Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Elections Ontario criticized for dropping referendum ball

STEVE RENNIE

THE CANADIAN PRESS

Latest comment posted at 10:08 PM EDT 10/10/07

Reform advocates say confused voters are not getting enough direction ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. s c from Canada writes: There was not enough information circulated about the referendum. But it shouldn't make a difference. I consider myself somewhat for a more proportionate voting system but the more I have researched MMP, the less I like it.

    It increases the number of politicians by too many and it can result in MPs who did not have to face the voters. Neither of these are good for Ontario taxpayers.

    Keep the number of MPs the same - say 75 elected 32 proportionate. Keep one vote for your MP in your riding (no separate vote for a party). The 32 that are appointed to parties based on the percentage of popular vote The individual MPs appointed are based on the MPs who won the higher percentage of their individual ridings but did not win the riding (no party lists or manipulation of who gets appointed). Minimum popular vote of 5% to get any seat.
  2. A Smith from Canada writes: Minimum popular vote should be no less than 10%. I can't vote for this proposal at a meager 3%. Greens will no doubt be able to get 10%. The party lists should contain the biggest losers in the ridings. The party lists should also be regional representative. MMP forgets the human factor--it assumes that a party list appointed politician from Toronto will work hard for the good of the entire province. Their allegiance is somewhere, and it won't be to north Ontario, or SW Ontario or eastern Ontario. I can't trust any politician to work for the good of their province...they might, but there's no guarantee. So if the NDP need 8 top-ups, 2 should come from North Ontario, 2 from SW Ontario, 2 from Eastern Ontario and 2 from the GTA. That's fair. The current proposal is not fair. All the party list members could come from the GTA... nothing against the GTA, but we need to ensure all people are represented fairly. This proposal is not yet ready from prime-time.
  3. Still Time for Your Action Read Below from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Given that Leaders will participate in Tue 9 Globeandmail.com on-line "Q&A" Debate,

    ad hoc organized concerned Ontarians requested from Tory, Hampton, Frank de Jong to support Request :

    -- Orig. Message ---

    Subject:
    "Request for Independent (from Lib Gov.) Commission for and/or Inquiry of Ont '07 Elections Gross Incidents and Irregularities"

    Sun, 07 Oct 2007

    To: PCP_list, NDP_list, GPO_list

    In support of/follow up on one opposition leader's lash at the "Media" last week, which is absolutely needed and even more forceful was in order,

    we, ad hoc organized concerned Ontarians, are requesting that three opposition parties' Leaders,

    support the following, during their Tue. Oct 9 G&M on-line "Q & A" debate and/or elsewhere during last 3 days:

    "Request for Independent (from Lib Gov.) Commission for and/or Inquiry of Ont '07 Elections Gross Incidents and Irregularities"

    Claims of Ont '07 Elections Gross Incidents and Irregularities can be grouped into two areas:

    A) Media

    B) Making Mockery of Referendum
    ....
    (see the rest,an dmore deatils, at
    http://www.mediamax.com/ontarioissues,
    file
    "20071008 Requests for Independent Commission Inquiry Ont 07 Elections Gross Incidents and Irregularitie.pdf" )
    ....
    --------------


    HELP/SUPPORT Req. by contacting (in alpha-order):

    GPO 416-977-7476, 1.888.647.3366, gpoadmin@magma.ca, 416-977-7476, jbrownridge@gpo.ca, 647-444-6941, ahoedeman@gpo.ca, 613-236-7772

    NDP 416.591.8637, 1.866.390.6637, info@on.ndp.ca, howardhampton@ontariondp.com

    PCP 1.800.903.6453, info@leadershipmatters.ca, 416-444-1610, donvalleywest@johntory.ca

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071004.wontelxndebate1009
  4. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Still Time-

    Why are you so upset, even the article points out elections Ontario did exactly what was required of it!

    There's no need to waste taxpayer money on a pointless commission, I bet the 3 million eligible voters who don't know about the referendum are the same 3 million who don't vote anyway.

