Liberals For Electoral Reform

First-Past-The-Post is like a bad waiter who brings food you didn't order...

2009-05-10T11:56:00.004-04:00

British Columbians go to the polls on Tuesday to elect both a new government (using our archaic, vote-distorting Winner-Take-All/First-Past-The-Post system) and to vote in a crucial referendum on electoral reform.

A recent poll shows the NDP trailing the Liberals by 2 per cent (42% to 44% respectively). Under a sane voting system, that would translate into a narrow Liberal minority government. But under our crazy, existing system, that could very well translate into a NDP majority government, like it did in 1996 when a three-point gap in the vote handed the second-place party all the power for five more years!

B.C. Liberals should remember how they felt the morning after the 1996 election, when they had been shut out of power by our voting system despite winning the vote. That scenario could repeat itself on Tuesday and the only way to ensure it never happens again after this election is to vote for BC-STV. Enough of our crazy, vote-distorting First-Past-The-Post system! The time to fix it is now and hopefully as many Liberal voters in B.C. as possible will agree.

To those who are fighting to keep our archaic system because it lines their pockets and hands their parties all the power with only a minority of votes, I say 'Shame on You!' You're the same types of people who would've opposed extending the franchise to Aboriginals, to women, to non-land owners, etc. in the past because such a change would've undermined your hold on power. And today, you're still up to your nasty little tricks. I hope voters ignore your distortions and vote for change.

To those voters still making up your minds, let me repeat this scenario I wrote a couple weeks ago:

Can you imagine if you placed an order at a drive thru for two hamburgers, two fries and two bottles of water - and instead when you got to the window, they handed you four fish pies and some asparagus? Or if you sat down at a restaurant and ordered some sushi and green tea, and instead they brought you a piece of pork loin, potatoes and coffee and forced you to pay for it? Would you be annoyed? Of course you would.

Yet this is how our current voting system works. The voters head to the polls and vote one way - and the First-Past-The-Post system spits out something they didn't ask for. If BC-STV passes, this will never happen again at the provincial level in British Columbia.

If you like getting what you didn't order, vote to keep our archaic, vote-distorting system. If you actually want to get what you ask for in elections, vote for the Single Transferable Vote.

Former B.C. Liberal cabinet minister Christy Clark endorses BC-STV

2009-05-08T09:04:00.002-04:00

Have a look at this great video by a great woman, Christy Clark, now out of politics, who says she opposed STV in 2005 because she knew it would be bad for politicians and backroom types. Now out of politics, she's seen the light. VOTE BC-STV for fair election results that make sense and reflect the society that voted.

B.C. POLL: Liberals 42%, NDP 39% - Is that a mandate for a NDP Majority? First Past The Post says YES...

2009-04-29T15:23:00.006-04:00

In the 1996 British Columbia election, the B.C. Liberals won 42% of the vote while the NDP won 39%. Unbelievably, that translated into a NDP majority with 39 out of 75 seats (the Liberals won 33 in that election, 2 Reform incumbents held their seats, as did one Progressive Democratic Alliance incumbent.) The NDP went on to govern for five more years.

With the Liberals and NDP at exactly the same levels of support in a poll released last night, it begs the question: what happens if another three-point lead translates, once again, into a defeat for the Liberals in the 2009 election?

If you lose the vote by 3 per cent, does that represent a mandate to govern with a majority? Under Winner-Take-All/First-Past-The-Post, the answer is an unfortunate YES. This is the problem with our existing system: it distorts voters' wishes.

Politicians and sleazy backroom types (like those running the NO-STV campaign in B.C.) like the current system because it hands them power even when they clearly don't deserve it (see the former NDP staffers like David Schreck who benefited from the crazy 1996 First-Past-The-Post result for examples.)

All B.C. Liberals should remember well what inspired them to explore the issue of electoral reform in the first place: the great need for a fairer system. Just in case First-Past-The-Post produces yet another crazy result this year, perhaps it's best to vote YES to BC-STV so that, in the future, the party with the most votes actually wins the election. Food for thought.

New TV ad for BC-STV! "Fair Results"

2009-04-27T20:39:00.003-04:00

Check out this great new ad put out by the Yes to BC-STV side in the B.C. referendum to be held May 12th.

First-Past-The-Post is clearly a broken voting system that doesn't deliver representative legislatures in Canada. BC-STV represents the best chance for electoral reform in Canada. For more information, go to stv.ca. And congrats to the Yes side for this great ad.

Federal Liberals propose STV for electing national leaders: If it's good enough for Liberals, why isn't it good enough for Canadians?

2009-04-27T13:13:00.007-04:00

At our national convention in Vancouver this week, federal Liberals will consider a proposal for changing how we elect national leaders.

"The one-member-one-vote proposal for choosing a party leader was narrowly defeated at the 2006 Liberal convention in Montreal, in 2006, however it's expected that it will be adopted this time around. The national executive has put forward a proposal whereby each riding association will be assigned 100 points and individual party members will rank their choices for leader on a single transferable ballot.

In each round of vote-counting, the candidate with the lowest number of points, which will be allotted according to percentage so that urban ridings with more members don't get more influence than rural ridings, will be dropped from the ballot and everyone who put that person as their first choice will then have their second choice counted. The vote-counting process continues until one candidate gets a majority of points nationally, and then that person becomes the leader."

To read more about this week's convention, please click here.

It's coincidental that Liberals will be considering this proposal in British Columbia, where a referendum on adopting the Single Transferable Vote in provincial elections is also being considered by voters.

There have been many Liberals who continue to oppose any opportunity to dump our antiquated, 'Winner-Take-All/First-Past-The-Post' voting system in Canada. Many of them will be present at the Vancouver convention, without a doubt. One wonders how these Liberals will vote on the proposal at the convention.

I have a few questions: If the Single Transferable Vote is good enough for electing a national leader and Prime Minister, why wouldn't it be good enough for electing our legislatures? How can those Liberals who are dead set against any type of proportional voting system for Canadians (because such systems might undermine their quest for power) then turn around and support a democratic provision like the one being proposed at the Vancouver convention?

Why don't those same Liberals who support First-Past-The-Post also support such a system for electing national leaders too? Or indeed local candidates? Wouldn't that be more efficient? Whoever leads on the first ballot would automatically win the leadership. Who needs majority support when you can grab power for yourself by simply winning the most votes? If you support First-Past-The-Post for all Canadians, why don't you also support it for Liberals?

Of course I ask these questions a bit in jest. I favour proportional voting that actually reflects how people voted. I also think 50 per cent plus one constitutes a majority, unlike others who favour First-Past-The-Post.

If one doesn't have majority support from voters, how can one be seen as legitimate? The truth is they can't. This principle has long been adopted by Liberals when it comes to electing leaders or candidates. Sadly, not as many Liberals have embraced the same principle when it comes to all voters electing legislatures. For them, a system designed to award complete power based simply on a plurality of support is good enough.

Sometimes even coming in second in the vote is enough to win total power under First-Past-The-Post. How can Liberals and others who support our existing voting system in Canada call themselves democrats? I'm truly not sure. If your lust for power and desire for a quick, convenient result trumps your support for fair, democratic representation, what does that say about you as a person? One has to wonder.

In any event, I truly hope the single transferable vote proposal of efficiently and fairly electing national leaders is passed this weekend in Vancouver.

Poll: 65 per cent of British Columbians support BC-STV

2009-04-15T19:04:00.005-04:00

It appears that the pro-change side has a decisive lead with less than a month to go before British Columbians vote in the May 12th referendum/election. According to Angus Reid, 65% of B.C. voters intend to support BC-STV next month. Among those between ages 18 to 34, support runs at 74 per cent. The poll was conducted in March.

May's referendum marks the second time in four years in which British Columbians have the opportunity to fix their broken electoral system. In 2005, 58% of them voted for change, but thanks to the government-imposed 60% threshold, change was thwarted.

It's strange that 39% is enough to elect a majority government in B.C., while 59.9% isn't enough to change the electoral system. Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949 with just over 50% of the vote. Why do we continue to quietly accept this artificial 60% barrier imposed by partisan politicians who are clearly doing everything they can to keep the current system?

Regardless, if the Angus Reid poll is to be believed, supporters of fair voting may soon witness their first taste of major victory in Canada. No doubt, those on the No side who believe it's right for one party with fewer votes than the opposition to form a majority government, and those who love the idea of forcing a narrow agenda supported by a minority of voters down the throats of the majority, will find these poll numbers discouraging. If BC-STV is passed, backroom hacks and politicians who used to rely on safe seats and a divided opposition to slip through and win power and unchecked control for four or five years will have to re-think their game plan. Thus far, the No side in B.C. has seen fit to paint STV as too confusing for average voters. They're pointing to allegedly complicated counting processes as reason enough to keep our current system.

