Ontario rejects electoral reform

The rejection is not too surprising but the margin is. Ontario voters are more like those in PEI than in BC where the vote was quite close. Those pushing for electoral reform have a long difficult educational campaign ahead. It is interesting that student voters in school elections also rejected MMP while voting in huge numbers for the Greens.

Ontario rejects electoral reform in referendum
Last Updated: Thursday, October 11, 2007 | 8:35 AM ET
CBC News
Ontario voters have rejected a proposed electoral reform that would have seen some provincial legislators chosen based on a party's share of the popular vote, results showed Thursday.

The system was the subject of Ontario's first referendum in 83 years during the provincial election on Wednesday. However, Ontarians headed to the polls amid criticism and confusion over how officials spread the word about the mixed member proportional (MMP) plan.

At 8:15 a.m. ET Thursday, with more than 98 per cent of polls counted, the proposal had the support of 36.8 per cent of the vote. Meanwhile, 63.2 per cent of voters cast their ballots in favour of the existing first-past-the-post (FPTP) system.

Only five ridings, all of them in Toronto, showed a majority supporting MMP.

The MMP proposal required 60 per cent support to become the new electoral system. As well it had to win a majority in 64 ridings.

A citizens assembly was appointed by the previous Liberal government to study the issue. It recommended MMP to replace FPTP, which has been in place in Ontario for 215 years.



Referendum 'had no chance': NDP Leader Hampton
Despite Elections Ontario's $6.8-million education campaign, which included television advertising and direct mail flyers across the province, many voters appeared unaware the referendum was being held.

"The referendum had no chance," NDP Leader Howard Hampton said late Wednesday as the votes were still being tallied. "All across the province, people didn't know what the issue was. They didn't know what mixed member proportional stood for, so that was not a surprise."

One scrutineer said people arriving at her Toronto-area polling station to cast ballots for both a new provincial government and the referendum were clearly confused.

"They walk in and say, 'What do I do with this thing?'" Judy Wilkings said early Wednesday evening. "People don't get it. They want to get it. But they just don't get it."

Scrutineers, however, were forbidden to provide any guidance.

Supporters of the change bitterly criticized the Liberal government and Elections Ontario for stacking the deck against the proposal. They said the government failed to fund a proper campaign to inform voters while the official education effort from Elections Ontario was so anemic as to be all but useless.

"It's so neutral, it's so unbiased, that it doesn't say anything," said Arita Droog, a member of the citizens assembly.

Under FPTP, each voter casts a vote for a local candidate, and each political party gets a seat for each local riding where one of their candidates has won the most votes. The party with the most seats — not necessarily the majority of votes in the province — then forms the government.

But under the mixed member proportional system, voters would each cast two votes — one for their local candidate and one for the party they think best represents their interests.

System used in Germany, New Zealand
The MMP system called for Ontario to be divided into only 90 electoral districts, instead of 107. Another 39 legislators would be elected at large, based on parties' shares of the popular vote and lists submitted by each party before an election.

A handful of countries use a proportional representation system, including Germany, New Zealand, Venezuela, Hungary, as well as Scotland's parliament and Wales' national assembly.

Proponents of the MMP system argue it will improve government by encouraging parties to create majorities through coalitions, as well as allow for better representation of third parties, racial minorities and women in the legislature.

The supporters argue that the FPTP system allows parties to form majority governments even when a minority of voters cast ballots for that party.
But critics of MMP argue it will result in a weaker, indecisive provincial government and a less democratic system, with one-third of the legislature chosen by party leaders and not directly by voters.

The No side also argues that MMP will improve the chances of extremist minority parties having a greater role in government. MMP supporters say that argument will be nullified by a provision that disqualifies any party that receives less than three per cent of the party vote from getting extra seats.

Previous referendums on electoral reform were held in British Columbia and Prince Edward Island in 2005.

The B.C. proposal garnered a surprising number of votes in its favour, but fell just short of the 60 per cent provincial support required to pass. In P.E.I.'s plebiscite, residents voted 63.58 per cent against the change, while 36.42 per cent voted Yes.

With files from the Canadian Press

Rejection of electoral reform plan expected

As was the case in New Zealand perhaps it will take several referenda to finally change the system. It would be good if we could change it first at the Federal level.


Rejection of electoral reform plan expected

-- Mary Vallis, National Post
The votes will not be counted until midnight tonight, but Ontario's experiment with electoral reform already appears doomed to fail.

Pollsters are predicting the referendum on whether to introduce mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) will fall below the threshold required to change the province's voting system -- 60% of all valid votes cast and a majority of support in at least 60% of the provincial ridings. A recent survey conducted by the Strategic Counsel suggests the proposal will be supported by only 52% of voters. And most of the undecided voters are expected to vote against the change as well.

"The more people find out about MMP, the less they like it," said Joseph Angolano of No MMP, a small group of campaigners that handed out nearly 10,000 flyers in defence of Ontario's current "first past the post" voting system. "People are really skeptical about this party list."

The new electoral system would add 22 more MPPs to Queen's Park and give voters two ballots:One for a local candidate, and another for a political party. Ninety members would still be selected by the traditional first-past-the-post method. The remaining 39 would be selected from lists of candidates submitted by each political party prior to the election: Parties would be allocated a share of those seats based on their proportion of the "party vote."

"A lot of people that will be putting the check mark in the first-past-the-post box will be people who aren't voting for first-past-the-post as much as saying 'I don't have enough information to choose a new system,'" said Larry Gordon, Vote for MMP campaign manager.

"That's really unfortunate, because this is one of those rare, historic moments where voters actually have an opportunity to make a decision on a voting system. If we have a lot of people going to the polls on Wednesday who don't feel like they had enough information to make an informed decision, that's an unfortunate conclusion to what otherwise was a well-intentioned initiative of putting this decision in the hands of voters themselves."

The referendum has been hailed by academics as a prime example of democracy in action. Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government announced in 2004 that a citizens' assembly of 103 average citizens from every riding in the province would evaluate Ontario's current electoral system and decide whether to recommend a new one.

The government gave Elections Ontario the daunting task of promoting the province's first referendum since the 1920s. But the agency has been roundly criticized for its efforts: Proponents and detractors of MMP argue Elections Ontario has either done too much or not enough to promote the work of the citizens' assembly and explain the proposed system. The agency rolled out most of its referendum campaign after Labour Day.

"This is 'Referendum 1.0,'" said Jonathan Rose, a professor of political science at Queen's University who served as the citizens' assembly's academic director.

"We're all learning how to conduct a public education campaign, and what's necessary for it. That includes Elections Ontario -- this is the first time they've done this sort of thing."

Even if the referendum fails, MMP's supporters insist Ontario's flirtation with proportional representation is not yet over. A similar proposal failed in British Columbia last year, earning 58% support where it needed 60% to pass, but will be back on the ballot in 2009. And in New Zealand -- where a mixed-member system close to what is proposed here was introduced in 1993 -- it took nearly a decade and two referendums for voters to accept.

Prof. Rose suggested the same kind of questions people are grappling with over MMP would be raised if they were re-evaluating the current system. Many people do not yet realize that in some Canadian elections, opposition parties have received more votes than governing parties, he explained.

"There is a very low level of civic literacy around important democratic institutions, like the Charter, and like the electoral system," he said. "You can't change an entire civic culture in six weeks. It requires a much longer process."

Published Wednesday, October 10, 2007 7:50 AM by Kenny Yum
Filed under: Electoral Reform, News

Profs. endorse MMP.

