Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Electoral reform and the Ontario referendum

Globe and Mail Update

Latest comment posted at 1:41 PM EST 12/10/07

Part 1 of a weekly series in which The Globe reported in-depth on an issue you wanted to see debated in the Ontario election campaign ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Raison d'Etre from United States writes: The members of the Citizens Assembly voted 94% that MMP was a good system for Ontario. I'm pretty sure if all Ontarians had the same amount of info that the CA had, the vast majority of them would be convinced as well. The problem is, however, that most of them won't have the opportunity to have the proposed system explained to them in detail. What needs to happen as far as the information/advertising campaign so that 60% of voters will vote for MMP? What are the chances it will happen?
  2. Wilfred Day from Port Hope, Canada writes: Conservative senator Hugh Segal spoke eloquently in favour of MMP at the Economic Club of Toronto much Wednesday. Conservative pundit Rick Anderson did the same on Newsworld Politics Thursday. Ontario Deputy Premier George Smitherman, Attorney-General Michael Bryant and Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen all support it. So does the YWCA of Canada, and many other groups. With such varied and widespread support, how can it lose?

    Well, if people don't find out the facts, they won't know why it has such support. Elections Ontario won't tell them why and how the Citizen's Assembly designed this Ontario Two-Vote Mixed Member Proportional model the way they did. And some skeptics are asking "where did this suddenly come from?" although they know very well.

    That leaves the media. Will they lift their eyes from the froth of the election campaign to explain where this MMP recommendation came from, and why those 103 Citizens propose it? Will the media give them a platform others would shove them off?
  3. Roland Tanner from Burlington, Canada writes: It's really worrying how little interest the referendum is creating, and how ill-informed or apathetic the electorate is likely to be. This is a really important vote, and I encourage people to look into what it means, and whether they think it is a good idea.

    My own experience was in Scotland, 1999-2003, where an almost identical system was/is in place. I think it makes for a far more fair system of government, does not lead to instability or minority governments (it leads to stable coalitions, a very different thing), and enables fringe parties such as the Greens to play a fair and proportional role in parliament. The benefits in Scotland I'd argue have been dramatic.
  4. Steve Withers from London, Canada writes: I've lived under MMP in New Zealand for the past 11 years. Before we brought in MMP, the same shopping list of (unsupported) claims were made against it there as are being made against it here.

    Voters have a vote that actually counts and elects who they voted for.

    MMP in New Zealand has resulted in stable government and sound fiscal management.

    Each year there is, on average, an NZ$5B surplus on a total spend of NZ$35B. The surpluses are prudently being put toward paying pensions to baby boomers in future years.

    Unemployment is the lowest in 35 years and NZ ranks 5th out of 27 countries in the OECD for employment.

    Economic growth has been between 2.5% and 4.5% of GDP each year for the past decade.

    Last year, the World Bank ranked New Zealand 2nd out of 175 countries for ease of doing business. Secondly only to Singapore.

    Maybe MMP can't claim credit for all that, but it certainly hasn't got in the way, either.....and we all got a vote that actually counts.

    In my own riding of Otaki, north of Wellington, we have 3 MPs actively serving us: Darren Hughes (Local - Labour Party), Nathan Guy (List - National Party) and Sue Kedgley (List Green Party). Mr. Guy has his riding office not from that of Mr. Hughes.

    If anyone is curious, all parties in NZ democratically choose their list and local candidates. Party members wouldn't tolerate anything else.

    Under MMP, we have much stronger local representation than we used to under the old system.

    Ontarians will be crazy not to vote for MMP. I hope peple aren't suckered by the evidence-free, unfounded shopping list of negative assertions being made by crtiics of MMP in Ontario.

    We heard all that in New Zealand in 1993 and it was proven by events since to completely wrong.
  5. eva smith from Ottawa, Canada writes: This referendum asks Ontario voters to make a big decision with major consequences to our system of representation. I am not able to make an informed decision one way or the other because I cannot find answers to these questions, even after looking through YourBigDecision.ca: 1. At whose request did the Ontario legislature begin to review electoral systems? 2. Who are the members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform? How were they appointed and by whom? 3. On what bases did the Assembly assess Ontario's current electoral system and what other electoral systems were examined? 4. What are the benefits of the first-past-the-post system versus those of the mixed member proportional system? 5. Why were voters not provided with all of the above information on an ongoing basis since the inception of the review? 6. Will voters be informed enough by the time of the election to make such an important decision as to the type of representation they will have? 7. Will list apointees have the same functions, duties, rights and privileges as elected members? To whom will they be accountable -- their parties or voters? If they are accountable to voters, would it be voters from all ridings? How will the 39 list members be distributed across the province? 8. Finally, if the mixed member proportional system is chosen, would it even be constitutional? Can we have non-elected appointees voting on legislation in a House of Parliament whose members have always been elected?
  6. brendan poirier from ottawa, Canada writes: eva -

    1. it was a liberal promise in 2003. i guess they kept this promise
    2. there is a ministry of democratic renewal. 103 citizens selected at random by lottery. like jury duty.
    3. it took them 8 months to review every system ever devised and decide if any were better than the current system. experts were flown in from all over the world.
    4. simpler; works great in a two party system; forces parties to have bigger tents
    5. it's expensive to promote the referendum.
    6. probably not.
    7. well, we don't have "recall" in ontario, like they do in B.C. so how "accountable" is your mpp to begin with? lists would be published during the election so no surprises.
    8. have you heard about the our federal minister of public works, michael fortier?

    hope that helped
  7. spark plug from Canada writes: Although not resident in Ontario I have been a lifelong student of political science. I prefer the Westminster first past the post system but I have read the report of the Citizens Assembly - it is written in plain language and clearly explains the MMP proposal. It is a goo piece of advocacy. I would have expected the provincial government, through Elections Ontario, to put a copy of the report in the hands of every voter. Only by reading the report and familiarizing themselves with the arguments for and against MMP can voters make an informed decision.
  8. Derek Kraan from Waterloo, Canada writes: I noticed in the final paragraph of the article some unfortunate wording:

    "Answers and essays by Peter Woolstencroft, associate professor of political science at University of Waterloo, and a member of the Vote for MMP campaign, will be published Thursday.