Of course, few dare to mention that the formula used to translate votes into seats under our existing system is wildly unpredictable at best. 40% of the vote could translate into both a large majority government, or see a party almost wiped out completely under our existing system.

Can you imagine if you placed an order at a drive thru for two hamburgers, two fries and two bottles of water - and instead when you got to the window, they handed you four fish pies and some asparagus? Would you be annoyed? Of course you would. Yet this is how our current voting system works. The voters head to the polls and vote one way - and the First-Past-The-Post system spits out something they didn't ask for. If BC-STV passes next month, this will never happen again at the provincial level in British Columbia.

I had always hoped with enough education that Canadians would see for themselves how terrible our existing First-Past-The-Post/Winner-Take-All system truly is - and that changing it as soon as possible must be a priority. I've contributed to the Yes to BC-STV campaign and I strongly encourage all supporters of change to do the same in order to keep this substantial lead intact for the May 12th vote. British Columbians have an opportunity to lead the nation next month. I'm hopeful they'll take it.

New Facebook group Liberals for BC-STV launched...

2009-04-12T11:28:00.005-04:00

Liberal Party supporters in favour of the British Columbia - Single Transferable Vote option before B.C. voters in a referendum on May 12th (being held in conjunction with the provincial election) have launched a new Facebook group called 'Liberals for BC-STV.' Click here to link to the new group and join!

This site officially endorses BC-STV as the best option for improving democracy in our western-most province, which has seen its share of bizarre, distorted election results courtesy of our existing 'Winner-Take-All/First-Past-The-Post' system. In 1996, the NDP won a MAJORITY government in B.C. despite trailing the B.C. Liberals by three per cent in the popular vote. Then in 2001, the B.C. Liberals won 97% of the seats with just 58% of the vote. In the last election, 46% support for the B.C. Liberals handed that party 58% of the seats and 100% of the power.

So British Columbians are well aware of the flaws of our existing voting system! That's why that province's Citizens' Assembly recommended a change to BC-STV. For more on the great improvements that BC-STV will bring, click here.

BC REFERENDUM IS CRITICAL FOR ALL CANADIANS

2009-04-10T13:21:00.002-04:00

A message from Roy Ball, British Columbians for BC-STV:

We need your help in British Columbia.

This week marks the start of the election campaign here and included on the ballot is a critical referendum on electoral reform. It's a rare second chance that we're getting because we got nearly 58% support in a referendum four years ago. However, the threshold was, and is, set at an unprecedented 60% of the vote. Your support could help push us over the top.

In Canada there is no place closer than BC to making change happen. If we win this referendum the momentum of electoral reform could sweep across the country. British Columbia would be the biggest jurisdiction in North America to adopt change and voters everywhere could see fair voting in action.

You can help make history by making a donation at http://www.stv.ca/support.

It won't be easy. Electoral reform has recently been defeated in PEI and Ontario. In each case the NO side launched misleading, negative, scare tactic campaigns. Here, their pollsters have already started testing fear-based messaging on our voters. Our opponents believe that if they can scare off voters here then electoral reform in Canada will stopped.

This time we will be better prepared for their attacks. Already we've got the momentum on the internet and have had thousands of people sign up at stv.ca to make a contribution or volunteer their time.

We're better organized. In 2005 BC referendum campaign, we had one part-time staff, very little organization across the province and around 200 active supporters. Today we have five full-time staff and thousands of active supporters throughout the province. We're also way ahead of our fundraising from last time and have internal polling showing momentum is on our side. Currently, we are polling slightly above the 60% threshold we need to win. BUT – the other side also has much more funding than in 2005 – we haven’t faced the half a million dollar negative ad campaign our opponents are planning for the end of the campaign. That's why we need your help today.

This race is extremely tight, so anything you can raise will significantly increase our chances to win. Please consider making a significant donation today - the timing has never been so critical.

Make a donation at http://www.stv.ca/support

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Best Regards,
Roy Ball
British Columbians for BC-STV
rballgp@imagotrackers.com

Please Support the BC Citizen's Assembly's Recommendation on Electoral Reform
On May 12 ... Vote for Better Democracy, Vote for BC-STV
http://www.stv.ca

Danielle Takacs' Case for Electoral Reform; another NDP MP from BC endorses STV...

2009-02-26T15:13:00.004-05:00

Liberal blogger Danielle Takacs posted The Case for Electoral Reform from a Liberal Perspective today on her popular blog. The well-written post lays out four main reasons why Liberals should support electoral reform in Canada. Check them out here.

Out in B.C., where voters will again cast judgment this May on the First-Past-the-Post system which handed the NDP under Glen Clark a majority government in 1996 despite trailing in the vote by three percent, the battle continues.

NDP backroom pundit David Schreck (who used to work for Glen Clark) has been campaigning vigorously against the new BC-STV system, distorting issues in favour of our broken voting system. But it seems even Schreck's fellow New Democrats aren't listening to him, as another NDP MP from B.C. is now publicly in favour of change.

************UPDATE*************

Danielle Takacs writes further today on how Electoral Reform Is a National Unity Issue.

************UPDATE #2************

Takacs posts again about The Daunting Prospects of a Liberal Majority Under First Past the Post: Why Liberals Should Prefer a Preferential Balloting System While I do agree that Instant-Run-Off voting is better than our current Single-Member Plurality system, I don't view it as a major improvement over it. If we are to embark on real electoral reform, we should move to a good form of proportional representation that still ensures that voters have the final say over who's elected, not political parties. For me, that system is STV.

Victoria's NDP MP endorses BC-STV; many B.C. Dippers tend to like 'Winner-Take-All'

2009-02-19T15:02:00.005-05:00

At least one of the federal NDP's Members of Parliament from British Columbia is endorsing change in this May's provincial referendum on electoral reform.

“I will support STV,” said Denise Savoie, the MP for Victoria. It's a personal position, she said, not that of her party. “I'm not sure that's the best alternative, but it's better than the system we have.”

The British Columbia NDP will not take an official position on STV, but some of the strongest voices against the change in that province include those of former party strategist David Schreck and Bill Tieleman, who was an adviser to former Premier Glen Clark.

This makes sense perhaps as the B.C. NDP won a majority government in 1996 despite trailing the Liberals by three percent of the vote. That 1996 election result remains one of Winner-Take-All's biggest foul-ups, handing re-election to Glen Clark despite trailing considerably in the popular vote. Clark went on to bury what was left of that province's fragile economy, stretching out what should've been five years of NDP rule into ten.

It's interesting to note that most New Democrats in places like Ontario, plus federal NDP'ers like Savoie and federal leader Jack Layton, favour switching to a proportional representation voting system. However, in provinces where the New Democrats traditionally vie for power (like B.C., Saskatchewan and Manitoba), most of that progressive, pro-change idealism seems to go out the window. The Saskatchewan NDP only proposed possible electoral reform after enjoying government for 16 years, and that party's defeat in 2007 ensured the issue would continue to go ignored for the foreseeable future in that province. Shame.

No doubt, many Liberal, Tory and other party supporters in areas where those parties traditionally win false majorities under Winner-Take-All also tend to oppose electoral reform because to do so means less power for them (we experienced many hostile, anti-change Liberals in the 2007 Ontario referendum). So Savoie's support of fair voting in her home province, where her own party sometimes wins under Winner-Take-All, is to be commended.

Nick Loenen on B.C.'s Citizens’ Assembly: An experiment in democracy

2009-02-15T17:59:00.002-05:00

The battle has begun again to reform British Columbia's voting system. As in 2005, voters will be able to cast judgment on the existing 'Winner-Take-All' voting system in B.C., or choose BC-STV (or British-Columbia's Single Transferable Vote system) as recommended by that province's Citizens' Assembly a few years ago.

Loenen was a former Social Credit legislator from Richmond, B.C. and he writes eloquently about the need for change. Please expect more useful links on this site as we get closer to B.C.'s voting day on May 12.

Why is the Toronto Star so obsessed with saving 'Winner-Take-All'?

2009-02-13T12:48:00.009-05:00

Yet again today, the Toronto Star editorial board saw fit to use this week's Israeli election as an excuse to rail against any form of proportional representation.