Trouble is that the MMP will need a lot more votes than 145 profs to win! Unless things change the MMP is even more doomed than John Tory according to projections. It just will not make the 60 per cent for cutoff.

From: Penney Kome
145 professors in law and politics endorse MMP - Friday, October 05, 2007: TORONTO – October 5, 2007: One hundred forty-five professors from across Ontario have endorsed the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform's recommendation of a mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system and are encouraging Ontario voters to vote for MMP in the October 10 referendum.

"We are excited to have the support from political scientists from across the province," said Rick Anderson, Vote for MMP campaign chair. "It's clear that those who study politics in depth can see that MMP is a positive improvement to Ontario's democratic institutions."

The list (below) includes several distinguished professors from the fields of law and political science: Two Deans of Law faculties, Nancy Des Rosiers (Ottawa) and Lorne Sossin (Toronto); three former presidents of the Canadian Political Science Association, Sylvia Bakshevin, Peter Russell and Hugh Thorburn; and former secretary-general of the International Political Science Association, John Trent. All these endorsers share the opinion that the Citizens' Assembly, who spent nearly a year studying electoral systems and consulting with Ontarians, got it right by recommending MMP for Ontario.

"Our campaign has found that once voters learn about MMP, they like it," said Anderson. "The overwhelming support we have received from academics shows that those who understand MMP will be voting for it on October 10."

In addition to the strong support from professors, student groups are also getting behind MMP. Yesterday, Vote for MMP released a list of 16 student unions that are encouraging Ontario their members to vote for change in the referendum. They are joined by the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario, which represents over 300,000 Ontario students, who have organized the "Students for Electoral Reform" registered referendum campaign.

VoteforMMP.ca is a multi-partisan citizens' campaign supporting the mixed member proportional (MMP) voting system proposed by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

- 30 –


List of academic endorsers (by institution)

Larry Savage, Brock Juris Dreifelds, Brock Timothy Heinmiller, Brock Garth Stevenson, Brock Carol Baar, Brock (Emeritus) Rianne Mahon, Carleton Jill Vickers, Carleton Radha Jhappan, Carleton Peter Andree, Carleton Randall Germain, Carleton Jon Pammett, Carleton James Meadowcroft, Carleton Pauline Rankin, Carleton Bill Cross, Carleton Katherine Graham, Carleton Rand Dyck, Carleton Laura Macdonald, Carleton Frances Abele, Carleton Byron Sheldrick, Guelph Patrick Boyer, Guelph Judith McKenzie, Guelph Candace Johnson, Guelph John Hiemstra, King's University College John Peters. Laurentian Don Wells, McMaster William D.Coleman , McMaster Robert O'Brien, McMaster Stefania Szlek Miller, McMaster Karen Bird, McMaster Peter Graefe, McMaster Lana Wylie, McMaster Greg McElligott, McMaster Peter Nyers, McMaster Wayne Lewchuk, McMaster Michael Stein, McMaster (Emeritus) Janet Hiebert, Queen's Grant Amyot, Queen's Tom Kent, Queen's Hugh Thorburn, Queen's John Meisel, Queen's Abigail Bakan, Queen's Andrew Lister, Queen's Eleanor MacDonald, Queen's Keith Banting, Queen's Alan Whitehorn, Queen's Susanne Soederberg, Queen's David Koyzis, Redeemer University College Christian Leuprecht, Royal Military College of Canada Neil Thomlinson, Ryerson John Shields, Ryerson Bryan Evans, Ryerson Mike Burke, Ryerson Tuna Baskoy, Ryerson Colin Moores, Ryerson Carla Cassidy, Ryerson Grace-Edward Galabuzi, Ryerson Aparna Sundar, Ryerson Robert Paehlke, Trent Feyzi Baban, Trent Christy Gombay, Trent Gavin Fridell, Trent Nadine Changfoot, Trent Doug Torgerson, Trent Elaine Stavro, Trent Jim Driscoll, Trent Serge Denis, University of Ottawa Caroline Andrew, University of Ottawa Stephen Brown, University of Ottawa Nathalie Des Rosiers, University of Ottawa John Trent, University of Ottawa David Cashaback, University of Ottawa Michael Orsini, University of Ottawa Marie-Josie Massicotte, University of Ottawa Dimitrios Karmis, University of Ottawa Kathryn Trevenen, University of Ottawa Matthew Paterson, University of Ottawa Martin Papillon, University of Ottawa Claude Denis, University of Ottawa Luc Julliet, University of Ottawa Linda Cardinal, University of Ottawa Joseph H. Carens, University of Toronto Edward Andrew, University of Toronto Sylvia Bakshevkin, University of Toronto Sylvia Ostry, University of Toronto Meyer Brownstone, University of Toronto Ursula Franklin, University of Toronto Lawrence LeDuc, University of Toronto Peter Russell, University of Toronto Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Melissa Williams, University of Toronto Thomas Homer Dixon, University of Toronto David Rayside, University of Toronto Graham White, University of Toronto Simone Chambers, University of Toronto Elizabeth Riddell, University of Western Ontario Jacquetta Newman, University of Western Ontario Caroline Dick, University of Western Ontario Peter Langille, University of Western Ontario Andrew Sancton, University of Western Ontario Paul Nesbitt-Larking, University of Western Ontario (Huron) Neil Bradford, University of Western Ontario (Huron) Henry Milner, Vanier College Gerard Boychuk, Waterloo Barry Kay, Wilfrid Laurier Brian Tanguay, Wilfrid Laurier David Docherty, Wilfrid Laurier Loren King, Wilfrid Laurier Timothy Donais, Windsor Heather MacIvor, Windsor Bruce Smardon, York Greg Albo, York David P. Shugarman, York Judy Hellman, York Esteve Morera, York Martin Thomas, York Stephanie Ross, York Robert R. Albritton, York George C. Comnimel, York Fred Fletcher, York

S. Ronald Ellis, Q.C, York Robert MacDermid, York Dennis Raphael, York Nicola Short, York Scott Forsyth, York Robert Drummond, York Ann Porter, York Gerald Kernerman, York Carolyn Bassett, York Steve Hellman, York Leah Vosko, York Barbara Cameron, York Ray Bazowski, York Asher Horowitz, York Roger Keil, York Leo Panitch, York Richard Sauders, York John Saul, York Roddy Loeppky, York Fred Fletcher, York Daniel Drache, York James Laxer, York Terry Maley, York David McNally, York Willem Maas, York (Glendon)


eMail: info@VoteForMMP.ca
URL1: VoteforMMP.ca

Against all odds: Winning Electoral Reform in Ontario

From recent polls it seems that the MMP will not win in Ontario unless there is a considerable change before Wednesday. I think Pilion is a bit unfair about the media. It seems that many in the public are just not interested or do not even know about the issue. Even the National Post has tried to stir up interest. The timing of the referendum vote together with the election is probably a bad idea. It would have been better if there had been a separate vote and campaign.

Against All Odds: Winning Electoral Reform in Ontario

Dennis Pilon

On October 10, 2007 Ontarians will go to polls in a provincial election. But this time, in addition to casting a ballot for a politician, voters will also be asked to make a choice about the kind democratic institutions they think the province should use. On a separate referendum ballot voters will be asked whether they prefer to keep Ontario's traditional ‘first-past-the-post' or plurality voting system or would like to switch to the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) model as recommended by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly. Depending on the commentator, a victory for MMP would mean electoral disaster or democratic renewal for the province. Yet few Ontarians seem to know what the referendum is about or why the public is being asked to vote on this issue. So far, the politicians have shied away from the debate while the media have remained largely indifferent, occasionally drawing attention to some minor implication of the proposed alternative MMP system. Even the more independent media has offered little commentary, no doubt because they are generally suspicious of elections as largely empty charades. If this continues, the whole referendum may end up falling beneath the public radar.