    If you think elections Ontario was neutral & so unbiased, you should listen to the vote yes radio ads. They tell you nothing of the downsides to MMP & make it sound like your only choice is to vote for the proposed MMP system.

    They have two identical websites, voteformmp.ca & voteyesformmp.ca, their FAQ is filled with half truths about the MMP system that's it's laughable! At least the nommp.ca websites FAQ gives you both sides of the issue & tries to left you decide for yourself from the facts.
  5. Barry Johnstone from Vineland Station, Canada writes: Actually I thought Elections Ontario did just fine. I understand MMP perfectly. Among other things, I attended a presentation by a representative from Elections Ontario and I felt that her presentation was very clear and, for the most part, unbiased. If anything, she bent over backwards to support MMP. Having said that, I am completely against the idea for many reasons that are too long to go into here. I only hope we (taxpayers) didn't actually pay the Citizens Committee for their work if this is the best they could come up with.
  6. A Smith from Canada writes: Remember when Stockwell Day did that petition thing, and Rick Mercer decided to start a petition to force Stockwell to change his name to Doris? I think we should put together a similar thing for MMP. Start a party for the next election and force one of the MMP supporters to change their name by law. We only need 3% of the vote in Ontario! Maybe they will realize how ridiculous 3% is.
  7. Steve C from Canada writes: So the pro-MMP side wants Elections Ontario - the NEUTRAL electoral body that Ontarians trust to be absolutely unbiased and fair - to be more partisan?!

    This is what the proponents of MMP are. A bunch of anti-democratic, whinging idiots who want change for the sake of change. Not good change. Not even half-decent change.

    Before embarking on some nonsense crusade to fix the system - remember that no system is perfect. Each has its problems. So why waste the time and money on fixing something that isn't broken? If something is wrong, then why is Canada among the best countries to live in? Why is Canada near one of the best countries when it comes to corruption.

    Nothing is wrong except our voting patterns show that participation has decreased. MMP isn't going to change this. Voter apathy starts with the voter, not the system.
  8. Freddie Fender from Canada writes: This whole issue of MMP smacks of being anti-democratic and is based on minorities ruling not the majority - the antithesis of what democracy is supposed to be about. This attempt by a small unknown and unelected cabal to hijack democracy in Ontario is quite disturbing as is the report that political activists in the US are providing financial support to the pro-MMP camp. I have noticed that the pro-MMP activists have been busy with a letter-to-the-editor campaign in various newspapers the past few days. We do not need more politicians in Ontario, particularly those that are unelected by the people and we certainly don't need a political environment where the backroom political bosses will be calling the shots. MMP should be flushed down the proverbial toilet where it belongs. VOTE NO TO MMP! A VOTE AGAINST MMP IS A VOTE FOR DEMOCRACY!
  9. Dan in ontario from Canada writes: If you are against MMP, then just talk to others about it.

    People drink the kool-aid that states their is more popular vote based politicians.

    But if you talk to them and say:

    1) They will only answer to the party that puts them in power
    2) You will pay over $2.4M in extra expenses for unaccountable representation
    3) The riding size will increase and the number of accountable politicians will decrease
    4) While it has worked well in some countries, it has failed on occassion in others

    ... you will get them to change their mind. Polls already (from my limited reading) show majority support for the NO option, and if you talk to people around you, you will add to that number.

    Heck, I just converted 4 people that were going to support it over pumpkin pie. I was just way too easy.

    After this dies, the pro-MMP are going to go ape-sh**. Just wait for what these spoiled brats are gonna scream about.
  10. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: 1) With an issue of this complexity, Elections Canada should have held town hall discussions in communities across the province throughout the summer.

    2) In their own interests, the Liberals have set the bar so high that the referendum can only fail ("more than 60 per cent of voters across Ontario and at least 50 per cent of the voters in 64 of the 107 ridings would have to approve it first") -- higher even than a recent referendum which would have divided Canada.