Readers will recall how, in the heat of the 2007 Ontario referendum campaign, the Toronto Star frequently printed misinformation about the proposed electoral reform called Mixed Member Proportional. The Star's Kerry Gillespie wrote in a news article printed on the front page that some Ontario MPPs under that system would be "appointed" to the legislature, when in fact they would be elected from province-wide party lists. No corrections were made, falsehoods were allowed to fester in the public's mind, all the while the mainstream, private media, like the Star, continued to rail against the threat of religious minorities "seizing" control of our legislature using the "3% threshold".

If the Star is so frightened by the prospect of 3% or 5% of voters getting the same percentage of seats in legislatures and wielding what little power they have, why is the Star not also equally frightened by a voting system that hands one single party with as little as 35% of the vote a majority of the seats?

The Star argues that we should tremble should a small party get one of its policy planks implemented in a coalition government agenda. But give one party full and unchecked power to implement its entire agenda on the public with only 35% of the vote, and that is perfectly alright, the Star argues. That's how 'Winner-Take-All' works and it's certainly not democratic.

We should think clearly and carefully about what is really motivating the Star to go out of its way so often to rail against any type of voting reform. Whose interests are they really trying to defend? Certainly not average Canadians, who frequently see their votes unreflected in the make-up of the House of Commons, or their provincial legislatures (only unless they voted for the one winner in their riding.)

The Star uses the Israeli example to argue that all forms of proportional representation should be shunned. In truth, the majority of democracies around the world use some form of PR. Israel is one of the few that uses the pure list system and with its very diverse society we see the kinds of results we saw this week. In truth, if 'First-Past-The-Post'/'Winner-Take-All' were in place in Israel instead, it's entirely possible that the second place Likud party would have won the election as First Past The Post has a tendency to skew voters' wishes badly and sometimes even hands power to the second-place party.

Why doesn't the Star mention that most European countries use PR and, for the most part, are models of stability? Meanwhile countries like Canada, the U.S. and Britain mostly use First-Past-The-Post and our countries seem no better off in this economic downturn.

Coalitions under PR are not the same as coalitions under our current system (Winner-Take-All). Coalitions or minority governments under our current system normally last two years or so as the temptation to pull the plug and force an election can be so great (see what Stephen Harper pulled last fall for a classic example). When a party sees its support go up in the polls from 35% to 38% under our system, backroom political hacks are inclined to go to the polls because suddenly it looks like they might be in what the mainstream media calls "majority territory."

Ask your average high school or even elementary school student if 38% or 40% is "majority territory" and you'll be laughed at and receive an 'F'.

Under PR, winning an extra 3% of the vote does not translate into an extra 10% to 15% more seats. As a result, politicians are forced to work rather than play partisan games and coalitions form stable majority governments which generally last their full term of office.

Under PR, all votes are counted and reflected in the make-up of the legislature. Under 'Winner-Take-All', less than half of votes cast have any impact on the make-up of the legislature. Under PR, no party with less than 50% of the votes can force its agenda onto the people. Under our current system, this is a regular occurrence.

Shouldn't the Toronto Star be equally frightened by this reality? And if not, why not?

Former B.C. Citizens' Assembly members gear up for 2009 referendum fight...

2009-01-09T08:56:00.002-05:00

Voters in British Columbia get a second chance to cast their ballots in a referendum this May on a new proportional representation voting system called Single Transferable Vote.

With this in mind, former members of the B.C. Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, which in 2004 recommended the new voting system for the province, will gather in Vancouver for a public forum Saturday. Read more about it here.

An alternative to proportional representation: IRV?

2008-11-18T11:54:00.005-05:00

Liberal blogger and Guelph Mercury Community Editorial Board member David Graham writes in the Guelph Mercury today in favour of Instant Run-off Voting (or IRV).

This site officially endorses moving toward some form of proportional representation in Canada. While Canadian voters have rejected mixed member systems in Ontario and Prince Edward Island in recent referenda, voters in British Columbia endorsed a system called Single Transferable Vote (or STV) with 58% support in a 2005 vote. That support wasn't sufficient to change systems in B.C. because the government set approval for the change at 60%. But the government of Gordon Campbell has set a repeat vote on STV in B.C. for May 2009.

Few jurisdictions in the world exclusively use an Instant Run-Off voting system as Graham proposes. Australia does use IRV to elect members to its lower house, while using a form of proportional representation to elect its upper house (thus balancing off the tendency of IRV, like First Past the Post, to shut out representation for voters who back smaller parties.)

As Canadians don't seem to want to change to a mixed member system, this site continues to endorse Single Transferable Vote as the best alternative to our existing Winner-Take-All, or First Past The Post system in Canada. If voters in British Columbia give STV enough support next May, it will be a huge win for proportional representation in Canada and might promote the cause across the country.

If STV fails in B.C. this May, it might be a fatal blow to the PR dream in Canada. If that happens, alternatives like IRV as proposed by Graham might be the only type of electoral change possible in this country.

Orphan Voters.ca: "Please, sir, I want some democracy!"

2008-09-21T12:21:00.006-04:00

Fair Vote Canada has recently launched a timely new site called 'Orphan Voters.ca'.

Who are Orphan Voters? The site defines them as: "The neglected and democraticallly abused [Canadian] citizens who find the doors of Parliament slammed in their faces because their votes elected no one."

The site estimates that over 7.5 million Canadians cast votes in the last election in 2006 which had no effect whatsoever on the make-up of the Parliament. That was 51.2% of all voters who took the effort to cast a ballot, yet their vote essentially counted for nothing.

Check out the site when you have the time and take part in the contest guessing how many orphan votes will be cast in this 2008 election.

The site looks great. Congrats to Fair Vote for getting creative in their messaging and their ongoing campaign to keep this issue at the forefront.

With all the talk in this election of how Harper is flirting with a majority government with only 38-40% of the vote, it begs the question: Why do we put up with our archaic, anti-democratic voting system?

40% is not a majority anywhere else in life. Why is it a majority in our Canadian elections? Do the majority of Canadians really want Harper's policies shoved down their throats? No. Could it happen anyway because of our archaic First-Past-The-Post system? Yes. Do we need to change our voting system as soon as possible? Yes!

Minority government has become workable

2008-07-08T11:54:00.003-04:00

Vancouver Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe writes today that "a new political reality has taken hold in Ottawa. Minority government has become the norm."

Here's an excerpt of particular interest to supporters of electoral reform, particularly reform that would make every vote count:

"University of Montreal political scientist Henry Milner is expressing dismay that more Canadians -- particularly the chattering classes -- have not picked up on the change...Milner says voters are getting what they want out of the current Parliament; polls show Canadians like minority governments. And MPs seem to understand their constituents don't want repeated electoral contests. Workable minority governments are a novel idea for Canada. Once, opponents of proportional representation voting systems argued that PR would yield unstable minority governments. With the current experience of workable minority government that manages stability, this threat surely will be less potent."

One of the main arguments used by electoral reform opponents during last year's Ontario referendum was that frequent minority governments, where parties are forced to work together in the interests of Canadians, would never be workable. Clearly, that argument has been proven false by the current reality in Ottawa (not to mention Nova Scotia, where the Tories have also governed with a minority since 2003.)

Most countries in the Western world have proportional electoral systems that don't hand one party a majority of seats with only a minority of votes. It's time Canada rejected our antiquated, vote-distorting 'Winner-Take-All' system and embrace reform that truly reflects the wishes of voters.

Minority governments are better than one-party majority dictatorships.

Biased media, neutered education campaign, disinterested public blamed for MMP's defeat last fall

2008-06-03T10:29:00.004-04:00

Fair Vote Canada held its annual general meeting this past weekend in Toronto. The following Canadian Press story sums up some of the discussion at the meeting, which focussed mainly on Ontario's recent referendum fiasco on Mixed Member Proportional (or MMP).

Here's an excerpt from the article:

"These kinds of initiatives are very appealing to opposition parties," said Lawrence LeDuc, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, in a panel discussion on the outcome of the referendum. "Opposition parties always like to get themselves on the side of reform movements of one kind or another, and then usually when they come to power they lose interest in those ideas or, even worse than that, they try to kill them."

LeDuc blamed the "one-sided" news coverage during the election campaign for the referendum's failure.

"They had made up their minds very early on that the whole thing was just a joke, not worth reporting on," he said, citing a study that indicates the news coverage of MMP was overwhelmingly negative.

But the government is also to blame for failing to properly inform voters about the new system in the lead-up to the election, added LeDuc.