Electoral Reform in Historical Perspective

The upcoming referendum on the voting system may be the most important breakthrough for a more substantive democracy in Ontario's history. To understand why, progressives have to reorient how they understand the relationship between electoral activity, institutional rules, and capitalist democracy. There is a tendency on the left to treat the institutions of the state as mere instruments of class rule, as if they were unproblematically designed and implemented to allow those with power in civil society to exercise it over the state as well. But this ignores the actual historical development of these institutions. Comparing state institutions across western countries, it is interesting how different each configuration is, reflecting the different patterns of social and political struggle within each country. Decisions over voting systems were also a part of these struggles. In fact, in most European countries around World War I, the voting system became the key front in the struggle between right and left to either limit or expand the potential of the emerging minimally democratic governments. Though contemporary Ontario is far different than World War I era Europe, the voting system referendum is nonetheless an opportunity to push the boundaries of the province's limited democracy, if progressives take up the challenge.

Needless to say, the governing Liberals do not see the referendum as such an opportunity. How the referendum became government policy is a complicated story but an instructive one on the state of contemporary politics. Historically, governments have maintained tight control over institutional arrangements like the voting system. Because the voting system is the link between organized political activity in parties and the exercise of state power through control of the legislature, the tendency was typically to make the rules as exclusive as possible, thus allowing only the most popular forces to gain election. This would assure that only those financed by capital would control the state. But with the rise of popular left wing parties, ones with a credible shot at gaining such exclusive state power electorally, voting system reform became a popular method of limiting their influence.

In Canada, voting system reform emerged continuously from WWI to the 1950s, whenever the electoral left appeared on the rise. For instance, BC adopted a new voting system in 1951 expressly to prevent the left CCF from gaining provincial office. More recently, voting system reform re-emerged internationally as part of struggles to either resist or entrench the neoliberal reorganization of national economies in New Zealand, Italy and Japan. Neoliberalism is also a factor in recent Canadian reform efforts, though more indirectly. Canadian governments have had less trouble restructuring the economy but the effects have led to great public dissatisfaction with the political system, and that has fuelled some of the interest in democratic reforms.

Electoral Reform Across the Country

By 2005 five of Canada's ten provinces were considering some kind of voting system reform. In Quebec and BC, interest was partly fueled by a number of seemingly perverse elections results, ones where the second most popular party ended up gaining power, combined with a major party fearing that the rules of the electoral game might be stacked against them. In both provinces, analysts claimed that the pattern of Liberal party support meant that the party had to gain a much higher percentage of the vote than its main opposing party in order to win the election. Thus both Liberal parties were prepared to consider looking at the voting system. In the Maritimes a number of contests had returned only a marginal complement of opposition members, far fewer than their electoral support might suggest should be elected. The resulting embarrassment moved governments in PEI and New Brunswick to entrust commissions with examining the problem.

From Liberal Commitment to Liberal Reluctance

The situation in Ontario resembled both patterns in some ways. The Ontario Liberals, despite consistently being the second most popular party in the province, had seldom been in government in the postwar period. This reflected the uneven dispersion of the party's support across the province as well as a vote-splitting problem with both the NDP and the Conservatives, depending on the region of the province. After the party's disappointing loss to the Harris Conservatives in 1999, the Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty initiated a far-reaching policy renewal process, one plank of which involved democratic reforms.

When the Ontario Liberals won a majority of the legislative seats in the 2003 provincial election there was little blocking them from acting on their policy promises. Various aspects of their democratic reform package, like fixed election dates, were quickly introduced. But other aspects, like their promise to examine the voting system, kept missing the order paper. Midway through the government's term in office they were still dragging their feet on the issue, while cabinet ministers and backbenchers grumbled that the whole thing was an albatross around their necks.

Finally, in 2006, the government established a citizen body to examine the question and make recommendations. The Ontario Citizens' Assembly (OCA) was modeled after a similar process in BC and they came to similar conclusions -- the existing plurality voting system was antiquated and undemocratic. In the spring of 2007 they recommended that Ontarians adopt a mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system, one that would retain the traditional single member ridings but would add an additional pool of seats that could be used to bring the overall legislative results into line with the popular vote for each party. Unlike plurality, where 40% of the popular vote for a party might result in 60% of the seats or 30% of the seats, depending on the state of party competition, under MMP parties would get seats roughly equal to their voting support. Thus 40% of the votes would pretty much always result in 40% of the seats -- no more, no less.

While the Liberals may be credited with (finally) honouring their pledge to allow a citizen-driven examination of the voting system, they have broken another election promise -- to remain neutral about which voting system choice should triumph. In numerous ways they have tried to rig the process so as to favour keeping the plurality voting system. First, they waited far too long to establish the OCA, thus limiting the amount of time to educate the public about the issue. By the time the OCA reported their decision there was less that six months before the referendum had to be held, with most of that coinciding with the summer decline in active media coverage. Second, they lumbered the referendum with a super-majority rule to pass. Thus voters wanting change need 60% of the total votes and a majority in 60% of the ridings to displace the current plurality system. This inflates the voting power of one side in the contest and dilutes the voting power of the other, hardly a neutral decision rule. Third, they have manipulated the referendum question, shifting from a simple yes or no for the proposed new MMP system to an alleged choice between the current plurality system and the MMP alternative. Yet, as pointed out above, this choice is hardly fair when the votes for one side are plumped and the other side are diminished.

The Pressing Need for Change

Clearly, the Ontario Liberals have decided that their losing streak is over. Not surprisingly, they want to retain to retain our traditional plurality voting system, one that typically awards a legislative majority to the party with the largest minority of the vote. The point is to reduce the scope of democratic pressure to just the election day and force all the public wants into a single ‘all or nothing' X vote. While the wealthy are free to use their resources to lobby on a myriad of issues all the time, the public are largely limited to being heard on election day, and even then can only ‘choose' on the basis of, at best, just a few policy positions.

But it is no longer just voting system reformers who are unhappy with the present state of electoral competition. Many voters are frustrated with an electoral process where so many votes do not count toward the election of anyone, where there is constant pressure to vote ‘strategically' (i.e. not for their first choice but for one of the top two contenders in their local area) and where governments continually promise one thing at election time but do another in office. There are also factions within all the major parties that are unhappy with the current state of things. It is often forgotten that parties are actually coalitions, ones where not all members have equal influence. Some of the push for a focus on electoral reform ® in the various parties has come from those elements that feel marginalized within their own groups, like the social conservatives on the right or the socialist caucus in the NDP.

Now that the OCA has declared against plurality and for MMP, there is some pressure for the provincial parties to clarify their positions in the coming referendum. At present, only the NDP has come out solidly in favour of the new MMP voting system. There are a few high profile Liberal supporters of MMP like Toronto-area MPPs George Smitherman and Michael Bryant but most of the government caucus is opposed or not talking. No provincial Conservatives have indicated their support but many have spoken out against any change.

Yet, as the referendum approaches, the parties have largely remained fairly quiet on the issue. The public debate, such as it is, has been mostly in hands of media and various MMP advocates. And this explains why the public knows very little about the issue: the media are not in the business of educating the public on complex matters of public policy and the MMP groups do not have the financial resources to launch the kind of media campaign to get through to voters. The challenges in such an initiative are considerable. For instance, in BC, where the voting system issue was in the public realm much longer and with more positive coverage, polling before the 2005 discovered that few knew about the referendum or understood the proposed alternative voting system. Still, in the end, nearly 60% of BC voters supported the change, largely because it had been recommended by their fellow ‘citizens'. Not surprisingly, media opponents of voting system change in Ontario learned from this experience and have expended a great deal of effort trying to discredit the legitimacy of the OCA as a proxy for the public.