    Peter Woolstencroft is campaigning against MMP, and is not a member of the Vote for MMP campaign. Perhaps The Globe meant to say that he and a member of the Vote for MMP campaign will respond to questions?
  9. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: eva smith-

    1.It's been the request of countless people, groups & organizations in Canada over the years to change the electoral system so candidates can't win a seat/riding with only a minority vote count, in local, Provincial & Federal elections.

    The truth is the proposed MMP system does nothing to fix the problem of minority majority governments, it's merely window dressing. No Proportional Representation Voting system in the world fixes or even addresses the real problem.

    The real problem lies at the riding level, where we have anywhere from 4 to 9 candidates in each of Ontario's ridings. Only 46 of 107 candidates in the 2003 election won their seats with a majority of the votes cast. Under the proposed MMP system this won't change.
  10. Michael Enright from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm not voting for it this time around, specifically because of the list component. I would have liked the names on the list to be restricted to only those people who ran for election (but failed to be elected), not apparatchik who are loyal solely to the party.
  11. Jim Gartrell from Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada writes: Has anyone seen a map detailing the areas and populations of the proposed 90 electoral districts? Rural Ontario stands to lose what little voice it has if significant portions of the rural-urban fringe are amalgamated into major centres while the remaining rural districts are redrawn into fewer larger areas. Why is such an important piece of information so difficult to find or am I just not looking in the right place?
  12. brian bishop from Brnatford, Canada writes: There won't be a map unless we vote to except the proposed MMP system in the referendum.

    However you can learn a little bit more if you Google "Select Committee on Electoral Reform", page 42 of the document you find is interesting, as it shows electoral systems that were excluded from discussion.

    The system most people have argued for "The Runoff (or Two-Round) majoritarian model used in France" wasn't even discussed by the Citizens Assembly, because the Select Committee decided it didn't merit more than a passing mention. They said it's to inconvenient & expensive & offers few advantages over the first past the post system we already use.

    News flash it's the only one that ensures true Democracy, nobody gets elected unless they have a clear majority.
  13. CD W from orillia, Canada writes: Well great, the loons on the left own the courts, now they want the legislative branch also. Look folks, proportional whatever is not true democracy. True democracy would be referenda on everything. Since that is unworkable, why would I want anyone with 3 % of any vote to have any representation? You don't. Everyone trumps up New Zealand, good news for young folks, with their system, they stripped the elderly of their posh pensions. So oldsters, I dare you, give another demographic group power over you, enjoy your cat food. My advice to young and seemingly disenfranchised, stop screwing around and vote as a block. Force the electoral hand of the government. The biggest tax transfers in history go from you to folks over 65 and welfarites who wont work. If you ever want a dime from your labour and your student debt at 0%, VOTE AS A BLOCK. This mixed stuff will have groups who hate abortion going against hippies for abortion versus hippies for wind power versus hippies against windmills. Do you see how this vote will split things even more. Vote as a group get what you want. Now if I said that to men, they might not get screwed in the courts. Go ahead create any group you like. Please dont be fooled by the great dream of everyone counting, because you dont.
  14. G E from Toronto, Canada writes: "Michael Enright from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm not voting for it this time around, specifically because of the list component. I would have liked the names on the list to be restricted to only those people who ran for election (but failed to be elected), not apparatchik who are loyal solely to the party."

