Political sociologist Peter MacLeod says political polarities are being scrambled as Ontario ponders a fundamental decision: Stick with the current first-past-the-post voting system or switch to mixed member proportional?
In April, the Ontario Citizen's Assembly put its support behind mixed member proportional (MMP), suggesting a system where voters get two votes on a single ballot: one for a local candidate and one for a party. A party wins seats according to its share of votes, and if it gains fewer local seats than its percentage, candidates from a public party list will be appointed to fill the gap.
This differs from the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system, where the party with the most elected members gains power.
In an earlier online commentary on globeandmail.com Apocalypse Not: It's just electoral reform , Mr. MacLeod says the battle of the voting systems is already starting, despite the referendum on the issue being 11 weeks away.
"While most people are tending their backyard barbecues or cooling their toes in the province's northern lakes, the language game has begun in the fight to define how the referendum debate will be portrayed," he wrote.
"The big prize is 'democracy'. Stuck between a prickly establishment now circling the wagons and utopians convinced of the righteousness of their cause, voters are going to feel the squeeze. And sigh."
What are the tangible differences between the systems? What should Ontarians be asking of their politicians, and of each other? Are there any precedents for this? And why should voters listen to the Ontario Citizen's Assembly?
Peter MacLeod joined us on Thursday to answer those questions and others submitted about voting systems, and the choice between them. Your questions and Mr. MacLeod's answers appear at the bottom of this page.
Peter MacLeod is principal of The Planning Desk, an evolving studio for public systems design. A former researcher at the British think tank Demos, Mr. MacLeod is a visiting lecturer at the Kaospilots School of Business Design and Social Innovation in Denmark, a Fellow at the Queen's Centre for the Study of Democracy and is completing his doctorate in political sociology at the London School of Economics.
During research fieldwork in 2004, Mr. MacLeod visited nearly 100 federal constituency offices across Canada and he now writes and speaks frequently on policy, democratic reform and design.
Recently, Mr. MacLeod was co-creator of the Students' Assembly on Electoral Reform, which worked closely with the Ontario Citizens' Assembly. He also served as the non-partisan chair of the Liberal Renewal Commission's task force on civic engagement.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question. Questions may be edited for length, clarity or relevance. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Tenille Bonoguore from globeandmail.com: Good afternoon, Peter, and thank-you for joining us for today's discussion. Before we delve into the pros and cons of the referendum, can you tell us what do you make of the debate so far?
Peter MacLeod: Thanks Tenille. I'm happy to be here and looking forward to the discussion this hour. I suppose the obvious point to make is that so far the debate has been pretty quiet. Sure a few shots have been fired but unfortunately these early efforts have done little to preserve the careful spirit with which the Citizens' Assembly deliberated and ultimately made its recommendation. Ontarians have a very important and very interesting decision ahead of them, but the debate won't be well served by categorical or misleading claims about the two electoral systems. They are different to be sure, but as I see it, both systems are very capable of serving the democratic interests of Ontario.