To the extent that media have taken up the issue, the coverage has been slanted in favour of the status quo. A number of reporters and columnists have trotted out alarmist accounts of the instability that would result from switching from our present unrepresentative plurality system, with speculative and largely uninformed predictions of party fragmentation, the rise of single issue and extremist parties and weak and indecisive government. The fact that most western countries already use some form of proportional representation -- with fairly stable results -- seems lost on these commentators. Or media analysts and politicians wax romantic about how great our system of constituency representation is and how the alternative MMP system would diminish this or strengthen than hand of oligarchic parties. Never mind that few voters make their voting decision on the basis of local issues or the local member (study after study demonstrates that people vote on the basis of party, not the individual candidate or locale) and that parties are a force in all political systems, including our present one.

What might be gained from change is seldom highlighted -- like accurate election results, a more competitive political environment that responds more quickly to public concerns and governments that must gain a real majority of support to push through their agendas. Those opposed to change have so far effectively managed the agenda of the public debate, focusing the public discourse on aspects of the new system that could be considered controversial (like the party control in nominating candidates for the extra pool of MPPs). In this they may have been helped by the pro-MMP forces, who decided to build their campaign around the idea that the proposed new voting system represents just a modernization of Ontario's electoral system rather than a break with a history of undemocratic practices. The inference of the strategy is that the change is not all that major -- it's just bringing Ontario up to world standards for democratic procedures. Pro-MMP supporters, worried that Ontario voters might be less populist and anti-system than BC voters, think that an evolutionary message will get them past 60% support. But they appear to have forgotten a truism of politics: that governments are typically defeated rather than being elected. In other words, the failure of what people already know is often more persuasive than the promise of what they don't know.

A campaign focused around the failures of the present plurality system would have accomplished a number of things. First, focusing on the system people already have some experience with would be more concrete than attempting to sell the details of a new system that people have never experienced. Second, focusing on the existing system would have highlighted aspects of its performance that most of the public is unaware of. For instance, nearly 50% of Canadians believe that legislative majority governments also enjoy a majority of the popular vote -- even though almost none ever do. The last government in Ontario that had the support of over 50% of the voting public was elected in 1937. Nonetheless, most governments since then have controlled a majority of the seats in the legislature. Finally, focusing on the flaws in our current system would have focused the agenda around the issues that will be crucial in gaining 60% of the vote on election day -- issues like the distorted results of our present system, the artificial barriers to political competition it raises and the role that phony majority governments play in limiting electoral accountability to voters. By their strategic choices, the reformers have taken a tough situation and arguably made it tougher.

While the odds may be against victory for MMP on October 10, success is not impossible. There is always an unpredictable aspect of politics and given that there will be a specific referendum question on the voting system, the issue may break out into the public consciousness. But for that to happen, people have to start talking about it. Progressives need to take the initiative on this by getting their networks to focus activist attention on this question of voting system reform. Though a shift to a more proportional voting system will not bring about any revolution, it will dramatically alter the space in which we fight for a more substantive form of democracy. And as Marx noted long ago, there is a radical kernel embedded within any notion of democracy -- even capitalist democracy -- that remains a constant threat to those with power.

Dennis Pilon's new book, The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada's Electoral System, is out now from Emond Montgomery.

Ontario's vote for change (MMP)

This is from a Quebec source. As the article notes Quebec has been talking about electoral system change for quite a while but so far has done nothing.


October 4th, 2007
Will Ontario vote for election reform?

Ontario's vote for change
Meg Hewings



Will MMP cure that bad ballot box buzz?


The voting booth on election day in a democracy shouldn't feel like a dirty act, but who among us hasn't wasted a vote on a losing candidate, voted strategically against a party s/he dislikes, or been confronted by a list of unappealing options?
Voter change may soon be on the way for Ontarians.

In the upcoming Oct. 10 election, a referendum question will be put to voters asking them whether they want to adopt a revamped electoral system, called "mixed member proportional" (MMP), which advocates say would give the province a more co-operative government and prompt electoral reform across the country.

Under the proposed system, currently used in Germany, New Zealand and Scotland, voters would have two choices on a ballot - one for a local representative and another for a political party. Based on a province-wide share of votes each party receives, it gets top-up representatives drawn from a party list that's publicized in advance. So each party's total share of seats would roughly equal its share of the popular vote (this means fringe parties like the Green Party, which gets more than 3 per cent of vote but not enough to elect candidates in ridings, would be better positioned to have seats in the legislature).

"We debate the pros and cons of potential new voting systems, but the most important thing [with MMP] is that results are proportional. This is a change that would affect what people care about [...] and what people actually vote for: parties and policies," says Dennis Pilon, a
professor of political science at the University of Victoria.

Voter reform won't necessarily be an easy sell. In Ontario, slim funds have gone towards educating voters on their referendum choices and there's a 60 per cent threshold set by the government for the "yes" vote to pass. In a similar referendum in B.C. in 2005, the yes-vote fell just 2 per cent short. Commissions in B.C., New Brunswick and Quebec have recommended similar alternatives, but governments in every province have been slow to implement them.

"Quebec has been playing footsy with the idea of electoral reform for a long time," says Pilon, who believes a "yes" vote in Ontario would likely make voter reform an important issue for the ADQ.

Montreal's Fair Vote Canada chapter will host an informal "meet up" for those interested in discussing the Ontario election results and voter reform on Saturday, Oct. 20, at 3 p.m. at Café L'Utopik (552 Ste-Catherine E.).

Hampton rues lack of info on referendum

It is too bad that the referendum law forbids campaigning politicians to also campaign for or against the MMP. It might have been a better idea to have the referendum separately. They did it this way to save money. They do not even have separate ballot boxes! It seems a shame to have a dedicated group of citizens do a lot of work on the issue and then it ends up that with the election campaign going on very few people are interested in the referendum issue. Probably the measure will go down to defeat but who knows perhaps I am being overly pessimistic. Certainly some papers such as the National Post have tried to drum up interest.


Muzzled by law, Hampton rues lack of info on referendum
Last Updated: Wednesday, October 3, 2007 | 5:42 PM ET
The Canadian Press
Ontarians aren't getting enough information to help them choose whether to vote for or against a new electoral system during the upcoming referendum, NDP Leader Howard Hampton and electoral reform advocates say.

Hampton said he'd love to talk more about why voters should choose change in the referendum — but he's not allowed to.

The NDP has long campaigned for electoral reform and is supporting the proposed change to a mixed-member proportional system in the Oct. 10 referendum.

But the referendum regulations prevent him from actively campaigning for the new voting system, Hampton said, and that's why he hasn't mentioned it even once on the campaign trail.

It's wrong that political leaders can't say more about the referendum, especially since it appears the public isn't getting it, Hampton said.

With just a week until the vote, Hampton said he's hearing from people on the streets that they don't understand the question or why a referendum is being held.



But Hampton said he doesn't think electoral reform is going away, even though he believes next week's referendum has been set up to fail.

Citizens assembly speaks out
Elsewhere, advocates for changing the way Ontario's politicians are elected criticized both Elections Ontario and the Liberal government for failing to adequately inform the public about the campaign.

Voters are barely aware of the referendum, they said, and much of the information out there is either wrong or amounts to fearmongering.