    Michael, that would mean that someone who was specifically rejected by the people could still be placed in parliament. Doesn't that ring a bit odd? If voters don't like the people on the list, they can throw their party vote another way. Remember, it's a separate vote for the party group.
  15. Helen Pettingill from Canada writes: I have voted for the Greens in the last few provincial & federal elections but it frustrates me that they can't even get a seat despite the numbers of voters they acquire that should merit them at least one. One seat is a good start. I'm not foolish enough to think they'll win a majority any time soon. I've been tempted to vote for parties I don't like just to prevent the worser from winning. That wouldn't give me a good feeling. I'm sure many voters do just that though.
    I'm going to vote "yes" for the MMP part of our next ballot. These small parties are exactly what's needed to change Canada & the provinces. I understand the problems associated with MMP but I'm willing to live with them. I think it's important to stand up for what's right for all of the political parties - not just the little ones. I think the representative vote should reflect who we see sitting on those seats in parliament. It's the right thing for all Canadians. Too bad most people don't even have a clue what MMP even means. Never mind. They're probably the same imbeciles who see no need to vote & even if they did, they wouldn't have a clue as to what each leader stands for.
  16. Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: CD W from orillia, you really should relax a bit. There's no reason why you can't express yourself without blathering hostility. It makes your writing difficult to read. Incidentally, the question isn't about making TRUE democracy, since 'true' would imply a value judgement, but rather the goal is to make our system MORE democratic than it currently is. There are legitimate points of view on both sides. Incidentally, 3% of Ontarians means roughly 350,000 people. I do believe that they are as worthy of political representation as any one. You may not like the idea of minority opinions being counted for, but it is a very democratic notion to say the least.
  17. W. Mayne from Canada writes: Currently our MPPs spend a great deal of time in their own riding, especially when Parliament is closed for the lengthy summer holiday. What would the MPPs who are appointed do during this period? I would suggest that the "appointed MPPs" would be paid less and have a smaller pension entitlement as a result.
    The only other concern I have is the "preparation" of the lists. Would parties use this to reward certain members for their contributions(not necessarily monetary) to the party. Similar to our current Federal Senate appointments.
  18. Charles Murray from Toronto, writes: Our current British Parliamentary System is designed to produce majority governments who rule absolutely for four or five years. During this term, a government uses its majority to force its agenda through while blocking private members' bills.
    It's interesting to note that Canada's universal health care system came into being as a result of a minority government situation. The Liberal minority government was pressured to enact the legislation by NDP leader David Lewis.
    I believe that MMP will be good for Ontario for this reason alone.
  19. casey miller from oddawa, Canada writes: Whats always bugged me is that the Premier or Prime Minister is someone most Canadians NEVER get the chance to vote for - IF MPP is enabled, why not make the parties put their leader as the first on the list, that way the Premier is elected "by the people" ?
  20. Cynthia Nurse from St. Thomas, Canada writes: If I were given two votes I would rather have the opportunity to vote for the person in my riding who best represents area values, and the other for Premier. A step to get past party politics. I'm sure party politics had it is place in the past. There is always the time that the local person is represented by a party platform/leader which I don't support. Currently I feel my vote goes to a party leader not to the local person.
  21. Don Adams from Canada writes: As far as I'm concerned, MMP is just an attempt of Special Interest Groups to do an end run around the Law. Provide seats to fringe parties that aren't popular enough in any given area to elect a representative. So what if a bunch of people, scattered across the province, prefer the Greens, or the Communists, the yogic flyers, the Rhino's etc. If there's not enough of them in any given location to elect a representative, that means the majority of people just don't want them.

    To go for MMP will mean millions of extra tax dollars to pay for the extra members and their staffs, could result in minority governments, will definitely slow down the business of Parliament in order to allow the extra members to speak on any given topic.

    Our current system isn't broken, so why fix it? Especially, why do something to it to accomodate a few Special Interest Types? Let them work through one of the main parties to promote their own Special Interest..... and, if they can't, it means the majority don't want it, so let the position go.
  22. Edna Black from Toronto, Canada writes: G E from Toronto is absolutely correct. The 'second' collection of non-riding candidates, the 'List Members', would consist of potential MPP's from party ranks who while being advertised by their respective parties as the party's non-riding candidates, are never-the-less appointed by their party and are not at all elected by any legitimate voter anywhere in Ontario. This would mean that 39 out of 129 seats would be filled by MPPs who were not scrutinized by the electorate but who were simply appointed by their party. Somehow, as a voter in an open democracy, I cannot help but feel a little repulsed by such a proposal. In my opinion, this specific proposal for 'equal representation' should be rejected by the voters of Ontario and the Citizens' Assembly should be sent back to their drawing boards to rework their proposal - if that's even possible.
  23. Michael Enright from Toronto, Canada writes: Edna Black - you have no idea how parties would use the list because there's no system in place saying how the list should be compiled. Too much discretion is left up to the party. Until a system is in place that the lists are developed in a democratic way and not as tools of political parties, MMP shouldn't be implemented.
  24. Linda McDonald from Canada writes: I am a Canadian, presently living in Australia. I recently visited New Zealand, and was told by our guide that the "people" there no longer want proportional representation. They voted for it in a referendum some years ago, and were told that if it passed, it would be a "trial" for a few years with another referendum in the future. Supposedly, government costs have increased dramatically, and the process of government has slowed considerably. The people want another referendum in order to vote proportional representation out, but the present government says there will not be another referendum and that proportional representation will stay. We had a discussion in our tour group as to what other countries have this type of voting- Israel and Italy. Oh boy. Essentially the concept appears to have some merit philosophically, but practically the end result appears to be unstable, minority governments, with the cost of government sky rocketing, and the individual having less say in the running of their country. Methinks the Liberal government in Ontario has bought into a management philosophy of "if it's not broken, break it". How sad.
  25. The Emperor's Paparazzi from Canada writes:
    This proposal is all about getting more power for people running the political parties -- the opposite of "grass-roots" politics.

    Its logic is flawed because it is based on the premise that people vote "party" and do not vote "candidate".
  26. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: Wilfred Day, Elections Ontario can't tell you why it should or should not be supported. They are required to remain unbiased in all affairs regarding the election. The only thing they can do, and they have been doing well, is to let people know that there is a referendum. Beyond that, it is up to the people, the interested parties and advocates or opponents to educate voters on the facts for or against MMP.

    eva smith, you, therefore, need to look to additional sources than just Elections Ontario for any facts beyond the basics.

    brendan poirier, Michael Fortier is a great example of why we need MMP. Harper has the ability to nominate people to the Senate and Senators are eligible to sit in caucus, so when he had no elected member for a certain demographic (Montreal) he used his options.

    There is no provincial Senate so MMP would allow the parties to improve their representation in rural areas if they're mainly supportedby urban voters or vice versa (note to Jim Gartrell) or increase their proportion of women and minorities if their elected members look to be too much of an old boys network. It removes some of the need to try and guess who'll win so you can pick the useless sod from that party just so that you'll get some funding. With MMP you can pick the best candidate in your riding and, in case they're not of the same stripe as the eventual premier, still retain hope that the other appointed members will give you a representative in the chambers of power. You'll be well served in the riding and in the legislature. It's a win/win situation.

