News

Ontario's referendum on electoral reform was an "unmitigated disaster" plagued by voter and media apathy, a poor education campaign, and an impossible threshold for passage, proponents say.

Early results show Ontarians have voted nearly two-to-one to keep the first-past-the-post election system, rejecting a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system recommended by a government-appointed citizens' assembly earlier this year.

The new system needed approval by a "super majority" of 60 per cent of voters and majority approval in at least 64 ridings.

Final results are expected Thursday.

"This has been an unmitigated disaster," said Dennis Pilon, assistant professor of political science at University of Victoria and author of The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada's Electoral System.

"I don't think ever so much money has been wasted in educating people so poorly."

Mr. Pilon said too much of Elections Ontario's referendum education campaign focused on the mechanics of MMP and not on why voters should care about electoral reform.

"Selling a voting system is like selling a car. Most of us don't look up under the hood. We recognize that there are professionals who will take care of that. What we want to know is performance."

Elections Ontario also dropped the ball by promoting the referendum with a limited print-based campaign at the expense of a full broadcast media campaign, Mr. Pilon added.

Jonathan Rose, associate professor of political science at Queen's University and academic director of the citizen's assembly, said the referendum failed to get traction in the media because the parties were neutral on the issue.

"Media cover stories based on the pronouncements of leaders. And I think the leaders were wise to stay neutral and non-partisan. But as a result of that, it wasn't covered as a result of the daily campaign stops of leaders," he said.

"One solution might be to disentangle votes on referendums from elections so people have the opportunity to focus on one issue."

The referendum, the first in Ontario since 1921, asked the electorate to choose between the status quo and a "made-in-Ontario" proportional representation system modelled on those used in Germany and New Zealand.

The MMP system, recommended after seven months of study and consultation by 103 randomly selected Ontarians, would result in proportional election results: The share of seats in the legislature that each party wins would be roughly equal to its popular vote. Voters would get two votes: One for a local candidate and a second for a party.

Each party would nominate local candidates and a "party list" of candidates for the entire province, in the order it wants them to be elected; 90 MPPs would be elected from local ridings and 39 MPPs would be elected from the party lists, based on each party's share of the total party vote.

Proponents say election results under proportional representation better reflect the wishes of voters, and thus encourage more people to vote. Under the current system, majority governments, like the new one under Dalton McGuinty, are often elected without a majority of voter support. Smaller or marginal parties usually receive less than their fare share of seats. With two choices on the ballot, voters are able to vote for their preferred local candidate and support a separate provincial party. The system opens up the nomination process to more women and minorities.

Opponents say the system results in unstable minority or coalition governments that get bogged down in negotiation and take longer to make important decisions. Ridings are larger, governing is moved to the backrooms, and smaller parties, including marginal players, have far more say and influence, critics say.

Voters in B.C. and P.E.I. rejected similar attempts at electoral reform in 2005. In B.C., 57 per cent of voters opted for a single transferable vote system, falling just three-per-cent short of the required threshold for change. The province will hold another referendum on the matter in 2009.

In P.E.I., only 36 per cent of residents voted in favour of MMP.

Mr. Pilon said the Liberal government under Mr. McGuinty acted in poor faith by waiting until April in the last year of their mandate to set up the citizen's assembly.

Paul Nesbitt-Larking, chair of political science at Huron University College and a proponent of MMP, said he was "very disappointed" by the media's failure to hold the type of public conversation required on the issue.

But Peter MacLeod, research director at the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University, said proponents should take solace in the fact that so many Ontarians voted for MMP despite the limited education campaign.

Mr. MacLeod said the success of the citizen's assembly is the bigger story in Wednesday's referendum.

"The real democratic innovation is the citizens assembly," he said. "We proved to ourselves we can do politics differently."