"(Elections Ontario) were basically, I think, mandated to not say anything at all that could be construed as real information. So, therefore, the information they put out said there's going to be a referendum, and your vote in that referendum is really important. Full stop."

Because so many people were uninformed - less than a week before the election, 24 per cent of people surveyed said they didn't know anything about MMP - we should be careful how we evaluate the results of the referendum, said George Thomson, the former chair of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

"Perhaps Ontarians prefer the status quo. I just wish we'd had a process that I could look at and feel more confident that an informed Ontario electorate prefers the status quo," said Thomson.

Thomson described the Elections Ontario information campaign as "$70,000 spent on this big picture of a fellow looking confused and not much else."

An informed electorate is essential if Fair Vote wants to change the way Canadians elect their politicians, agreed June Macdonald, president of Fair Vote Ontario.

"This expanding through the province, through the dint of personal communication, people talking to people, I think that's what makes the difference," said Macdonald. "Whenever I talk to people, they understand it. They get it."

But LeDuc cautioned that people shouldn't expect another referendum on MMP any time soon.

"However you view the referendum outcome, the fact that there was a referendum and an outcome creates a real barrier that has to be confronted," he said.

Although another referendum may be a long way off, the McGuinty government will strike a select committee on electoral reform next week. No major changes will be considered, but the committee will look at encouraging voter turnout after only 52 per cent of Ontario residents voted in the last election."

PMO's power threatens democracy, Gomery says

2008-03-13T12:19:00.004-04:00

The growing power among unelected personnel in the Prime Minister's Office is a threat to democracy, retired Justice John Gomery says.

Gomery told a parliamentary committee today centralized power in the PMO is a "danger to Canadian democracy" and paves the way to political interference in public administration.

He said there is growing gulf between the executive, the Prime Minister and cabinet, and Parliament, giving less voice to MPs.

He raised concerns about the political staff in the PMO, saying they are not elected and are not subjected to any rules or laws, yet "have the ear of the most important and powerful person in Canadian government."

"I suggest that this trend is a danger to Canadian democracy and leaves the door wide open to the kind of political interference in the day-to-day administration of government programs that led to what is commonly called the sponsorship scandal."

To read more, click here or here and here.

Vancouver Sun: Lopsided Alberta vote underscores B.C.'s unfinished electoral work

2008-03-06T15:58:00.002-05:00

The Vancouver Sun reflects on the recent lopsided election result in Alberta and how it illustrates the need to re-examine how we elect our governments in Canada.

"[Alberta Premier Ed] Stelmach's efficient leverage of a minority of the potential popular vote into a sizeable majority is a potent reminder for British Columbians of the unfinished business we face in the next provincial election. In addition to voting for a new government, we are getting another chance to vote on whether to change our electoral system to one under which lopsided victories such as the one in Alberta would be less likely to occur...

"BC-STV fell just short of the required approval threshold in 2005. Proponents complained that there was no budget for an education campaign to explain how it would work and many voters were simply confused by the apparent complexity of the system. This time the province has budgeted $1.5 million for an education campaign, to be shared in part with "Yes" and "No" forces, but a significant hitch has developed in the electoral boundary reform process that was to have illustrated how an STV system would carve up the province.

"Unless members of the legislature are able to forge a compromise that will rescue the politically unpalatable recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, voters will face another vote on whether to change the system while still uncertain as to how it will look in their home communities.

"That would be a shame -- a waste of thousands of hours of work by the Citizens' Assembly and millions of dollars invested in the Electoral Boundaries Commission."

"Winner-Take-All" Misrepresents Alberta Voters

2008-03-04T15:50:00.004-05:00

The following was released today by Fair Vote Canada:

For only the third time over the past two decades, Albertans will have a majority government actually elected by a majority of those casting votes, but Albertans supporting opposition parties continue to be dramatically under-represented.

By winning 53% of the popular vote, Ed Stelmach’s Progressive Conservatives avoided the false majority results of the 2004, 1993 and 1989 elections in which the party captured a majority of seats even though they failed to win a majority of votes.

“As usual, the first-past-the-post voting system distorted the results and denied fair representation to a significant portion of the electorate,” said Stephen Broscoe, President, Fair Vote Canada, a national citizens' organization promoting fair voting systems across the country. “Just under half of Albertans voted for opposition parties and they gained only 11 of 83 seats.”

"We congratulate Premier Stelmach and the Progressive Conservative Party on their victory," said Broscoe. "The PC Party won a legitimate majority government. However, they should not be rewarded with 88% of the seats."

"These types of distortions occur regularly with the first-past-the-post system used all across Canada, " said J.D. Crookshanks, spokesman for Fair Vote Alberta , the provincial wing of Fair Vote Canada . "To put tonight's results into perspective, it only took about 7,000 votes province-wide to elect a PC candidate. It took 31,000 votes to elect a Liberal MLA, and 40,000 votes to elect a representative of the NDP. The 64,000 voters who cast ballots for the Wild Rose Alliance were shut out completely, as were the 43,000 supporters of the Alberta Greens. It is no wonder that Albertans are tuning out on a massive scale when so few of their votes count."

"With a fair voting system that treats all voters equally, the number of seats won by the parties closely matches the will of the voters," said Broscoe. "We can never know exactly what the results would have been under a different system, but if all votes cast had equal value, Albertans would likely have elected about 44 PC, 22 Liberal, 7 NDP, 6 Wild Rose Alliance and 4 Green MLAs. We would have seen a much stronger opposition, a more balanced legislature, and most importantly, Albertans would have seen their votes accurately reflected in the election results."

"Similar outcomes in other provinces have led them to examine alternatives to first-past-the-post," said Crookshanks. " British Columbia and Ontario have convened citizens' assemblies to study different types of voting systems in use around the world, and recommend alternatives. In fact, in May 2009 British Columbians will be voting in a referendum on a fairer voting system called BC-STV, recommended by the BC Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. Given last night's results, we call on Premier Stelmach to convene an Alberta Citizens' Assembly to study the voting system and determine if a better alternative exists for this province."

- 30 -

Majority governments make Canadian PM more powerful than a President, U.S. envoy says

2008-02-15T07:41:00.003-05:00

Canada's "Winner-Take-All" voting system, which frequently hands one political party's leader (and his or her unelected backroom hacks) all the power, is given a little perspective today by U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Wilkins.

Says Wilkins: "In your form of government, particularly in a majority government, your prime minister has much more power concentrated in that one position than our president ever thought about having," the ambassador said...

Canada's system has an executive and legislative branch effectively controlled by one person.

Can you imagine, Wilkins asked, what it would be like for the U.S. president to be able to appoint cabinet members, senators and judges without lengthy confirmation hearings?

"It would change the dynamics (of Washington, D.C.) overnight," he said.

But before he set Canadians' heads spinning too much, Wilkins did add a caveat.

His boss doesn't face the daily grind of question period in the House of Commons.

Wilkins said he liked the Canadian system better "if my guy's in power," but prefers the U.S. system's checks and balances if he's not.

Wilkins' statements are right on the money. Canada's voting system hands all the power to one person for four or five straight years with little or no checks on that power, no mid-term elections, no PR-elected Senate (like in Australia).

Canada needs more checks and balances on the immense power of our Prime MInisters and Premiers. Fair voting reform, where parties win representation in our legislatures based on the percentage of their votes, would accomplish that without fundamentally changing our parliamentary system.

Minority governments produce better foreign policy

2008-02-04T12:49:00.000-05:00

For those who continue to believe our antiquated "Winner-Take-All" voting system produces better government by handing one party all the power, please check out this article in today's Ottawa Citizen by writer Adam Chapnick.

As Chapnick points out, minority governments in Canada (where the ruling party is forced to work with opposition parties) tend to produce better foreign policy.

Here's an excerpt:

"Stephen Harper's decision to reach out to Stéphane Dion's Liberals last week on the question of the future of the Canadian contribution to the mission in Afghanistan is an excellent move, but it is also not as shocking as recent analyses have suggested."

"It is rather evidence that, like a number of leaders of minority governments before him, the prime minister has come to realize that an ideologically bold approach to foreign policy in Canada results in neither tangible electoral gains nor the advancement of Canadian interests..."

"...The Harper Conservatives now recognize that co-operation with members of the opposition (who are willing to co-operate) on this file will only benefit Canadians, the Afghan people, and the government itself."

Of course, based on previous election results in Canada, the Harper Conservatives could walk away with a majority government under our current "Winner-Take-All" voting system simply by winning an additional one or two percentage points in support, far short of 50%. Such a scenario would clearly fly in the face of Canadian interests with regard to foreign policy.