    And, casey miller, making the parties list their premier on the nomination ballot is an excelent idea. They are the face/name of the party and should be held accountable for it. Besides,if he/she is trying to run the province, how much time do they have for their constituency anyways?

    Vote yes for MMP.

  27. David Whitbread from Ottawa, Canada writes: If you like an appointed Senate filled with party bag men and backroom spooks, you'll love MMP. Just put your boys on the list and bingo, they can make laws automatically right in the legislature.

    MMP is the right idea for the wrong country.
  28. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: David Whitbread, if you love the idea that 60 to 75% of the people's democratic wishes are ignored when a candidate wins with one third of the vote or a party forms a majority with maybe 40% of the votes, you can continue to believe that the first-past-the-post system is not flawed. I don't like those numbers. I like to have our votes mean something and I believe we (including you) will be well served by this reform.
    To give each voter's ballot more value, vote yes for MMP!
  29. Douglas Prest from Dundas, Canada writes: I for one am sick and tired of parties like Mike Harris's Conservatives and Stephen Harper's Conservatives taking control of government even though a majority of voters voted against them (not to mention GW Bush). And yes, for years it worked in favour of the liberals too federally. The members in the legislature OR in parliament should represent the wishes of the people, and not be a complete distortion of that. If 33% of the people want the conservatives in, they should get 33% of the seats. Like it or not, our governments work on the party system, and govern on that basis.

    Harper would not be able to go around embarrassing the country pretenting to represent all of us under a system of proportional representation- he would require more support of other parties to form a coalition government, and this would (further) moderate his extremism. And if Ontario goes proportional, hopefully the feds will too eventually. Minority governments and coalition governments are more democratic- truly representing the people.

    Gone would be "strategic voting", which I hate, but am forced into by the current system. If the Greens get 15% of the vote, they'd get 15% of the seats, as they should. So we could all really vote for the party we feel is best, not for who we "must" vote for in order to prevent another party from winning an unfair majorty under the current system.
  30. Phil Blancher from Morrisburg, Canada writes: I do like the idea of minority parties getting a voice at Queens Park and support, in principal, MMP but I do not agree with reducing the number of directly elected MPPs. Keep the 107 ridings and let that change as the federal ridings change and have the list MPP's be based off of the total population. Example if there are 14 million people in Ontario, have 28 List MPP's. 1 MMP MPP per 500,000 residents (rounded down).
  31. Sharon Weitzel from Perth County, Ontario, Canada writes: I want to comment on 2 issues:

    Comments/support from candidates:

    My understanding on this issue is that recommendations came from the Citizens group. Many incumbents from the government side have been told that this is for the voting public to decide and they should keep their concerns/feelings out of the debate.

    While I would appreciate the guidance or concern of others I do understand how they could be criticised for trying to effect the outcome if they came out in support one way or the other. This is a lose /lose situation for them.

    Comments re level of required Support (60%):

    This is a solid percentage that is quite common for changes to regulations and policy for boards and commissions in the Province. I see no problem with this. If people really want to see results they need to get involved and VOTE!

    The government has followed-up on a promise that many thought would never come to fruition. Give them credit for that and get on with exploring the pros and cons in detail rather than trying to force "positions" out of representatives.
  32. david sword from Canada writes: I have a hard time accepting that 39 unelected officials sitting in Parliament assigned by unknown people from the smoke filled back rooms of the political parties rather than being directly elected by the people is an improvement.

    Italy - here we come.

    David from North York.
  33. gilles monenemie from Montreal, Canada writes: This is a must to get more progressive politics in this country. Where is McGuinty on this issue? I find it makes sense that the number of MP's each party gets is related to the vote percentage. If you don't like the parties politics don't vote for them the next time. This will allow some MP's to be focussed on policy development rather than constitute problems, nothing wrong with that. Most MP's are overworked dealing with local issues.
  34. anais l from toronto, Canada writes: In the current system, if you are not voting for the winning MP in your riding, your vote goes to waste. Literally, it is discarded. Under MMP the 39 seats will be assigned according to the percentage of votes won by parties that would ordinarely be discarded in the current system. For instance if Green party won 10% of each riding, under the current system they get nothing. It's impossible to get 10% of each MP to make up one single MP, and that's why the the Green party will get to choose an "unelected MP" - a whole single person, to represent them, in this new system. It's unlikely that very little parties will get any MP's under the MMP system, because none of them is going to get 3% of the vote! So saying that the gov't will be burdened by lots of tiny little parties is totally unrealistic. It's also a scare tactic to say that the MPs are not going to be accountable to the riding, because each of the 90 MP's are directly responsible to their riding, just the same as it was before (except there are 17 fewer ridings. That's all). The only reason that someone would oppose this system is if the current system works in their favour, AND they don't care one way or another to make the voting system more democratic - OR: if people don't understand the new system. Please, please be informed, and inform others. I started going around giving posters from http://www.voteformmp.ca/campaign_materials in the subways. Please help me by doing the same.
  35. Philip Raitz from Davoe City, Philippines writes: Michael Enright from Toronto, Canada writes: Edna Black - you have no idea how parties would use the list because there's no system in place saying how the list should be compiled. Too much discretion is left up to the party. Until a system is in place that the lists are developed in a democratic way and not as tools of political parties, MMP shouldn't be implemented.

    Michael has a point. I live in the Philippines where foreigners like me are specifically barred from taking part in the political process. However, my observations have been that the system is incredibly corrupt and the "party list" (kind of a MMP instituted to improve the system and used in the last election) was abused by political parties and I could hardly believe it made things even worse.
  36. Douglas Prest from Dundas, Canada writes: The bitter truth is that backbenchers have very little power in our current system. So exactly who they are is far less important than the party they vote with. This is reality. So I'm not concerned with that aspect. If you don't trust the party you're voting for to pick competent candidates, you shouldn't be voting for them. You don't vote for bureaucrats, staff aids or advisors even though they actuallly DO have considerable influence on government policy and implementation, so a few backbenchers that haven't been directly chosen by votors is no big deal.