"I'm very disappointed there's been a lack of meaningful debate," said Catherine Baquero, a member of the citizens assembly that recommended changing the system.

"I'm disappointed that Elections Ontario's education campaign has been so toothless. What I expected was a more detailed discussion of the pros and cons of each system."

Coinciding with next week's election, voters will decide whether they want to adopt a new voting system — mixed-member proportional representation, or MMP — that would distribute 39 of 129 legislature seats in accordance with the popular support shown to each party.

MMP supporters, including former federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent and Conservative Senator Hugh Segal, argued Wednesday the system is more democratic in that it would allow smaller parties, more women and more minorities to find a real voice in the legislature.

"Under our current electoral system, 2.5 million out of 4.5 million votes do not go to elect anyone," said Patrick Heenan, another member of the 103-member citizens assembly.

"When so many votes are wasted, we have to question whether the system is essentially fair, and whether it provides the representation that the majority of voters want."

John Hollins, the province's chief electoral officer, said Elections Ontario is obliged to provide "clear and impartial information" on the vote, which is costing the agency about $6.8 million.

"We are currently delivering a comprehensive provincewide program that extends to all eligible voters using multiple household mailers, the Internet, radio, television, newspaper and public presentations in communities," Hollins said.

"Our focus over the remaining days leading up to the referendum is continuing to increase awareness of the referendum question and educating voters regarding the two choices."

On the campaign trail, Premier Dalton McGuinty said he was "proud" of setting the binding referendum in motion and "really pleased" with the work of Elections Ontario.

Still, members of the citizens assembly, activists, and current and former politicians are fretting that the electorate is either largely still in the dark or has been woefully misinformed.

"I don't think the government is that crazy about this reform because they haven't put the money behind promoting it," said Judy Rebick, past president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.

Rebick said the province should have taken a page out of the federal referendum on the Charlottetown constitutional accord in 1992, when the Conservative government of Brian Mulroney provided enough money for a "real" education campaign.

Rick Smith, another member of the 103-person assembly of randomly chosen citizens from across the province, suggested it was a mistake to try to save money by holding the referendum at the same time as the general election

Andrew Coyne on PR (MMP)

Coyne IMHO is one of the better commentators at the National Post and on TV although I often don't agree with him. Here I do but here is his view!

Coyne: Why PR works
-- Andrew Coyne, National Post

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

To recap from previous columns: Our present, plurality voting system greatly exaggerates the support of the first-place finisher, handing a minority of the voters a majority of the seats --and all of the power. It favours established parties over new, regional over broadly based, with corresponding inequities between voters.

Indeed, it leaves most voters effectively disenfranchised -- their votes elect no one -- even as it sends the parties chasing after a tiny sliver of swing voters, suppressing meaningful differences of ideology in favour of a few overhyped wedge issues. The result: long stretches of centrist monotony, broken by wild, almost accidental lurches to the left or right.

Proportional representation, on the other hand, makes every vote count, and every vote equal. As such it ensures majority governments really do represent a majority, whether under one party's banner or in coalitions. It opens up the political market to new competitors, and encourages parties to compete in healthier ways: by the earned increments of persuasion, rather than winner-take-all bets on split votes and other vagaries of the current system.

So in principle the case for PR has been made, notwithstanding the alarmist fears of its opponents -- of paralysis and instability, of parties "breeding like rabbits" and extremists holding parliament to ransom -- fears notably unsupported by actual experience in the scores of democratic countries around the world that use PR.

But what of the specific model of PR before the voters in next week's referendum in Ontario? In an effort to assuage fears of the unknown, the Citizens' Assembly -- the body of ordinary folks who spent months sifting through the alternatives --proposed a hybrid system known as mixed-member proportional, grafting elements of PR onto a traditional first-past-the-post base. That preserved the familiar single-member ridings of old, but at the cost of raising other objections.

What about the other members, elected from party lists according to the parties' share of the vote? To whom would they be accountable? Wouldn't they just be appointed by party leaders, beholden only to them? And whom would the leaders appoint, but the sort of timeserving hacks willing to be so beholden? At the very least, would we not be creating two tiers of members?

Let's deal with the last concern first. You could as well say we had two tiers of members now, of course: those appointed to Cabinet -- by the party leader! -- with all the responsibilities of office, and those who remain mere "private" members. Yet each gets the same vote when it comes to legislation, and no one seems to have a problem with that.

But in fact, both list and riding members would be elected on largely the same basis: by party affiliation. Local representation is all very well, but it's not clear how significant it is even now. That's not how members are elected -- every study shows party is overwhelmingly the most important factor --and it's certainly not how they vote.

In any event, experience inPRcountries suggests that even list members wind up cultivating a local constituency; as often as not, they appear both as riding and as list candidates. That's in the party's interest, first of all: Since every vote counts equally, it pays to cast the net as widely as possible. But it's also in the candidate's interest, to better their chances of re-election.

Recall that list members are elected as a residual of riding elections: A party gets as many list members as are needed to make up any discrepancy between the number it elects in the ridings and the number it is entitled to based on the party vote. So a party might be allotted 12 list members this election, but with a better showing in the ridings, it might get only four next time.

Yes, but wouldn't these lists be made up of party hacks, chosen on the basis of loyalty to the leader? First response: Have you had a look at how candidates are chosen now? Where they are not appointed by the leader, they are typically chosen by busloads of instant members.

Second response: Why would the parties do this? Why would they commit electoral suicide? Why would their members let them? It's one thing to impose your hand-picked lackey on some poor riding association somewhere, amid the hurly-burly of a general election. It's quite another to post an entire slate of ward-heelers and log-rollers to represent the party --in the shop window, as it were, where everyone could have a good look at them.

Again, the experience in other PR countries is that list members tend to be chosen democratically, by internal party elections. Notably, that is true of the two countries with systems similar to that proposed for Ontario: New Zealand, where it's required by law, but also Germany, where it's left up to the parties to decide. As one would expect -- if competition between parties were not enough to ensure a more open process, agitation from the membership almost certainly would.

Indeed, one result of electoral reform might well be to force the parties to adopt more democratic nominating processes generally. After all, if they are going to have "clean" lists, they can hardly avoid the ridings. That alone would make the experiment worthwhile.

ac@andrewcoyne.com

Needed a TV debate on MMP.

Sometimes the National Post has useful material! The POst has been trying hard to stimulate interest in the referendum. It is too bad that the Ontario Elections material does not promote more material on both sides of the debate rather than just explaining the system.

Needed: a TV debate on Ontario's MMP referendum
-- Richard Pilon, National Post

On Oct. 10, in addition to electing legislative representatives, Ontario voters will cast a ballot in the first referendum in the province since 1924. Voters will have to decide whether to keep the existing single-member plurality voting system or switch to a mixed member proportional (MMP) system, as recommended by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly. The decision could have a major impact on Ontario politics, altering the competitive dynamic of elections, the process of government formation and the diversity of representatives that get into Queen's Park. It may just be the most important vote in the history of the province.

But as the vote approaches, a serious problem has emerged: The voters don't seem to know anything about the referendum. They don't even know that a referendum will be held. Something needs to be done, and quick, to avert disaster.

For this referendum to be meaningful, voters need to know the basic pros and cons of the choices on offer. They should know, for instance, that the legislatures elected by our current riding-by-riding plurality system generally do not accurately reflect overall voter support for the various political parties, and that the current system regularly yields majority governments even when the most popular party gets far less than 50% of the overall vote.

On the other hand, as its supporters claim, the current system does produce stable majority governments. The alternative MMP voting system would be more likely to produce more minority or coalition governments.