We need a voting system that ensures power is divided in our Parliament proportional to how people actually voted so that one party cannot impose its ideological vision on the majority of Canadians. For those who assume the parties can't or won't work together for the benefit of our country under such a system, recent deliberations in Ottawa over Afghanistan prove otherwise.

Alberta Liberals Promise Citizens' Assembly to Explore Electoral Reform

2008-02-04T00:45:00.000-05:00

The Alberta Liberal Party, under leader Kevin Taft (pictured), is promising a comprehensive plan to improve government and democracy in Alberta, if elected in the upcoming provincial election.

Taft will be facing off against Tory incumbent premier Ed Stelmach in a race most observers expect to be called as early as today.

For years, the Alberta Liberals, like all opposition parties in the province, have been victimized by our antiquated "Winner-Take-All" voting system in this country. In 2004, the Alberta Liberals won close to 30% of the vote, but won only 19% of the seats, while the Tories under former premier Ralph Klein won 75% of the seats with only 47% of the vote. In the 2001 election, 27% of the vote for the Liberals translated into only 8% of the seats. The history of distorted electoral results in Alberta, with huge, lop-sided majorities, is well-documented.

Taft has outlined an Action Plan for Open, Accountable Government.

The plan includes a promise to create a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform to study other voting systems, such as proportional representation. A province-wide plebiscite will follow.

"Democracy has become derailed in Alberta. Let’s put it back on track. The Alberta Liberals will define and shape genuine democratic processes that restore people’s involvement in government," says the Alberta Liberal website.

If the Alberta Liberals form a government and Taft follows through on his promise, it would be provide another opportunity for citizens to revisit our dreadful "Winner-Take-All" voting system and look at alternatives. Taft has got it right with his pledge to leave this issue in the hands of citizens. Political parties have an inherent conflict of interest when deciding how we elect our governments.

Most politicians whose parties frequently seize power under our existing "Winner-Take-All" system have long cherished it and don't want to give it up. It seems Taft, as a longtime Alberta progressive, understands the importance of improving our voting system to make it more proportional to the votes actually cast.

For more on the Alberta Liberal plan, click here.

Many observers are predicting the upcoming Alberta election will be one of the closest and hardest-fought races in decades.

Even former Tory premier Ralph Klein is predicting his long-ruling party will lose seats in the upcoming election.

Single Transferable Vote (STV) is the best alternative to our antiquated "Winner-Take-All" voting system

2008-01-13T11:39:00.000-05:00

Check out this great piece on OpEdNews.com which highlights the strengths of the Single Transferable Vote, or STV, a voting system which ensures representation for all voters in the final results, be they in the Iowa Democratic Caucuses or in legislative or parliamentary elections. Some U.S. primaries simply use the "Winner-Take-All" system, handing an entire state's delegates to one winning candidate simply because that candidate won the highest number of votes; the other votes count for nothing.

In parliamentary elections using STV, voters rank candidates running in multi-member ridings (instead of casting a single 'X' next to one candidate). A group of candidates is elected, representing various parties and perspectives, all of them are accountable to the voters. Instead of one person representing your interests, you have several people elected to represent your interests. This is different from our "Winner-Take-All" system where one candidate with the most votes wins the whole constituency outright.

Voters in British Columbia are set to get another chance to endorse STV in a referendum in 2009 (58% of B.C. voters endorsed STV in a 2005 referendum, but the government-imposed 60% threshold meant passage was denied.) If over 60% of B.C. voters embrace STV in 2009, it will mark the beginning of true democracy in Canadian elections...

"STV ensures that a representative democracy is truly representative — that the opinions of all blocs of voters are represented, in the proportion with which those opinions are held by the population. It is used for a variety of elections in many Western democracies, including the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. About two-dozen U.S. cities, including New York, have used STV at various points; Cambridge, Mass., still does, and Minneapolis will starting in 2009 for certain offices..."

"Voters just head to the voting booth and rank candidates by preference on a standard ballot; if a voter’s first choice doesn’t get the number of votes needed to win a seat, his or her vote is counted in the next round for their second choice, and so on. STV makes it more likely that a given individual’s vote, or a give bloc of votes, will make a difference. And because of this, it tends to sharply boost participation. It minimizes the problem of the “wasted” vote, whereby some votes don’t help elect any candidate at all, and voters for that candidate go entirely unrepresented. STV also makes politics less negative, encouraging cooperation among candidates."

"A candidate wants to be the first choice of as many voters as possible, but also wants to be the second choice of the rest, and so doesn’t want to turn them off. Dennis Kucinich, for instance, urged his supporters to caucus for Barack Obama in precincts where Kucinich didn’t have enough support to win a delegate of his own."

"There’s a strong case to be made that one reason STV is used less than it used to be in the United States is precisely because it actually achieved its aims: It yielded a level of popular representation and participation that made it harder for the wealthy and party bosses to wield ironclad control over politics in jurisdictions where it was used, and so they pushed back and got rid of it."

Canadians like minority government, survey finds

2008-01-07T13:09:00.000-05:00

An interesting survey came out over the weekend. Canadian voters seem comfortable with the idea of a minority federal government and reluctant to give any party a commanding majority, a poll suggests.

The Canadian Press Harris/Decima survey asked respondents to choose the kind of split they'd ideally like to see in a hypothetical Parliament of 100 seats. The results, on average, gave 36 seats to the Liberals, 31 to the Conservatives, 15 to the NDP, 10 to the Bloc Québécois and eight to the Green party.

Projecting those percentages to the actual House of Commons of 308 seats, the Liberals would end up with 111 seats rather than their current 96 and the Tories would have 95 instead of their present 125.

The NDP would have 46 seats instead of 30, the Bloc 31 instead of 49 and the Greens 25 rather than zero.

Of course, under Canada's "Winner-Take-All" system, one political party with as little as 38% of the vote can form a majority government. This survey suggests Canadians are indeed comfortable with minority governments and are hesitant to grant one party all the power. It's regrettable that our voting system undermines that sentiment and frequently hands one party and its backroom hacks all the power in our governments.

Of particular note is the desire among Canadians to see significant representation for the Green Party. But as we know, our "Winner-Take-All" system ensures that the Greens will likely never win representation in Canadian legislatures.

Without a fair voting system that ensures party representation matches voter support, Canadians will never get the Parliament they seem to truly want.

2007: The year Ontario electoral reformers lost their innocence...

2007-12-30T11:38:00.000-05:00

The Ontario Citizens' Assembly (OCA) gave Ontarians a unique opportunity to dump our antiquated 'Winner-Take-All' voting system this year in favour of something more representative of voters' wishes. Sadly, Ontarians failed to take that opportunity on October 10th after the McGuinty government undermined the very process it set up.

As we know, 'Winner-Take-All' hands all the power to one political party, frequently giving it a majority of seats in our legislatures with far less than a majority of votes. Sometimes, 'Winner-Take-All' even gives the second-place party among voters an election victory! This has happened in six out of 10 provinces in recent times: Ontario, Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskat chewan and British Columbia.

After the party won majority power in 2003 with 46% of the vote, Ontario Liberal enthusiasm for real electoral reform, with some notable exceptions, began to wane. The Ontario Citizens' Assembly process was set up too late in the government's first mandate, the former Minister for Democratic Renewal has admitted.

The OCA, made up of 103 randomly-selected, ordinary Ontarians, spent months studying the issue of electoral reform and found our current system to be very wanting. In the end, they recommended a new system called Mixed Member Proportional or MMP. It was a thoughtful, moderate alternative which kept the best aspect of the current system (ensured local representation) while also creating a list system that would be used to ensure party representation matched party support among voters.

For electoral reformers, the prospect of a new system designed to make every vote count in Ontario seemed like a dream come true. Sadly it would not come to pass.

The opponents of change within the McGuinty government won the day in the backrooms long before any referendum ballots were cast.

To ensure any proposal for change would fail, the government approved a 60% threshold for passage (just as they did in British Columbia in 2005.)

With the recommendation for change coming so late in the government's mandate, voters had only a scant few months to learn about it and pass judgment. The McGuinty government failed to adequately inform Ontarians about the Citizens' Assembly process prior to its May 2007 recommendation, and then of course refused to distribute widely the Assembly's final report to voters. Most Ontarians spent the whole summer unaware they'd be asked to make a complicated choice in an October referendum.

The McGuinty government also chose to hold the referendum at the same time as the general election, ensuring the issue would not receive the attention it deserved from the public.