    Far better to have a system whereby new parties such as the greens can collect the votes they deserve, and influence government via coalitions, is well worth it.

    Bottom line- proportional representation is more democratic, recognizing the reality of party politics.
  37. anais l from toronto, Canada writes: david sword - Let's say green party wins 10% of each riding. They deserve 10% of the seats, no? I mean that's what a democratic system would be, right?

    Under the current system, they get nothing.

    Under the new system, they'd get 10% of the votes, but since you can't take 10% of each Green MP running in each riding, the Green party will have to elect one of them. It only makes sense. Can you think of a better way?

    Vote MMP! http://www.voteformmp.ca
    Please help distribute campaign materials!
  38. anais l from toronto, Canada writes: In the current system, if you are not voting for the winning MP in your riding, your vote goes to waste. Literally, it is discarded. Under MMP the 39 seats will be assigned according to the percentage of votes won by parties that would ordinarely be discarded in the current system. For instance if Green party won 10% of each riding, under the current system they get nothing. It's impossible to get 10% of each MP to make up one single MP, and that's why the the Green party will get to choose an "unelected MP" - a whole single person, to represent them, in this new system. It's unlikely that very little parties will get any MP's under the MMP system, because none of them is going to get 3% of the vote! So saying that the gov't will be burdened by lots of tiny little parties is totally unrealistic. It's also a scare tactic to say that the MPs are not going to be accountable to the riding, because each of the 90 MP's are directly responsible to their riding, just the same as it was before (except there are 17 fewer ridings. That's all). The only reason that someone would oppose this system is if the current system works in their favour, AND they don't care one way or another to make the voting system more democratic - OR: if people don't understand the new system. Please, please be informed, and inform others. I started going around giving posters from http://www.voteformmp.ca/campaign_materials in the subways. Please help me by doing the same.
  39. vic w from Canada writes: This is a step in the right direction. As you can see there are definitely people with a certain political leaning that have plenty of vitriol for this because it will mean an end to the free ride that they've had. But I digress, this is the best thing for democracy in Ontario, and in Canada as well.
  40. K D from Toronto, Canada writes: People still get their votes wasted under MMP. If the party you vote for on the party list got 40% of the ridings, but they got 40% of the party vote, your vote doesn’t count at all. It makes it so some peoples&8217; votes count twice (if you vote for a winning party in the riding vote and then a minor party in the party vote), some people get a single vote if one of the above were true, and some people have zero say with their vote that counts if their chosen candidate in their riding loses and then their party they vote for in the party vote was a major party.
  41. fuzzy bare from Ontario, Canada writes: The proposed MPP would create a Legislative mix of Elected and Non-Elected MPPs. The appointed MPPs would be responsible to the political party that appointed them and the elected MPs responsible to the constituency that elected them. It is reasonable to expect that the appointed MPPs would be prime Candidates for Cabinet as party insiders. The decresed number of elected MPPs would be responsible for a larger riding and less accessible to the people they represent. MPP would compare to combing an un-elected (appointed) Senate and the elected MPs into one governing body.

    MPP would result in less democracy, give tenure to the un-elected MPPs who would serve at the party leaders pleasure and create a two-tier Legislature of appointed and elected members. Definetely a backward step from the present. The winners would be fringe parties by gaining seats and party leaders who could appoint " their" version of a Senate. The losers would be the electors.
  42. Darrin Duell from Winnipeg, Canada writes: I hope Ontario goes for proportional representation, and the rest of the country follows on a fedral level. Long run I expect MMP will dilute the power of the mainstream political parties by creating more grass roots parties. More political parties in my view will lead to forced concensus building, thus more even handed policies, better debates and LESS political grandstanding. Currently, myself and thousands more like me are not represented federally or provincialy by our political structure this maddening situation needs to be addressed.
  43. Jason Fournier from Acton, Canada writes: The one thing I asked the CA was to dump first-past-the-post. Granted, I am only one voice, but they have proceeded to recommend to keep FPTP and add a new layer of backroom politics with MPP's who are not elected, but selected by party leadership -- who of course are the best bets to be "yes-men." This is not a correct step for democracy. Want proof? Research which system political parties use to elect their own leaders. Any I've seen is a majority system. That's the system I believe we should move to, not MMP.

    "No" vote here . . .
  44. Jason Fournier from Acton, Canada writes: One other thought: MMP's only real change is to give "parties" more fairness in representation. The "party" system in Canada is just a mess of current aliances and backroom deals and has almost nothing to do with "likeminded" political policies. Witness many politicians changing parties faster than they change underwear.

    Here's a term to coin: "Politicking under a flag of convenience."
  45. Sean L. from Toronto, USSR, Canada writes: As usual, the globe has gooten the fact wrong.

    "39 MPPs would be , based on each party's share of the total party vote.

    You call this democracy? The current system already lacks any real accountability.

    You want real reform? How about giving the electors the power to RECALL MPPS? Just like BC, or California.

    Unlikely we will see this though, if we had this power we would have turfed Dalton 3.5 years ago.
  46. Sean L. from Toronto, USSR, Canada writes: Seems you can't use brackets in your post, so here is my corrected post:

    As usual, the globe has gotten the facts wrong.

    "39 MPPs would be APPOINTED BY PARTY HACKS, NOT ELECTED AS STATED BY THIS WRITTER based on each party's share of the total party vote.