    3) Result: this sham of a referendum has cost Ontario taxpayers a bundle, and deflected real issues from debate.
  11. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Dan in ontario from Canada writes: "1) They will only answer to the party that puts them in power"

    Your argument fails on your very first point. List candidates would be as accountable as local candidates.

    Your listeners likely agreed with you in order to halt your rant.
  12. A Smith from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: "Your argument fails on your very first point. List candidates would be as accountable as local candidates."

    Yeah, keep believing that. Why should they be accountable when they can lose in their riding by getting only 10% of the vote, then be appointed to the legisltature by their party list which was "democratically" created. Yeah, right. With FPTP, the votes always have the final say. In FPTP, what does it matter how the candidates are chosen, so long as the voters make the final decision, that's all that matters.
  13. Sasha Furlani from Toronto, Canada writes: Nothing like a 150 year old voting system! It's not like anything else has changed in the last century and a half, right?

    Why are people so afraid of change? The fact that the main parties don't support this should be reason enought to vote for it. It clearly threatens them because it would mean an end to the old style of politics we currently wallow in.

    All this doom & gloom written here is paranoid, reactionary old world politics. Let's hear these examples where MMP has failed, because last time I checked, European nations who have switched are thriving.

    I bet evryone against it posting here works for the Liberals & Conservatives. They're the only ones who stand to lose anything...
  14. Dan in ontario from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell, your counter point is useless.

    Politicians are ONLY EVER accountable to those that put them in power. From G.W.Bush to the unelected politicians, if you REALLY have had so much YES kool-aid as to not believe that, you are delusional. List candidates CANNOT be held accountable as local candidates - YOU HAVE NO SAY ON WHO THEY PICK.

    These people are ONLY accountable to the party that puts them there. The ONLY way they can get there is on nomination of the party right?

    If that is the case and a party wants to "whip" a hard vote, which way do you think they will vote? They will vote with the party, no matter what.

    Why? Because they are the ones that put them in power, and for the fact that all they have to say is "you voted in the party, I am just doing what the party told me to do"

    And no, my supposed rant was nothing like that. Once you de-mystify the proposal, tell them there are less voted politicians, 39 unaccountable (to the voters) politicians, and for this it will cost us millions, people very quickly go "your right" and change their mind.

    It really is very easy ... no ranting required
  15. Dan in ontario from Canada writes: Sasha, change for the sake of change does not mean it is good.

    Revamp the ridings, do something else, but there is no way I (along with many others according to polls) am going to support a system that introduces unaccountable democracy at the sake of accountable democracy

    Make a change - but make it a sensible one.
  16. Sasha Furlani from Toronto, Canada writes: Change for the sake of change is good because the current system doesn't work. The only constant in life is change, so embrace it. It's not like were voting to appoint a supreme chancellor for goodness sakes. It's a slight adjustment to the current system!

    Complaining that the appointed members will simply vote along party lines is ridiculous because that describes the current system, so what is the difference? At least with MMP there is a chance that other parties will gain seats...it's not a given that Liberals and Conservatives will even fillout those seats, and at least people will have options without throwing away their votes in ridings dominated by a single party.

    Honestly, it's sad that this won't pass because this may be the last election I vote in and I'm not even an apathetic citizen. But the way it's currently laid out allows for no real choice, and we're stuck with a two party province. Explain to me why I should bother?
  17. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Sasha Furlani-

    The current system works, each member of the Legislature is elected by the people! This MMP system takes a good part of that Democratic process & passes it off to the parties & that's not good!

    Your correct though, it's not yet exactly clear how those 39 lists seats would be divided up. If a party receives 40% of the vote do they get 40% of the list seats. Or does a party that wins 45 seats but only received 40% of the vote, get no list seats because they've won more seats than their popular vote amount. This aspect has never been made 100% clear, partly because I don't think the Citizens Assemble even knows for sure. They never even explain what happens to the list seats at the next election? again because they never even thought that far ahead.

    Don't be discouraged if MMP fails, it was a first attempt at change, the flaws have been exposed. MMP isn't what's need to fix our electoral problem, it was chosen on the basis that others were using & not because it solved our particular problems.