On top of this, instead of financing "Yes" and "No" campaigns that could work diligently to inform voters of their choices, the government passed the buck to Elections Ontario to design the entire education campaign. Not only would Elections Ontario have to run both the election and the referendum at the same time, it would also have to attempt to educate voters about their difficult referendum choice, and have only two months to do it. In the end, Elections Ontario's campaign made almost no mention of the deliberative process that led to the referendum. Elections Ontario opted to give Ontarians only a clinical comparison between voting systems and failed to mention the consequential differences.

Into this void of meaningful information stepped the opponents of electoral reform. They mainly attacked the perceived fatal flaw of the OCA proposal: province-wide party lists.

For supporters of voting reform, it was almost surreal to see a bunch of backroom party hacks on the 'No MMP' campaign attack MMP for giving "party hacks" more power. It also seemed surreal to hear opponents attack the new system as undemocratic, when in fact it was designed to fix the undemocratic aspects of First Past The Post. Mainstream media outlets like the Toronto Star also printed misinformation about the new system in their news stories and got away with it.

Proponents for change had virtually no effective way to counter these attacks. Vote For MMP was able to raise about $400,000 dollars from grassroots supporters, but such an amount was a drop in the bucket in a province the size of Ontario. Up against the circulation of the Toronto Star and other establishment media outlets, proponents had no chance.

By October 10th, the writing was on the wall. Ontarians had heard few substantial reasons to change systems because proponents had little ability to effectively communicate with the public. Ontarians knew almost nothing about the body of citizens who had recommended change and had heard or read a lot of negativity and doubts expressed by most establishment media about the new system.

Under such a scenario, it was virtually impossible that Ontarians would opt for change, let alone the 60% threshold required. In the end, 63% voted to keep our antiquated, vote-distorting 'Winner-Take-All' system.

This was not a fair fight. It was an electoral fiasco.

Even the non-partisan Chair of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly agreed the referendum process designed by the government was flawed.

Hindsight being 20/20, it's clear that the Citizens' Assembly should've never put forth its closed list proposal, designed specifically to address under-representation for certain groups in the legislature. This one proposal became the Achilles heel of the new system. A Mixed Member Proportional model with an open regional list system (where voters could choose which members would be elected to top-up local members, not the parties) might have been an easier sell to Ontarians.

Advocates of electoral reform in Ontario lost their innocence in 2007. We saw in all its ugly glory how far opponents of fair voting, both inside and outside governments, will go to keep our 'Winner-Take-All' system. Any process that contemplates change will never be enthusiastically embraced by the politicians, power brokers and party hacks who control the government decision-making process and benefit greatly from our flawed 'Winner-Take-All' system.

Initial enthusiasm for voting reform by mainstream parties historically victimized by 'Winner-Take-All' frequently disappears once those parties get a taste of false majority power. Witness how Dalton McGuinty has completely dropped the issue of democratic renewal, failing to appoint a new minister after his October re-election despite the historically low voter turnout. Former NB Premier Bernard Lord, whose New Brunswick Conservatives were shut out of the legislature in 1987 and struggled for 12 years in opposition, contemplated voting reform after returning to power in 1999. But after seven years in power, Lord failed to act on electoral reform and ironically saw his own party defeated again in 2006, even though it won the most votes.

Any change to fair voting in Canada will undoubtedly face the same kinds of delays and heavy-handed attacks that we saw this year in Ontario. This is a depressing reality for those fighting for a better, more just system.

But of course, as history has taught us, just change is never easy. The forces of the establishment will always fight to hang on to their power, no matter how unjust. Proponents of fair voting must learn from the 2007 Ontario referendum and continue to lay the groundwork for change in the future.

There remains one major opportunity on the horizon in British Columbia where voters will get another chance to push their fair voting option called Single Transferable Vote (STV) over the 60% threshold in a repeat referendum in 2009. (Voters in 2005 in B.C. voted 58% for STV.) This is cause for optimism as we move forward on this issue.

This site will continue to advocate for a fair voting system in Canada to ensure public interest and fairness will one day win out over the establishment, partisan interests who support our antiquated 'Winner-Take-All' system.

Lack of Action on Environment Blamed on "Winner-Take-All" Voting System in Canada

2007-12-17T10:55:00.000-05:00

Our "Winner-Take-All" voting system has ensured that significant votes for the Green Party have never translated (and mostly likely will never translate) into any kind of representation in our legislatures in Canada. While this site supports the Liberal Party, we also recognize the lack of representation for the Greens makes it more difficult to raise environmental concerns on an ongoing basis.

For voters who are growing increasingly concerned about lack of action on the environment, they should know our voting system - which hands one party all the power with as little as 40% of the vote - actually makes it easier for the winning party to be complacent on this issue and many other issues. If Stephen Harper wins a majority with only 40% of the vote next time, can you imagine the damage he could do not only to Canada's environment, but to the planet? The following release was issued today by Fair Vote Canada:

Growing voter frustration with footdragging on the environment -- another symptom of Canada’s electoral dysfunction

FAIR VOTE CANADA: DECEMBER 17, 2007 -- Pointing to a landmark study on voting systems and policy outcomes, Fair Vote Canada today said growing public anger with current and former federal governments’ inaction on environmental problems has its roots in Canada’s dysfunctional electoral system.

“A bad electoral system almost guarantees bad politics,” said Stephen Broscoe, President of Fair Vote Canada.

“Canadians are increasingly aware our first-past-the-post voting system skews election results. Some parties are given far too many seats, others too few and some are shut out altogether,” said Broscoe. “It’s time to connect the dots on how that affects the daily lives of our families, communities and our environment.”

The urgent need for substantive action on environmental issues has been apparent for the past two decades, yet Canada’s federal governments – both Conservatives and Liberals – have been slow to act, with policies and programs falling far short of public expectations.

Arend Lijphart, a leading international expert on electoral systems, noted two relevant studies in Patterns of Democracy, his landmark comparative assessment of electoral systems in 36 nations.

He cited a 1997 study that measured environmental policy performance through a composite index based on carbon dioxide emissions, fertilizer consumption, and deforestation. On a zero to 100 scale, countries with proportional or fair voting systems scored 10 points higher than those with winner-take-all voting systems.

Lijphart also studied energy efficiency, using the World Bank’s figures for GDP divided by total energy consumption for the years 1990 to 1994. He concluded the correlation between countries using proportional electoral systems and energy efficiency is “extremely strong”, even when controlling for the level of development.

“A fair voting system, in itself, cannot create better environmental management,” said Larry Gordon, Executive Director of Fair Vote Canada. “But what it does create is a truly representative parliament, which better reflects the views of the electorate. Here in Canada, new parties, such as the Greens, would have the seats and voice they deserve in Parliament. Studies have also shown parliaments in proportional voting countries also do a better job of passing legislation that represents majority views. For many years, public support for environmental action has been far ahead of any Canadian government’s willingness to act. When you connect the dots, you can see why the voting system we use really matters to our quality of life, our communities and the environment.”

- 30 -

Contact:

Stephen Broscoe
604-817-5400
Stephen.broscoe@fairvote.ca

Larry Gordon
647-519-7585
Larry.gordon@fairvote.ca

McGuinty gets support from provincial rivals in Commons seat battle

2007-12-11T13:09:00.000-05:00

From today's Globe & Mail:

"Premier Dalton McGuinty secured all-party support yesterday for a resolution asking the federal government to amend proposed legislation so that Ontario gets its "fair share" of seats in the Commons.

"Mr. McGuinty said the federal bill, C-22, is unfair because it violates the principle of representation by population and ensures the continued under-representation of Ontario in Ottawa."

To read more, click here.

Electoral reform redux: Revisionist history from the Toronto Star

2007-11-29T11:31:00.000-05:00

As this site has stated previously, the recent Ontario referendum on voting reform was nothing short of a fiasco. Ontario did not have a full debate on the issue as Dalton McGuinty promised in 2003. In fact, as most objective observers now agree, the 2007 referendum process was greatly clouded by the noise of the Ontario election campaign, among other manipulations.

The McGuinty government failed in the run-up to the referendum to adequately inform voters that the process was even taking place. When the referendum officially began in September, public awareness of the Citizens' Assembly process and its proposed Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system was dismally low. The former Minister for Democratic Renewal, Marie Bountrogianni (now retired) has admitted the process started too late in the government's first mandate.