    You call this democracy? The current system already lacks any real accountability.

    You want real reform? How about giving the electors the power to RECALL MPPS? Just like BC, or California.

    Unlikely we will see this though, if we had this power we would have turfed Dalton 3.5 years ago.
  47. Jeffrey Quilliam from Waterloo, Canada writes: As a university student, I am very much a proponent of changing the electoral system. Generally speaking, students are buried inside various ridings where their collective vote has no impact whatsoever. However, in terms of popular vote, we could indeed change the outcome of the vote. Unfortunately I don't think it likely that anything will change. Electoral reform will almost always be bad for the conservative party because they consistently depend on winning in more ridings than other parties rather than in the popular vote. They have two major left wing parties to compete with and so would usually at best be able to obtain a minority government if the system is changed. Sadly I don't envision 60% of voters in normally conservative ridings approving such a reform.
  48. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: K D you're so off base. With MMP even if your candidate vote was for naught, your party/list/MMP vote is counted along with all others for all parties. Whatever percentage your one vote is worth is the percentage the party you chose gains. An MMP vote is never discarded or buried under heaps of others in a popularity contest. Your vote works with MMP even if only nominally more than with FPP.
    Vote yes for MMP!
  49. Pete Kauchak from Cascadia, Canada writes: Vote NO to MMP. No MPPs chosen from a list by Party leaders - ONLY BY THE PEOPLE! The system we have now is flawed but making it LESS democratic to round out polling percentages doesn't fly with me. Go back to the drawing board.
  50. Brian Martin from Georgetown, Canada writes: Anais I writes, "In the current system, if you are not voting for the winning MP in your riding, your vote goes to waste."

    Uh, hello...your vote is your vote. Your argument is illogical and is tantamount to saying that the only way for your vote to count is to decide who you think is going to win and then vote for them so you're on the winning side!

    A vote is never wasted. It is simply a vote. You will either be with the largest number of voters or one of the smaller numbers. I haven't decided yet how I intend to vote on MMP, but at least make a credible argument for it if you want people to buy into it.
  51. anais l from toronto, Canada writes: Brian Martin from Georgetown, Canada writes - no honey.

    If you take everybody's vote, tabulate it by party, get the percentage of each party, and assign seats based on the percentage won, then the votes are not discarded.

    In our current voting system, it doesn't work like that. To give you an absurd example, which of course doesn't happen, but it illustrates my point.

    Say we only had two parties (make it easy for you), and in each riding, the result is always the same : 51% for Party A, and 49% for Party B. Only Party A MP's will win, so the gov't will be comprised of ONLY party A members. Party B members will be dismissed. This is First PAst The Polls for you. It's somewhat undemocratic.

    Your govt is now not democratically elected because if it was, it would have 51% party A members and 49% party B members.
  52. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: Brian Martin, I'll build on Anais comment.
    Though you're right in stating that a losing vote is not wasted since it's part of the facts of voting that someone may/will lose. Where it is wasted is when 60 to 75% of the voters can vote against a party's rep and yet that party can still claim the exclusive right to that seat because they got more than anyone else (i.e. 29% vs 27%) or their party squeaks in with a majority of the seats and claims an exclusive right to dictate the whims of the province (with 35% or 45% support).
    If we're not willing to require a majority before anyone claims victory, at least MMP allows us to help ensure that the final tally of MPPs more closely represents the people's votes. It's not perfect, but it is certainly an improvement.
    Vote yes for MMP!
  53. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: Anais, your two-party example is perfectly democratic becaus ethe majority wins. Only one person can sit in a seat, the government can only spend a dollar once (in theory), and we can only take one position on an issue (again in theory). So, once we know what the majority wants, that is what we should do.
    The problem with the current FPP is that we never hear from the majority and "majority" victories are supported by a few as 35% of the (active) electorate. Majority rules is akin to mob rules but it is the meaning of democracy. Our multi-party FPP system is not democratic and MMP will help it get closer to the true sense of the term.
    Get the facts, understand the question and vote yes for MMP!
  54. Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: For all of you whining about parties choosing members, rather than people; 1) most people vote for parties anyways. When I vote, I barely know anything about my MPP to begin with--I'd be lucky if I knew their name. 2) It's a safe bet that parties will want to acquaint the public with potential candidates BEFORE the election. You can imagine they'll be under a certain amount of pressure to do so.
  55. Jo Ingblat from Canada writes: Brett Tremblay, says "Majority rules is akin to mob rules but it is the meaning of democracy". Sorry, but that is not the meaning of democracy. Democracy means representational government through the consent of the governed. The governed here refers as much to the minority as anything. A government that, say, oppresses its minority populations--say, with the support of the majority--is not a democracy. eg. segregation in the US until the civil rights movement. Other examnples abound.
  56. Devil's Advocate from Wroclaw, Poland writes: What about this idea?

    Since most voters in our cantankerous democracies tend to vote against a party/party leader rather than in favour of someone, why should we not all vote twice, as follows:

    (1) for the candidate we prefer to be elected (as we do now);
    (2) for the candidate we least want to be elected.

    From each candidate's count in (1) would be subtracted the result in (2).

    Think of the rather obnoxious politicians with successful Parliamentary careers who would, under this system, never have made it to office -- receiving, whenever they ran, a lower net count than quieter and less divisive rivals.

    Seriously, though... it is commendable that Ontario is considering an alternative voting system. From the experience in other countries, it tends to be fraught with problems, not least the strange alliances between mainstream parties and groups whose fringe constituencies have put in Parliament. Still, perhaps everyone would feel they had a voice in elections.
  57. B T from Lost In Cyberspace, Canada writes: OK - so why is the list of 39 'appointed' MPP's different than an appointed senate? Because a poll wasn't taken?