There are activists and academics on both sides. Voters should be hearing what arguments they have to make so that they can decide for themselves.

The problem Ontario is facing is hardly a new one. This will be the third voting system referendum in Canada in just two years. As such, Ontario might reasonably be expected to have learned something from the mistakes that were made in other jurisdictions.

For instance, in 2005, Prince Edward Island held a public vote on its electoral system. The results were a disaster. The public was not educated about the choices, the media refused to spend much time on the issue and the government kept changing the rules about what would constitute victory right up to the last week of the campaign.

Things were better in British Columbia's 2005 referendum on its voting system -- but only slightly. Here, too, the government refused to fund a proper public education effort, and the media also tended to ignore the issue. As a result, just before election day, polling revealed that very few people knew what the referendum was about.

Apprised of these past problems, the Ontario government promised things would be different. For instance, Elections Ontario has been given millions of dollars to fashion a public information campaign, one featuring newspaper and radio ads and a pamphlet that will be delivered to voters' homes.

But, despite the money, the public is not getting the message. The fault lies largely with Elections Ontario's so-called "neutral" approach. Their literature focuses on the technical details of the different voting systems and avoids spelling out the substantive debate surrounding the issue, which is the information voters need to make up their minds. They even refused to provide the original Ontario Citizens' Assembly's rationale for recommending the MMP system in the first place.

No wonder people report ignorance about the referendum: They don't know why they should care about it.

The frustrating thing about the decisions by Elections Ontario is that they did not lack for better models of public engagement. In New Zealand, which faced a similar vote more than a decade ago, the independent body charged with educating the public about the issue used television and radio programs to get their message across, and they did not shy away from the debate surrounding the proposals. The results were impressive. Public knowledge was very high by the time election day arrived.

With just over a week to go before Ontario's referendum, time is running out to get the public up to speed on this issue. But there is one way to dramatically increase its visibility: Schedule an 11th-hour televised debate between the defenders of the status quo plurality voting system and the supporters of the Citizens' Assembly's MMP model.

At election time, networks already offer political parties a chance to talk directly to the public in a debate format as a kind of public service. As there will also be a referendum ballot this time around, it only makes sense for the networks to do the same for the referendum.

It's time for Ontario's broadcasters to step in and fix what the government has bungled. A TV debate on this referendum would perform a valuable public service

pilon@uvic.ca

-Dennis Pilon is an assistant professor in the political science department at the University of Victoria and the author of The Politics of Voting:Reforming Canada's Electoral System.

Assembly touts electoral reform

This is an article on the MMP from a smaller paper in Orangeville. Although the author claims that the candidates did not take a clear stand on the MMP, three out of the four seem to speak in favor, at least from what is reported. The NDP sees the MMP as positive, the Liberal as exciting, and the Green as solving the problem of people being elected with much less than a majority of the popular vote. As for the complaints that the referendum was being sold like laundry soap, wouldn't the MMP makes for cleaner politics! Anyway political advertisements certainly are like product ads more and more and that is because it is a product that is being sold. If the public don't buy your product you don't get to rule..

Assembly touts electoral reform
By WES KELLER Freelance Reporter


In what seemed at times like an advertisement for laundry soap - the one in which "real people" speak of the virtues - the audience at Tuesday's all-candidates meeting was shown a video presentation by The Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform.

The Assembly, convened in March 2006, spent about a year studying various kinds of democratic elections, and came up with a system called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) representation, as a means of ensuring that political parties have a percentage of representation in the legislature that's closer to their share of the popular vote than in the present, "First-Past-the-Post" system.

Greg Verner said that between advance voting that runs from this Saturday until Election Day Oct. 10, electors will be asked to cast two ballots - one for their favourite candidate and a second for their favourite party, in the first Ontario referendum since one on Prohibition in 1924.

Mr. Verner, a retired Dufferin teacher, represents Elections Ontario.

He said before the meeting he had made presentations at fall fairs and various society meetings, and found that as many as 75 per cent of the people he talked to had no concept of what the referendum was about. Some weren't even aware there is a referendum.

Ted Alexander, representing the Citizens Assembly, presented a video purporting to show how the members had arrived at their recommendations.

'Similarly to soap ads that feature "real people"on TV, the video had a succession of members all touting the recommended new system.

Oddly, neither the video nor a brochure being sent to households answered all the questions that voters logically might ask about the system.

The MMP would reduce the number of electoral districts with directly elected representatives to 90 from 107, and raise the number of MPPs to 129 from the present 107, but there was no explanation of whether this would involve a realignment of electoral districts or how that would be done.

Supporters of the reform do point out that, with a multiple party system, the ruling party seldom has a clear majority of the popular vote.

They say MMP would correct that.

The four candidates Tuesday night did not appear to have a clear stand on the issue, except to the extent that the referendum would give the people a clear choice between the present system and the recommended one.

Liberal Betsy Hall, the first in rotation to respond to an audience question about personal stands on the issue, said she found the process "exciting. The people decide what democracy will look like."

Green Party Rob Strang said, under the present system, any candidate (in Dufferin Caledon) might win with (more than a quarter) of the popular vote.

He said the MMP system would mean that "if you don't like the candidate, you can still vote for the party."

NDP Lynda McDougall found MMP and the referendum "a positive thing."

PC Sylvia Jones described it as "ultimately a public choice."

According to the rules, the referendum would require 60 per cent of all votes cast, plus a majority of votes in "50 per cent plus 1" of all 107 ridings, i.e. a majority in at least 64 seats, to win.

Star editorial on MMP

This is from the Star. The official Ontario government information website on MMP is here.

Get message out on referendum

Sep 25, 2007 04:30 AM
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

Poll results MMP referendum

This is a sad result. It looks as if the vote for MMP will not pass because of apathy more than antipathy. This is from a WLU site.

September 24th, 2007 · Barry Kay
The Strategic Counsel poll in the Sept.24 Globe & Mail is the first systematic monitoring publicly available on the referendum. Unfortunately for supporters of election reform, the modest lead of MMP, 54% among those expressing a preference, is dwarfed by the massive lack of awareness or information by almost half the sample. Many of the uninformed might not vote on the issue, but among those who do, it is difficult to imagine a majority (much less 60%) supporting an issue they don’t understand. The lack of marketing visibility, and indeed interest in the issue, seem destined to preserve the status quo. As Geoff Stevens notes in a separate piece on the site, if people don’t perceive the electoral system to be broken, they aren’t inclined to fix it. BK

Flummoxed about MMP?

The National Post and Peter McLeod provide an excellent service by informing the public on issues surroundign the MMP. Questions and answers reported here are quite interesting. It is too bad there is not more publicity on the MMP. This comes from the following site.


Flummoxed about MMP?
Voters in Ontario are understandably confused about the ins and outs of the the proposed mixed-member proportional system that they are being asked whether they support in an Oct. 10 referendum.

Electoral reform expert Peter MacLeod is answering readers' questions about MMP every Friday, right here on the National Post's Ontario election blog. Mr. MacLeod is a fellow at the Queen’s University Centre for the Study of Democracy and principal of public systems design studio The Planning Desk.

Please send your MMP questions to feedback@nationalpost.com



Q: I am curious as to whether the new map for the riding boundaries (107 to 90 seats) has already been drawn. As a resident of Northern Ontario I am concerned that a redrawing of the boundaries could result in fewer seats for the North at Queen's Park. If there are fewer Northern seats how can Northern Ontario residents be certain that the party lists will represent Northern, or for that matter, Aboriginal constituents on a basis that is reflective of their populations?