The McGuinty government also undermined the process by burying public information on the Citizens' Assembly. The final report from the Citizens' Assembly (paid for by Ontarians) was not widely distributed and the government stopped printing information on the Assembly altogether before most voters even knew what was going on. Sadly for many Ontarians, the first they heard of the Citizens' Assembly was when they saw it mentioned on their referendum ballot on October 10th. Voters were rushed into this decision with little time for considering the question.

Instead, there was too much misinformation spread by mainstream media outlets including the Toronto Star and supporters of the status quo. The Toronto Star misled its readers when it used the loaded word "appointed" in news stories to describe how some MPPs would be elected to the legislature under the Mixed Member Proportional system. This misinformation was compounded by Elections Ontario's woefully inadequate education campaign, which can now be considered one of the most ineffective (and expensive) communications campaigns in recent Ontario history. Instead, the government should've used that $6.8 million to fund both the 'Yes' and the 'No' sides, which struggled to get their messages out to a confused and bewildered electorate.

In response to this press release yesterday from Fair Vote Ontario, the Toronto Star today published this editorial, the latest in the paper's cynical attempt to spin the issue of voting reform in favour of the Toronto establishment's favoured "Winner-Take-All" status quo. If the Star can't be trusted to be truthful about electoral reform, on what other issues will it choose to misinform readers?

In spite of all listed above, the Star still claims that, "Electoral reform proponents had a fair opportunity to make their case." Perhaps the editorial writer failed to read this Toronto Star piece penned by George Thomson, who served as chair of Ontario's first Citizens' Assembly, entitled, 'Bad timing undermined exercise in democracy.'

The issue of electoral reform is certainly not dead in Ontario or Canada. An unjust system like our "Winner-Take-All" system cannot and will not be tolerated forever. As we know, British Columbians have another opportunity in 2009 to vote on their version of proportional representation called Single Transferable Vote or STV. That's because over 57% of B.C. voters endorsed the proposal in a 2005 referendum, but the government refused to implement it because of its imposed 60% threshold. This STV system would provide for results that closely match the wishes of voters, while guaranteeing all representatives are directly elected by the voters in multi-member constituencies. In many ways, it's better than MMP. If B.C. passes this system in 2009, it will be a huge victory for electoral reform in Canada, keeping alive the issue right across the country.

42% is not a mandate for majority rule: Ontario legislature has unfinished business on electoral reform

2007-11-28T18:11:00.000-05:00

The following was released today from Fair Vote Ontario:

TORONTO: November 28, 2007: As the 39th Ontario provincial parliament prepares to sit, Fair Vote Ontario is calling on all parties to address the unfinished business of electoral reform.

“On Thursday we will hear the throne speech from yet another phony majority government, elected by just over forty per cent of the voters in an election with the lowest ever turnout,” said June Macdonald, President, Fair Vote Ontario. “The only ‘mandate’ such a government should have is to immediately launch a better-funded and fairly managed citizen-driven electoral reform process.”

Fair Vote Ontario rejects the claim that the government honoured a pledge for an open and informed public debate on electoral reform.

“While using a citizens’ assembly and referendum for electoral reform is the right approach, that process must have adequate time and resources to allow for an informed public debate and decision,” said Macdonald. “Whether intentional or not, the poor management of the process over the past two years made a mockery of the exercise.”

Fair Vote Ontario cited the following problems:

- The Citizens’ Assembly was not convened until late in the last government’s term, unduly reducing the time it had for deliberation and consultation and for the subsequent referendum.

- The referendum was triggered by a recommendation by the Citizens’ Assembly, but neither the Assembly’s report nor summary brochure were distributed to all voters. In fact, the government ceased printing the Assembly brochure in late summer.

- Due to poor government promotion and media coverage, about half of the electorate had very little understanding of the role and mandate of the Citizens Assembly.

- When voting in the referendum, only about half of the electorate had even a rudimentary understanding of the MMP system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly.

- At least a quarter of the electorate had no idea a referendum was being held. In some polls, very few voters knew about the referendum.

- The Election Ontario public education program left most voters bewildered and uninformed – e.g., the official public education campaign would not tell voters the reasons for the Assembly recommending the MMP system or how key aspects worked.

By setting an unfair 60 per cent threshold, under-funding and misdirecting the public education program, the government created a widely shared impression that the whole process was cynically designed to fail.

In his 2003 election platform, Dalton McGuinty said: “I find it unacceptable that [my children’s] generation may be so turned off by our political system that they will virtually abandon representative democracy. We cannot let that happen. I will not let that happen.” A poll take just days before the referendum found that more than 60 per cent of young voters, ages 18-34 were in favour of the proposed reform.

“We call on Premier McGuinty to put democratic renewal and citizen-driven electoral reform back at the top of the agenda where it belongs,” said Macdonald. “As the Mr. McGuinty said, we cannot afford to let the status quo continue.”

Fair Vote Ontario is a program of Fair Vote Canada, a national citizens’ organization for electoral reform: www.fairvote.ca.

- 30 -

Contact: June Macdonald at 416-962-8181 or Larry Gordon 647-519-7585.

Ontario and Quebec vow to fight federal plans to change Commons, Senate

2007-11-26T19:28:00.000-05:00

It's clear the federal Conservative Bill C-22 discriminates unfairly against Ontario, providing Canada's largest province with far less representation than it deserves, compared to British Columbia and Alberta, let alone the other provinces. This issue has been getting decent press over the last couple of weeks, most notably the war of words between Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty and federal House Leader Peter Van Loan, who hails from the York-Simcoe riding in Ontario.

Now today this story from Canadian Press:

"The premiers of Canada's two largest provinces vowed Monday to keep fighting the federal government's plans to change the makeup of the House of Commons and reform the Senate, and called for a first ministers' meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to resolve the disputes."

MMP would've served Ontario democracy better in 2007

2007-11-18T15:46:00.000-05:00

Kudos to Christina Blizzard for today's article on electoral reform in the Toronto Sun.

Here's an excerpt:

"Peter MacLeod, of Queen's University's Centre for the Study of Democracy, has crunched the numbers from last month's vote and says the Legislature would look quite different had it been elected using MMP.

It is difficult to be entirely accurate in this calculation. MacLeod points out we can't say for sure how people would have directed their second vote for the party, but he estimates the Tories would have gained the most from MMP.

With 107 seats under the First Past The Post system, the Grits have 71 seats; PCs 26; NDP 10 and the Greens have none.

Under a 129-seat House under MMP, the Liberals would have dropped dramatically to 56 seats; PCs would have 41; NDP 22; Greens, 10...[But] many potential voters in this province simply sat home Oct. 10. Voter turn-out was a pathetic 52%.

"We may have voted down the referendum, but we're getting perilously close to voting down democracy too. A 52% turnout isn't much of an endorsement and yet I can't believe this is what people want," MacLeod said.

The issue of democratic renewal now seems forgotten, since Premier Dalton McGuinty dropped the democratic renewal portfolio from cabinet.

That doesn't augur well for this the democratic process. The MMP proposal...was a complex issue for voters to grasp as they also grappled with election issues.

MMP died a cruel death on election night. But at least it opened up a conversation about democracy and elections -- and how and why we vote. But when almost half of eligible voters stay home on election day, it's tough to call it democracy. The people may have spoken -- but they did so very quietly."

Bountrogianni voted for MMP, agrees the Citizens' Assembly process should have begun earlier

2007-11-05T00:15:00.001-05:00

Former Ontario Democratic Renewal Minister Marie Bountrogianni, who chose not to run again for the McGuinty Liberals in the Oct 10th Ontario election, says she voted in favour of the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system proposed by Ontario's Citizens' Assembly.

"I think it would have been an exciting change," she says.

Bountrogianni's comments were published in an Ottawa Citizen article this weekend.

The former minister remained publicly neutral on the question during the referendum campaign. Bountrogianni was reacting to criticism from Fair Vote Ontario that the Citizens' Assembly that recommended the new system was set up too late in the McGuinty government's first term, leaving little time for public education and debate.

"They have a legitimate point there," says Bountrogianni. The problem, she says, was that Michael Bryant, who had responsibility for Democratic Renewal for the first two years of the government's mandate, was also Attorney General and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

"I think something this important perhaps should have been given to someone with fewer responsibilities earlier," she said.

By the time she took on the portfolio in 2005, there was much to be done and little time in which to do it. "I ran as fast as I could," she said. "This was my number one and only legislative priority. I spent most of my time on this." Bountrogianni was also the government's Intergovernmental Affairs Minister.