    Let the parties adopt the MMP plan first at their riding and executive levels - we can watch the improvement - then vote for it then. I find it odd that this MMP system is good for us - but not for them?
  58. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: anais -- three parties makes an even better example. Say Party A gets 40% of the vote in each riding, Party B gets 35% of the vote in each riding, and Party C gets 25%. Under the current system, Party A gets 100% of the seats with 40% of the vote... With MPP, Party A gets 40%, Party B gets 35%, and Party C gets 25%.
  59. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: You can also easily see how the current system heavily favours very regional parties, by the way... I.e., half a million or a million united voters scattered across the country would currently get NO representation, but a different half a million all concentrated in one area, especially a rural area, they may get 5 or 10 seats. So again, you could have one party that got 40% of the votes in 60% of the ridings and no votes elsewhere, and they would be ruling with a majority even though they only had a quarter of the votes, and another party could have got 30% in every riding and could theoretically have no seats.
  60. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: 'OK - so why is the list of 39 'appointed' MPP's different than an appointed senate? Because a poll wasn't taken?'

    We don't get to choose the riding candidates as it is, for what it's worth. We just get to say yes or no. Which is exactly the same as what we'd get to say with a list published before the election -- we get to look at the list and say, yes or no. If you don't like the party list then don't vote for the party. Same as you would now if you normally prefer the liberals but are angry about a political appointment being parachuted into your normally 'safe' liberal riding.

    However, I strongly suspect most people would continue to vote exactly as they 80% do now anyway -- based on the party, mostly just considering the individual candidate in extreme situations (really hate or really love one).
  61. Brett Tremblay from Canada writes: Jo, when the people vote on competing positions, only one position can be the winner. The majority or mob, therefore wins out in a democracy in the true unadulterated sense of the word.

    We have taken great strides in the modern era to introduce other moral obligations on democracies (such as protection for minorities) but these are our cultural principles and not necessarily democratic (unless most people approve of them). In a two-party system, therefore, disregarding the candidates who got 49% of the vote in favour of those who got 51% is democratic.

    It may be wise policy to appease the concerns of the losers to try and improve your margin for a successive victory, but it is not required. A democracy only requires the majority's support -- but we digress since this is supposed to be about the merits of FPP vs MMP, which are both modified versions of democracy.

    MMP allows for erroneous "majority" victories but it tempers this by giving the minority a better chance of getting a seat at the table. MMP is more aligned with our modern concept of a socially responsible Western democracy than the hard-nosed mob-rule of a two party FPP. MMP lessens the chance of having a "majority" government weakly supported by only a minority of the voters than our current FPP -- even if it doesn't completely do away with the possiblity. Plus, once MPPs take their seats in the legislature, hard-nosed, mob-rule, democratic votes will still decide our fate.

    If any party wants a majority under an MMP system, they will need to get closer to, if not beyond, 50% support than they ever needed under FPP. MMP, therefore, has the greatest chance of representing the democratic views of the people more than FPP and should be supported by any and all advocates of democracy.

    Vote yes for MMP!

  62. Patrick Levell from Brantford, Canada writes: Jo Ingblat's comment addressing voters "whining about parties choosing members, instead of people" misses the whole problem with the proposed Mixed Member Proportional process. There will be 39 List Members who are not accountable to voters, at all. There is nothing stopping large corporations, with or without political action committees, to plant someone in a large party, and have them end up on that party's selection of List Members. Who do you think these List Members will be representing? The party. Where do you think the party's funding will be coming from? MMP is a BAD idea. The materials on the Citizens' Assembly web-site do not provide any information about who the List Members are accountable to, or how we can vote them out if they do a terrible job. The only thing that is for sure is that the political parties select the List Members. This is anti-democratic. If voters are casting ballots based on a party's reputation and not based on their knowledge of the candidate, then that is an issue for the voter. In a democratic society, it is the responsibility of all voters to remain educated on the issues of the day, and the people representing them. Voting for a party without knowledge of the candidate may be a common practice, but that does not make it a wise idea.
  63. John Purvis from Toronto, Canada writes: This referendum is unknown to most voters. I shudder to think that Ontarians will be voting in referendum they know nothing about. This will change the face of politics in Ontario. I am ashamed of our Provincial Government for doing a lousy job of explaining this referendum. The media has also been lacking on this issue.
  64. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: "There is nothing stopping large corporations, with or without political action committees, to plant someone in a large party, and have them end up on that party's selection of List Members."

    There is nothing stopping such a person from currently being parachuted into a riding that normally gets 80% support for that party. Except that if people knew, they would hopefully all vote for someone else. EXACTLY THE SAME as if there was a list that was published before the election. If you don't like the list, you don't put your vote there! But if you are one of the sad 20% in the normally 80%-liberal-for-the-past-50 years riding, you get to look at the lists and say 'hmmm... do I like this list better than the liberal candidate?' And if so, you vote for them and if enough others feel as you do you will actually get someone representing you in parliament!

    The 'appointed' MPs is pure scare-mongering. If the list is published ahead of time, just as the local candidate is published ahead of time, you have a choice in both cases.
  65. Gordon Murray from Canada writes: "...for example the Globe party..."?
    Very subtle self endorsement that was.
    It is nice to know that there might be dividends in reading the Globe and Mail.