One of the very difficult things for any electoral system to overcome is a massive disparity between the size of a territory and the size of its population. Right now, Howard Hampton's riding of Kenora-Rainy River is famously larger than PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined, yet it also has the fewest number of constituents of any riding in the province. When electoral boundaries are set by the province's independent Boundaries Commission they struggle to create ridings with roughly similar populations, but they also have discretion to weigh in additional factors like the history of a political constituency, its demographics and its geography. Doubtless, a Boundaries Commission charged with dividing the province into 90 new, larger ridings would have difficulty preserving the eleven northern ridings that currently exist. It's impossible to know how many would remain, but some back-of-the-envelope long division suggests that as many as three ridings would need to be combined.

But the story would be incomplete if we stop there because one of the most important features of the proposed MMP electoral system is the party vote. There are two reasons why this feature could make it possible for the North to command even stronger representation at Queen's Park and should be of interest to Northern voters. First, if a Northern or Aboriginal Party was formed it would likely secure seats through the list system, with the potential of enjoying support not only from Northerners or Aboriginals in northern ridings but from Ontarians in all parts of the province who care about the issues such parties might represent. Second, because all parties would be hungry for those party votes, I think you'd find that the parties generally would spend more time campaigning in Northern Ontario and creating North-friendly platforms.

Q: Can politicians still cross the floor under MMP?

Great question! Let me answer this two ways because it begs a second question: what happens if an MPP resigns or is unable to complete their term? Basically, all electoral systems have rules to fill seats that may become vacant between elections and the MMP system would be no different. Under the proposed MMP system if a local seat becomes vacant, a by-election will be held. This is the practice under Ontario’s current system and unlike an MMP general election, there would be no second party vote on this by-election ballot. If a list seat becomes vacant, Elections Ontario will select the next available person on that party’s list as submitted for the previous general election.

Governing what happens when an MPP crosses the floor is a bit more complicated. If they represent a local seat, then they would be free to cross. If a member was elected from the list, then it is likely that the legislature would adopt a rule forcing the MPP to resign and run again, either for a riding or on the other party's list at the time of the next general election. Of course, if that member resigned, the list seat would be filled by the next available person on the party's list.

Of course, more complicated still is if a party wishes to discipline a member by ejecting them from the party's caucus. If the member is elected from a riding, then they would be free to join another party's caucus or sit as an independent. If the member had been elected from that party's list, it's likely that the leader of the party could simply call for their resignation from the legislature. This was not part of the Assembly's recommendation because strictly speaking it is outside the purview of the electoral system. Once elected, it is up to the legislators themselves to create the House rules that govern these unusual scenarios.

Q: What happens to the 39 list seats if the results of an election are perfectly proportional?

This question goes to the heart of how the two votes intersect and work together and why MMP is called a hybrid system. Put plainly, there's no such thing as a perfectly proportional vote -- proportionality is achieved only when the two votes work together.

Under MMP top-up seats are always required because if a party wins 40% of the party vote and exactly 40% of the local vote, it will still need to 'top-up' its caucus with list seats to bring it to 40% of the 129 available in the legislature. Remember that we're talking about the difference between winning 40% of the 90 seats available in local elections (or 36 seats) and 40% of the 129 seats available in the legislature (or 52 seats). Clearly, this party will need to be compensated with an additional 16 list seats

If the party overshoots the mark, winning say 50% of the seats in the legislature with only 40% of the party vote then the result is disproportionate and the other parties are compensated with a greater number of list seats.


Quest for MMP knowledge still not satisfied? Interested readers may want to come out for a debate Queen's University is staging in at the MaRS complex at 101 College St. in Toronto on Friday, September 28th at 7 p.m.

National Post political affairs columnist Andrew Coyne and former Ontario minister Marilyn Churley will make the case for adopting the new Mixed Member Proportional electoral system proposed by Ontario's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. They will square off against Toronto Sun Queen's Park columnist Christina Blizzard and former Ontario minister Charles Harnick who will defend Ontario's existing First-Past-The-Post electoral system.

The debate will be hosted by the Centre's director Thomas Axworthy and will include introductory remarks by George Thomson, Chair of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. Click here for more information

MMP would make MPP's more diverse.

This is from the http://scottdiatribe.gluemeat.com/2007/09/20/mmp-will-make-the-the-electoral-process-our-mpps-more-diverse/ I am all for diversity but only if it left wing diversity.


MMP will make the the electoral process & our MPP’s more diverse.
Posted by Scott Tribe on September 20, 2007 at 12:59 pm

One of the reasons supporters of MMP often give for supporting this electoral reform initiative is that we believe it will help the legislature become more diverse and more representative of the actual Ontario population. We feel the current system is very much stacked against more representation of women, First Nations, ethnic minorities and so on. Nowhere is that more apparent then in our current Ontario election. Look what Greg Morrow discovered in research at his site about the makeup of the candidates running in Ontario’s provincial election:

With the deadline for candidates to file their paperwork having passed, we now have the final tally of candidates for the 2007 Ontario election. Voters will be presented with a field of candidates that is almost 3/4 male and over 90% white.

FPTP does a terrible job at reflecting a country’s (or in this case, a province’s) diversity of population.

As we see here in this document, countries who use a form of Proportional Representation, including the countries who use MMP, elect significantly higher women to their legislatures. Note that the 3 countries who use the First-Past-The-Post system in this comparison - Canada, the US, and the UK - are all significantly lower. As we see here from the New Zealand experience, ethnic minorities have made the greatest gains under their MMP system of being better represented.

Compare to here, where federally, Stephane Dion’s laudable goal of trying to have 1/3 of his candidates as women could only be accomplished by the power of appointment - which has the ability to alienate the particular local party riding it’s forced upon.

Simply put, as we can see from factual evidence, MMP can help to address the inequities we have in our current electoral system, and make our legislatures representative of the diverse population. That can only make our democracy here in Ontario stronger, and ALL our citizens more involved in the political process.

UPDATE: Greg clarifies in comments that neither he is saying (nor I am for that matter) that MMP is demanding a quota system, but MMP tends to lead to more of these aforementioned groups get nominated a lot more at regional nomination meetings, which is how the List candidates are picked elsewhere in other countries that use MMP, and which will likely result here if MMP comes into effect. The bottom line remains that it will help to make this province’s legislature a lot more representative of its population and a lot more diverse.

Salutin on Ontario Referendum

Salutin give some of the reasons for voting for the MMP referendum and exposes some of the weaknesses in some objections.

Ontario's no-brainer referendum
>by Rick Salutin
September 21, 2007
I consider a “Yes” in Ontario's coming referendum on voting reform to be a no-brainer. That's because the process we have isn't very democratic.

In fact, it's undemocratic, due to the stupid system known as first past the post. If there are four candidates in your riding, and one gets 10 votes and the rest each get nine, Mr. 10 wins the pot and gets to be in office, although 73 per cent of voters didn't choose him. There's no runoff or resolution, it just stops there.

That applies in all ridings. You could have one party taking every seat this way. In reality, you almost always get a government with a majority of seats that allows them to do anything they want for up to five years, though they received a minority of votes, often around 40 per cent. The majority of voters, 50 to 60 per cent, have to lump it. Minority rules. Canada, the United States and Britain are the only western “democracies” that use this system. It's an embarrassment. It's as if we hadn't noticed.

Various systems elsewhere avoid this. They assure that the majority somehow rules. None of them usher in a messianic era, but they're all better than what we have. Voters in B.C. in 2005 voted 57.5 per cent for a complex system known as STV, or single transferable vote. Most didn't understand it but they made the point that almost anything is preferable. Sadly, the government had set the bar at 60 per cent.