    It's time to look at electoral models that fit our goals & needs, the first thing we need to do is highlight the main problem with our current system & go from there.

    What are the top two problems?
    1/Politicians win ridings without a majority vote.
    2/Poor voter turnout.

    Before we jump back on a PR type system there's something that needs to be considered first. There were almost 3.5 million people who didn't vote in the 2003 Ontario election, you can't have a PR system with only 55% to 60% of registered voters actually voting.
  18. Dan in ontario from Canada writes: Sasha, change for the sake of change is irresponsible.

    While MMP may have problems, FPTP has it's own issues too, but MMP does not seem to (according to polls) be a viable replacement.

    Should there be some change? Sure - exploring alternatives is a great idea, but a small fraction special interest group has not come up with a real solution yet.

    I have no real sympathy for other-than-mainstream parties out there, for a few reasons:

    1) I do not have to worry about wackos running my country (well, more wacko then the ones we have now)
    2) That parties that participate in parliment know how one runs
    3) I do not have to, thru taxes, financially support them.

    The Greens will eventually get a member in ... then 2, then 4, yada yada. It takes time and development - on their part, which they are doing a good job of doing.

    To implement a system that makes it easier and more sympathetic because some group feels like they are up against it is not a viable reason for me. It is also insulting to a party like the Greens that are fighting hard to get that first milestone achieved.
  19. Loren King from Waterloo, Canada writes: Ah, still more silliness from MMP critics. One last round of corrections:

    The complaint about this being forced on voters by an elite cabal is ridiculous: the assembly was made up of a representative sample of Ontario citizen. The information they reviewed is all public, the process transparent.

    There is little incentive for parties to use the list system to appoint inept hacks and complacent elites. Any party that attempts such foolishness will be rudely awakened at the polls.

    The worry about somewhat larger ridings ignores the degree to which Ontario citizens already vote for parties rather than candidates. Even so, MMP gives voters a more meaningful choice, for candidates and parties.

    Territorial representation is a good thing, but some important consituencies aren't conveniently packaged into geographic ridings (think small family farms, or working mothers, or the disabled). The list system provides a way for parties to compete for these nongeographic constituencies.

    The worry about chronic paralysis and persistent instability has not been borne out in Germany and NZ, which use MMP. Nor are these countries plagued by unaccountable list candidates feeding at the trough of party patronage.

    Ontarians already vote on the basis of parties, but MMP shakes things up for the major parties, by giving voice and real opportunities to smaller parties. While some voters might feel that particular coalition governments betray their values and so do not represent them, the fact that MMP forces parties to find reasonable compromises is a deeper sort of democratic representation: the fair representation of ideas and arguments.

    The complaint about greater costs is weird, considering the long-term costs of different majority governments (elected by a minority in most ridings) lurching expensively from one mandate to another every four years or so.

    Seen in this light, MMP is a bargain for voters.
  20. T Fung from Canada writes: I'm probably in the minority, but I thought Elections Ontario did a reasonable job at informing the public. There was an information pamphlet that was included with everyone's voting card. They mailed out additional pamphlets to everyone's mailbox. They even had full-page newspaper ads. You just needed a minute or two to read them.

    Sorry to be blunt, but the reason why so many people complain they didn't hear about the referendum is because they're lazy. Like so many Canadians out there, they don't bother to take the time or the effort to do their homework. They expect to be spoon fed. That's probably why there's such a low turnout in these elections. That's very sad, considering Canada is supposed to be a mature and vibrant democracy.

    It's so sad to see the right to vote taken so lightly by Canadians. It's a privilege and responsibility that is vital to democracy. Weren't there people DYING last week in Burma so they could fight for the same rights? Aren't there scores of people around the world that are jailed and tortured because they want the same rights as we do? Yet, Canadians don't even bother taking the time to understand the issues. Perhaps Canadians don't deserve democracy. It should be saved for people who actually care and make an effort.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top