    Maybe some day I'll wake to find myself somehow elected (not even an appointment without consult), a consequence of not reading a term in a special free Globe and Mail trial offer.
    What would the ceiling be on that office and/or post?
    I dunno.
  66. David Michaelson from Georgetown, Canada writes: MMP is the worst idea in a long time. Not that the current system isn't flawed. Currently MPP's hardly represent their constituents. They represent their parties and do whatever the party line is rather than what their constituents want. By having additional MPP's appointed by party leaders the problems will only be compounded.

    Stick with the current system. Or come up with a beter alternative.
  67. Jason Sterling from Waterloo, Canada writes: Seems to me that right now, you can verify who has won a riding by counting the votes for only that riding. Recounts are easy, and we also end up discovering when an suspicious amount of votes in that riding are thrown out as 'unreadable', etc.

    Will it not be much more difficult to determine who has run these list seats, and if there were any irregularities?
  68. Edwin Green from Trenton, Canada writes: would someone please tell me what is wrong when a federal or provinal election is held why referendums can not be put on the ballot would not cost much and it would be the will of the people and would take it out of the hands of mp and mpp
  69. K S from K W, Canada writes: With MMP, who -- besides party insiders -- will win, and who will lose?

    The NDP are supporting MMP because they imagine themselves as perpetual kingmakers in perpetual minority governments. I'll bet they're wrong: within two elections the party will be gone. As soon as the various lefty special interests think they have any hope of being elected directly, they'll split into separate parties of environmentalists, students, teachers, CUPE, CAW, and the 57 varieties of Marxist/Leninist/Trotskyist/Maoist/etc. -- I'm sure I've left out a few dozen.

    The Conservatives will lose a little less; a few more paleocons and libertarians will vote for their respective parties, but I suspect the majority will have learned something from their federal counterparts.

    The Liberals will be the big winners: nobody will break away on principle, because they don't have any.
  70. casey miller from oddawa, Canada writes: The list should be all of the cronies the party wants to "lead" to govt - the list should include the proposed premier, speaker, and every cabinet position. This solves three problems, one it solves is that everyone gets to vote for their favorite leader, secondly it solves that the people on the list are scrutinized and thirdly it allows for riding elected MPP to focus on riding issues. And there must be a law that an MP elected via list CANNOT cross the floor to another party.
  71. Aamir Hussain from North York, Canada writes: In our current system a party can get 38% or less of the support of Canadians and still win a majority.

    That's what happened with Jean Cretien in one of his 'majority' elections and also what happened with Bob Rae. How is this representative? This doesn't happen in MMP

    In our current system a party can get FEWER votes than another party and still win a MAJORITY. That's what happened in 1998 Quebec and 2006 New Brunswick. How is that representative? This doesn't happen in MMP.

    In our current system if you live in Dalton McGuinty's riding or Howard Hampton's riding then voting is a complete waste of time. In MMP every vote matters in determining what happens in government.

    See WWW.wastedvotes.CA to see just how many voters vote and have no impact at all on the parliament that governs them.

    And please take a look at what list members actually do in places like Germany and New Zealand. They actually open up constituency offices and COMPLETE TO PROVIDE SERVICE. That would be a great thing for ontario.
  72. mike h from Edmonton, Canada writes: There are some comments above that MMP has been a sucess in New Zealand. As a New Zealander who immigrated to Canada, after MMP had been implemented, I can assure you that the Canadian FPP system is vastly superior.

    Given the choice (which New Zealanders have asked for), most New Zealanders would without question return to FPP. All MMP has done is bring in gridlock, such that the minor parties decide the outcome of elections.

    When we voted for MMP, it was because we were disolusioned with politics, and the political system. What we learned, is that it is not the system that is the problem, it is the politicians. Tinkering with the system will only make things worse.
  73. margaret richardson from Canada writes: The 39 list members in the proposed MMP are not elected by the voters, they are appointed by the political party. They do not represent any constitutency. They represent the Province of Ontario and can come from any part of the province. There is actually a decrease in the number of democratically elected representatives from 107 to 90. Unless each political party publishes the names of its 39 list members prior to October 10, 2007 the elector will go to the polls without knowing who the parties have selected to represent them in Queen's Park.
  74. Les Canard from Toronto, Canada writes: For all the people saying that they vote for 'candidate' and not for 'party' under the current system, that's great.But, I have never voted for candidate and always voted for party. So the argument that MMP is unrepresentative is garbage.

    As well for everyone harping on about how the list candidates will be selected - do you not think that the candidate who is nominated under the current system in your riding isn't at all influenced by the party crony system? What about parachute candidates? And the fact that nominated candidates seem to be consistently old, male and white - the very def'n of the backroom boys.
  75. Leland McInnes from Ottawa, Canada writes: I'll add my voice to that of Steve Withers: I too lived in New Zealand as they made the change from FPP to MMP, and saw all the same bugbears trotted out. They are just that: bugbears -- phantom threats that never materialised. I was strongly against MMP when it was voted in in New Zealand. Now, having seen it in action, I could not be a bigger supporter.

    I think it's worth noting that those who have actually lived and voted under such a system are strong supporters of it, while those that are most ardently against it have little or no real experience of it.
  76. B H from Toronto, Canada writes: "Unless each political party publishes the names of its 39 list members prior to October 10, 2007 the elector will go to the polls without knowing who the parties have selected to represent them in Queen's Park."

    MMP is not being considered for THIS election, but for the next one! You're right, what you're suggesting would be absolutely insane!! Yes, each party would be required to submit their list to Elections Canada in plenty of time for it to be published before an election.

    You can download the final report here:
    http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/default.asp

    The final report is about 30 pages but if you don't feel like reading that it's summarized at the beginning anyway.
  77. Leland McInnes from Ottawa, Canada writes: Casy Miller makes a couple of good points. The fir