The system Ontario is voting on is simpler. You vote for a local member, plus you vote for your preferred party and the combined result assures that the outcome reflects the choices of the population. It's one small step for democracy.

But what a reaction there has been! The Globe's normally sober columnist, Murray Campbell, calls it “a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.” I'm afraid some of us think an undemocratic voting system is a problem in a democracy. When most voters are disenfranchised, apathy and cynicism tend to follow. You might as well skip today's election and watch The Daily Show.

He also says the change has the “potential to rip apart Ontario's body politic.” He asks if Premier Dalton McGuinty could have “resisted the pressure to adopt sharia law if he had needed an Islamist party to govern?” That's alarmism of a totally hypothetical sort. There is no Muslim party in Ontario, much less an Islamist one, and no factual basis to think one would be formed. What's more pertinent is that former premier Mike Harris would not have been able to actually “rip apart Ontario's body politic” had there been the proposed voting system to rein him in, rather than the present one that gave him total power despite massive opposition.

What mainly seems to nettle the No-ers is loss of stable government, meaning one party in power for a predictable term. Well then, why not a one-party state, like China? Have they got stable for you! Besides, stable government doesn't mean stable society.

Under stable provincial governments for 20 years, Ontario has been a whirligig of instability: vanishing industries, degraded services, disruptive strikes, fractured communities—largely, I'd argue, due to arrogant behaviour by governments that didn't represent the majority and didn't have to worry about it. I imagine what people really want is stability in their lives and communities. You might get more of that under a more representative, more democratic system.

But perhaps stable is code for malleable, or accessible. If you're rich (like the rich) or influential (like The Globe and Mail), you can work with any leadership in power. But it's easier if there's one party at a time to deal with, for a set period.

I'm sure they'd do fine making their points with regimes that were more multiparty and shifting, as they do in places like Germany or New Zealand, which have systems like the one proposed here. But maybe they'd rather not bother retooling. For most of us though, the only thing I can think of in favour of this system is that we're used to it.

Originally published in The Globe and Mail, Rick Salutin's column

No Big Media coverage of MMP referendum

Big Media AWOL as referendum approaches

This article is certainly correct that very little publicity has been given to the referendum on the MMP system. I expect that due to the apathy the reform will probably be voted down.


It's hard to be informed about an issue that has been conspicuously absent in the news.



>by Andrew Mindszenthy
September 19, 2007

Try to strike up a conversation in Ontario about the province's fast-approaching referendum and, recent polls show, most voters won't know what you're talking about. With little news coverage on the topic, few Ontarians are aware of the issues surrounding a historic referendum that will decide the future of their province's electoral system.

For years, an electoral reform movement has been working to promote Canada's adoption of some form of proportional representation, a voting system used in most industrial democracies. North America has long been a hold-out, sticking with the centuries-old 'first-past-the-post' system under which seats in the legislature rarely reflect the popular vote, often leading to widespread dissatisfaction.

It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that the current proposal to adopt a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system comes not from politicians but from “a group of [103] randomly selected ordinary citizens who spent eight months learning and deliberating,” explains a member from the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, a group Elections Ontario created last year to review the electoral system. The citizens' recommendation will be put to a vote October 10 in Ontario's first referendum in nearly a century.

Whatever one thinks of the proposal, all but the most cynical among us agree that serious issues—like deciding how we elect government—deserve informed democratic debate.

Yet, “only 28 per cent of Ontario voters claim any familiarity with this proposal,” revealed a June Environics poll, and more than two-thirds “admit no familiarity at all.”

Admittedly, it's hard to be informed about an issue that has been conspicuously absent from the news. While the Toronto Star—which lays claim to the greatest newspaper circulation in Canada—has recently carried a few stories on the referendum, most of its articles have lacked depth.

Instead, the Star noted the poll's finding of “widespread public ignorance” on the issue, and more recently has suggested that people don't care anyway. Though the Environics poll found 90 per cent of voters familiar with the matter have an opinion (with a clear majority supporting change), the Star instead emphasized the results of its own small informal survey, claiming almost no one is “interested enough to listen.” This flies in the face of the efforts of thousands of grassroots activists working everyday to raise public debate with little help from corporate media.

With even less coverage than the Star, the Globe and Mail ran just two sentences of news on the referendum in June and July, and even failed to report on related stories like the Environics poll. The Globe also chose not to highlight the support for MMP from a group of prominent women politicians—representing all the major parties—who united to encourage voters to support the proposed change, believing MMP would enhance women's political involvement.

Through its efforts (or rather lack thereof), the Globe has made it clear it views the referendum as a non-issue. In a rare mention of the referendum in May, a regular Globe columnist placed electoral reform in a “contest” for “most boring subject.” Suggesting the Citizens' Assembly could not have had thoughtful reasons for recommending MMP, he concluded that if there is no debate or awareness among ordinary citizens, then so be it—MMP will simply have to fail. This, with the headline, “Electoral reform? Chill the beer, pass the ketchup,” reflects the newspaper's own dismissive attitude toward democratic debate.

The Globe's failure to report on the referendum reveals a problem with corporate-run media. Owned by CTVglobemedia Inc.—one of a handful of huge corporations that have divvied up most of Canada's media—the Globe is focused upon serving business interests and advertisers before the public, and has little reason to be interested in popular democratic debate. Profit-boosting cutbacks to quality journalism are only the most notorious example of such corporate priorities.

Corporate media owners have also benefited directly from a lack of democracy. Our airwaves are public property broadcasters borrow on the condition that they serve the public interest DASH and CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) is supposed to regulate the industry for this purpose, working in proceedings open to public input. Too often, however, these proceedings are dominated by monied industry interests while citizens' voices are largely shouted down or forgotten altogether.

As a result, Big Media has achieved what a Senate Committee calls “concentration of ownership […] few other countries would consider acceptable. ” In fact, most Canadians oppose concentrated control of media. It is by keeping them uninvolved that Big Media has grown and flourished.

So it is not surprising that Big Media outlets like the Globe get away with under-reporting the referendum, instead using column inches to paint pictures of citizen apathy and non-involvement.

Fortunately, while government regulators let big business dominate our media system, Canadians are mobilizing to defend democracy by actually practicing it. A variety of groups have recently emerged, ranging from loose radical grassroots activist groups, an independent public discussion forum, a new feminist group called Media Action Media, and a high-profile national coalition. This new movement is acting on the principles that Canadians deserve democratic debate, that diverse media is a cornerstone of democracy, and that everyday Canadians can and should be involved in media democracy issues.

Earlier this summer, a broad civil society coalition of academics, grassroots activists, independent media, and labour joined together to coordinate an unprecedented public action campaign. In just three weeks, Canadians for Democratic Media (CDM) mobilized almost 2,000 Canadians who filed interventions in an important CRTC proceeding on diversity of voices in media in light of concentrated ownership. Today Canadians are part of a global movement to take democracy into our own hands and away from unaccountable corporate power.

It remains to be seen whether the CRTC will listen, but what is clear is that it will take a sustained and persistent movement to achieve major change. We've seen it happen before: public broadcasting was, in part, a gain achieved by international popular struggle for media democracy.

Following on the heels of its first major campaign, CDM, working with MDI and MediaReform.ca, is calling attention to Ontario's 'missing referendum' as a timely and exigent example of the serious consequences of an undemocratic media system where so few control the information available to so many.

Andrew Mindszenthy is a Toronto activist involved in a range of issues. He is co-ordinator of the CDM/MDI "Missing Referendum" campaign. He can be reached at a.mindszenthy@gmail.com.