RSSOntario election reform
Aug 14
This is the beginning of my own exploration of the proposed election reform in Ontario. This will be voted on in a referendum this coming October.
The problem this effort is trying to solve is that in our current electoral system, Parliament does not reflect the popular vote of the entire Province. Here’s a quote from fairvotecanada:
“In the 2006 federal election, more than 650,000 Green Party voters across the country elected no one. Meanwhile, fewer than a half-million Liberal voters in Atlantic Canada alone elected 20 MPs. In the prairie provinces, Conservatives won three times as many votes as the Liberals, but were given nearly ten times as many seats. But more than 400,000 Conservative voters in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver couldn’t elect a single MP. The NDP attracted a million more votes than the Bloc, but the voting system gave the Bloc 51 seats and the NDP 29.”
Further, note that in the 2003 Ontario election, the popular vote went about 46% Liberal, 35% PC, 15% NDP and 4% other. The makeup of Parliament was 70% Liberal, 23% PC and 7% NDP. Those numbers are pretty far off and are clearly not a true representation of the intentions of the voters, and are the results of the current First Past The Post system.
A panel recommended for Ontario to adopt a version of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) which is used in many areas of Europe. The basic changes to our current system are:
- You vote for both a local candidate and a party
- 39 new seats are added to Parliament, which are allocated between the parties to make their overall representation reflect the popular vote for the parties
I’ve read quite a bit of debate on the issue so far and I’m leaning towards supporting it. I think it will be an improvement in that MMP will better reflect the intentions of the electorate.
It seems the typical arguments against MMP are:
- More minority governments
- The 39 “list members” are not directly elected by a constituency, so are perhaps less accountable
On #1, while I think MMP will change the way politics works, I can’t assume that’s a bad thing since that’s really what the voters intended. Our current liberal “70% majority” was only elected by 45% of the population. Coalitions might ensure more peoples interests are covered and is typical operating procedure in most of Europe.
On #2, this is what causes me some hesitancy. Parties will likely hold some kind of semi-democratic vote for their list members, but it’s still not truly democratic. I don’t know what the best answer is but I don’t think this is enough cause to not implement the system. I might hope for a clause in the law like “The system for choosing list members should be revisited in 2015.”
Further reading:
Aug 14, 2007 @ 15:51:15
Under the current system, we get to vote only for our local member, and do not get to say anything at all about the other 106 candidates for his party, or the party leader, or the party platform. This is what is “less accountable”.
Under MMP, we will still be able to vote for our local member, exactly as we do now, but we will also be able to vote for which party we want to be part of government and which leader we want to be Premier. Voters understand that real power resides with parties and party elites, and that is how most of us vote, up to 85% of us according to some studies.
Accountability is what this is all about. European voters have been able to vote for a party for 100 years. We too will finally be able to hold parties accountable with a vote that really counts every time, if we vote for MMP on October 10.
Aug 14, 2007 @ 17:49:32
I agree with your problem on the second point. For me, the representation issue becomes big. Also, remember that we will go from 107 riding MPP’s to 90, which means that we will loose some of those guaranteed local representatives, and on top of that, because there are more MPP’s their power would be diluted. On top of that, I am concerned that Northern and Rural Ontario will loose representation. They will loose some guaranteed seats, and in return, they will have a chance at some of those MMP seats. The problem is that about 75% of the population in Ontario is in urban centres. So, if you are a party who is hoping to win those MMP seats, who’s votes are you going to try to win??? And conversely, any party advocating for those Northern and Rural areas would being trying to gain support at the risk of urban support. My big concern is that this will shift more of the power to urban centres and away from the North and rural areas, which already have a minority of the representation. For all it’s flaws, at least First Past the Post takes regional representation into account. Now if these MMP seats were attached to regions, that would fix that problem, but they aren’t.
Aug 14, 2007 @ 19:07:30
Cam: Other have addressed the arguments you make here on several other web sites and you don’t appear to take any of these responses on board. That’s a shame as many respondents have provided you with good, solid responses to the points you make.
What I find interesting in your arguments the significant blind spots:
1. You can’t see that list MPPs could represent important issues right across the province. In your view, parochial concerns apear to be the only concerns. I can see that the list MPPs offer us all the chance to be represented as Ontarians who sahre common visions and values no matter where we live. That is something the present system denies us almost completely. Your own tunnel vision on this point is evidence of how pervasive and deep this blindness to issues other than the parochial runs. There are MANY issues that transcend the parochial: health, education, transport to name just a few.
2. You can’t see that a lot of the list MPPs will be representing minor parties wit few or no local seats. These people can ONLY represent their voters all over Ontario. Why insist on attaching them to some region when they won support everywhere?
3. The 3% threshold will be a powerful check on any abise of power by “party bosses”. Disaffected arty members will have to be mollified or they can strike out and found a competing party with more open and transparent practices and similar policies….and all they have to do to win seats is get at least 3% of the party vote. A respected senior MPP with a following could easily lead his / her followers out of a party if they felt they had not been respected and heard.
MMP’s modes of representation and accountability are more flexible and more subtle and ultimately more EFFECTIVE then the present system’s equivalent.
Al the present system gives me is one vote for one canddiates on just one of 107 ridings….and if my single vote isn’t cast for the one winner – i get nothing at all.
That’s simply lousy. MMP is much better……with the additional partyvote that lifts me out of my simgle riding and gives my vote a province-wide view…..and effect.
Death to parochialism….and the system that perpetuates it.
Aug 14, 2007 @ 23:15:06
Cam Holstrom said:
“The problem is that about 75% of the population in Ontario is in urban centres. So, if you are a party who is hoping to win those MMP seats, who’s votes are you going to try to win??? And conversely, any party advocating for those Northern and Rural areas would being trying to gain support at the risk of urban support.”
It is the current winner-take-all system that pits the cities against the country and the north against the south. Parties know their efforts are wasted in areas where they cannot win, so they write off entire regions. Under MMP, EVERY VOTE COUNTS NO MATTER WHERE YOU VOTE. Every party will have members from every region, and every voter will have access to an MPP in her area from every party.
Nobody is losing representation under MPP. There will be more MPPs, and fewer constituents per MPP. The list MPPs have to attract votes to their party to get elected, and most of them will be trying to become a riding MPP. They will be knocking on your door and asking for your vote.
Aug 15, 2007 @ 06:28:29
Going from 107 down to 90 directly elected MPPs seems unnecessary to me on the surface but I don’t see that as a big negative. I’m guessing this was proposed to not balloon the size of Parliament too much.
That’s also a good point that it’s definitely within the list members best interests to be out campaigning in ridings their party will lose, to help increase the popular vote.
Although, using the results of the last Ontario election as an example, what incentive would there be for the Liberal list candidates to be very active? They would not expect to get many list candidates elected. I guess they always have to be somewhat active or risk losing share of the popular vote.
Aug 15, 2007 @ 11:31:30
“Also, remember that we will go from 107 riding MPP’s to 90, which means that we will lose some of those guaranteed local representatives, and on top of that, because there are more MPP’s their power would be diluted.”
Where was the hand-wringing about loss of ridings when Harris knocked the number down from 130 to 103 in 1996? That was a 21% drop in ridings, and not a peep. NOw most (129) will be restored, and be distributed on a more democratic and equitable basis. The number of ridings will drop from 107 to 90, or a 16% drop, but more than compensated for by list MPPs.
But Cam wants it both ways–too few ridings, but too many MPPs. This, he says, will cause “dilution.” Perhaps he might explain this concept.