end, Elections Ontario, which is running a $6.8 million public information campaign on the referendum, needs to do a better job of getting the word out. It should immediately step up its efforts by blitzing the province with a major campaign of newspaper, television and radio advertisements. It also should boost its Internet presence to steer more people, especially young voters, toward its referendum information website, www.yourbigdecision.ca.
Voters, too, need to start paying attention to the choices so they are not in the dark when they mark their ballots in a few weeks’ time.
The choices that voters face on Oct. 10 are starkly different.
One is Ontario’s existing system, also known as “first-past-the-post.” It awards each of the province’s 107 ridings to the candidate with the most votes. The political party that wins the most ridings then forms the government. Each voter gets one vote. This system often allows parties to form majority governments even though they won less than 50 per cent of the popular vote across the province.
The other option is a form of proportional representation called “mixed-member proportional.” It would distribute seats in an expanded 129-seat provincial legislature based roughly on each political party’s share of the popular vote.
Under the proposed system, voters would cast two votes. The first would be for a “local member.” A total of 90 geographic, or riding, seats would be determined using the “first-past-the-post” system.
Voters would also cast a second vote for the political party they prefer. The party they selected would not have to match the party of the riding candidate for whom they voted. This second vote would decide how many of the 39 “list members” – candidates selected by the parties – each party would be awarded to ensure their seat count in the Legislature more or less matches their overall share of popular votes.
Earlier this year, the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, a panel of 103 “ordinary citizens” struck by the Liberal government, recommended mixed-member proportional as a more democratic way of electing MPPs. But supporters of the current system fear it would create more problems than it would solve by entrenching permanent minority government and giving undue influence to fringe parties.
The government has set a high bar for change. At least 60 per cent of all voters, as well as 50 per cent of voters in 64 ridings, would have to vote for mixed-member proportional in the referendum.
Given how high the stakes are, voters must be prepared. That’s why Elections Ontario needs to beef up its campaign. If that requires more money to buy advertising, then it should ask the government for it. This referendum is simply too important for people to cast their ballots without really knowing what it is all about.
New Zealand is a great example
19 September 2007
MMP for export – to Canada
The Green Party is welcoming the anniversary of the referendum on New Zealand’s voting system, which heralded the move away from the old two-party system and towards electoral reform.
“This date is an auspicious one in the history of our democracy – not only does it commemorate Suffrage Day, but it marks the date of the first referendum on electoral reform,” Green Party Co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons says.
The first referendum, which took place on the 19 September, 1992, showed an overwhelming desire to shift away from the confines of the First Past the Post system, with 85 percent voting for change.
“My colleague Rod Donald was an avid supporter of MMP and fronted the TV campaign for a fairer system. I believe he would be pleased with the progress we are making towards a fairer and more just system of representation. Since its introduction the numbers of Maori, women and minorities represented in Parliament have increased significantly, in a way that better represents society. Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that the impact of MMP on Parliamentary processes, such as Select Committees, has enhanced the robustness of democratic engagement for all New Zealanders.
“Despite some growing pains, MMP is maturing well, and all parties – especially the minor parties – are becoming more expert in using it collaboratively to achieve common goals.
Recent examples include the successful push by the Greens, Maori Party, United Future and Act to scrap the archaic sedition laws, and the unlikely combination of Keith Locke and Rodney Hide campaigning successfully against the proposed Auckland waterfront stadium.
Jeanette is travelling to Canada on Saturday to spend a week on a public speaking tour hosted by her Ontario Green counterparts, sharing her knowledge and experiences around operating under MMP.
Ontarians will be given the chance to vote for a MMP electoral system in conjunction with the upcoming provincial election on October 10th, via nonbinding referendum.
For more information:
Keiller MacDuff, Media Officer, 04 470 6723, 021 160 3717