Bountrogianni continues to support the government's decision to impose a 60% threshold for approval on MMP. She also challenges the notion that Ontario voters lacked information, pointing out, among other things, that extensive background was available at the Citizens' Assembly's web site. Nevertheless, when the referendum officially began in September, public awareness of the Citizens' Assembly process and its proposed system was dismally low. The government had decided not to distribute the Assembly's final report widely and ultimately stopped printing the Assembly's brochure long before most voters even knew the referendum was taking place.

Bountrogianni also defends the government's decision to leave the referendum's education campaign in the hands of Elections Ontario, saying the government placed no restrictions on the agency. "We left it entirely up to them." Most observers say Elections Ontario's dry campaign failed to give the referendum question proper context.

It's interesting to note that both Democratic Renewal ministers in the first McGuinty government - both Michael Bryant and Marie Bountrogianni - ended up endorsing the new MMP system.

In 2003, Dalton McGuinty said, "The time has come for a full, open debate on voting reform...When almost half of the public does not see the point in heading to the polls we have already had a non-confidence vote in our democracy."

With the failure of Dalton McGuinty to appoint a new Minister of Democratic Renewal in last week's cabinet shuffle, clearly the low turnout of 52.8% in 2007 seems to now suit McGuinty just fine. What a pity.

Is electoral reform dead in Canada?

2007-11-03T12:18:00.000-04:00

Mark Sutcliffe wrote this incisive piece in today's Ottawa Citizen in which he asks the question, "If Canadians are so dissatisfied with our current system of electing governments, why do recent elections show us unwilling to embrace change?"

He points out that both Ontario and Prince Edward Island rejected a version of Mixed Member Proportional (or MMP) in referenda by near identical margins after experiencing very similar campaigns. Vote For MMP Ontario chair Rick Anderson correctly argues that governments in both provinces did little to educate voters about their choices. But Sutcliffe also quotes Carleton University political scientist Jonathan Malloy who points to aspects of MMP that proved unpopular with voters, including the infamous province-wide "lists" that would come with such a system. Voters also seem reluctant to embrace a system that produces never-ending minority governments in which smaller parties frequently win the balance of power, says Malloy.

The writer notes that 57% of British Columbians did vote for a different system called Single Transferable Vote (or STV) in a 2005 referendum, but the government refused to implement it due to its high 60% threshold for approval. There too voters complained the government didn't do enough to explain the alternative system, yet that didn't stop voters from almost giving STV the green light. Now B.C. residents will vote again on their new system in 2009.

Sutcliffe notes that, "STV is a much more complicated process in which between two and seven candidates are elected in each riding, depending on the population. Voters rank their top choices and votes are redistributed in a multi-step process until the required number of candidates has enough votes to be elected. The results are expected to mirror proportional representation while using exclusively local representatives...Another factor that may have worked in favour of reform in British Columbia was the uneasy state of politics in the province. For electoral change to be embraced, the confidence of the electorate may need to be shaken by a crisis or a series of scandals, not slowly eroded by apathy."

Indeed, British Columbia saw the NDP win a majority of seats in 1996 with only 39% of the vote, three points less than the Liberals who won 42% of the vote! Five years later, the Liberals won 98% of the seats with only 58% of the vote. Thus voters were likely more aware of how First Past The Post greatly distorts voters' wishes. No such freak-result elections have occurred in Ontario in recent memory, thus making it more difficult to convince voters of the need for change.

In the end, Sutcliffe writes: "Having somebody break the ice would help people increase their comfort level," [says Malloy.] That may come in 2009. After having come so close in 2005, there's a strong chance that British Columbians will push STV over the top in the next referendum. Once that happens, voters in other provinces, including Ontario, may feel more comfortable making changes to their own systems."

Flawed electoral reform process means the Ontario government has not yet met its commitment to let Ontarians decide

2007-11-01T18:40:00.000-04:00

The following was released this week by Fair Vote Ontario:

Flawed electoral reform process means the Ontario government has not yet met its commitment to let Ontarians decide

TORONTO – October 30, 2007: Today electoral reformers called on Premier McGuinty to address the flawed electoral reform referendum process and take steps to meet his commitment to give Ontarians an opportunity to make an informed decision on the best electoral system.

June Macdonald, President of Fair Vote Ontario, pointed to three design flaws in the referendum process that denied voters the opportunity they were promised.

“First, the citizens’ assembly process – which we enthusiastically support – was unnecessarily delayed until the end of the government’s first mandate,” said Macdonald. “With four years to take action, the government did not convene the Assembly until one year prior to the referendum date. By the time the Assembly could issue its report, the referendum was less than five months away, including the summer vacation period, which left little time for public debate.”

“Second, the public education program was glaringly inadequate. The referendum was triggered by a recommendation from the Citizens’ Assembly, which asked that the public education campaign include the Assembly’s rationale for recommending MMP. Unlike the British Columbia referendum, the Assembly’s report was not distributed to all households – in fact, the government stopped printing the Assembly’s summary brochure several months before the referendum, blocking widespread distribution to voters.”

“Third, while it had no effect on the October 10 vote, the application of an unfair referendum threshold of 60 per cent is simply unacceptable in a modern democracy. Prior to the application of the rigged threshold in two other recent electoral reform referendums, no provincial or federal referendum in Canadian history used any threshold other than the democratic standard of 50 per cent plus one. The all-party Select Committee on Electoral Reform, which had a majority of members from the Liberal Party, recommended a simple majority threshold.”

“Premier McGuinty promised a citizen-driven process for electoral reform, including a citizens’ assembly to assess the need for reform, and a referendum to decide upon any recommendation from that assembly,” said Macdonald. “That was the right approach, but the implementation was so severely flawed, Ontarians have not yet had the chance to make an informed decision on electoral reform. As the new government begins setting its agenda for the coming year, we call on Premier McGuinty to address this issue as soon as possible.”

Fair Vote Ontario is a program of Fair Vote Canada, a national multi-partisan citizens’ campaign for electoral reform: www.fairvote.ca.

Enclosed: backgrounder on the citizens’ assembly and referendum process.

30 –

Contact: June Macdonald at 416-962-8181 or Larry Gordon at 647-519-7585.

Fair Vote Ontario:
Backgrounder on the Citizens’ Assembly and
Referendum Process

November 18, 2004: One year into his mandate, Premier Dalton McGuinty announces the impending creation of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

June 13, 2005: Legislation to establish the Citizens' Assembly is passed and the all-party Select Committee on Electoral Reform is established.

November 29, 2005: The Select Committee reports. The majority report endorsed by the six Liberal members recommends "the referendum should be binding upon a vote of 50% + 1, and the support of 50% + 1 in at least two-thirds (i.e., 71) of the ridings, or any other formula that ensures the result has support from Northern, rural, and urban areas of the Province." The Committee also calls for a referendum public education campaign in which “every voter receives adequate information about the arguments for and against each side of any question that is put to the people.”

March 27, 2006: Another four months pass before the government announces the appointment of George Thomson as Assembly Chair. The timing means the Assembly cannot be set up and convened until September 2006. The government has set May 15, 2007, as the report date, so the public education period is reduced to five months. The government has yet to respond to the Select Committee’s proposed threshold.

September 9, 2006: The Assembly holds its first meeting – not a single reporter is present. The cabinet has still not decided on the threshold.

October 24, 2006: The government announces its decision – rejecting the recommendation of the Select Committee – by setting a super-majority threshold: "60 per cent of all votes cast provincewide, plus a simple majority of more than 50 per cent of votes cast in at least 64 provincial ridings (the equivalent of 60 per cent or more of provincial ridings)."

April 15, 2007: The Assembly votes by a 92% majority to recommend that Ontario adopt the Mixed Member Proportional voting system.

April 25, 2007: The government announces that "Elections Ontario will deliver neutral public education to raise awareness of the referendum and to educate the public about the alternatives under consideration."

May 15, 2007: The Assembly's final Report recommends that "the question should ask the voters whether Ontario should adopt the Mixed Member Proportional electoral system recommended by the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform."

The Assembly’s report also recommends that a “comprehensive, well-funded public education program, beginning in May and continuing through to the referendum, is vital. We believe that the program should include a description of the new system and how it differs from the current system; a description of the Citizens' Assembly process; and the Assembly's rationale for recommending a Mixed Member Proportional system for Ontario." The subsequent program of Elections Ontario focuses primarily on referendum awareness and does not include any information on the Assembly’s rationale for reform.

June 15, 2007: Marie Bountrogianni, Minister for Democratic Renewal, makes an announcement that she is not running again. An initial press report says the Minister was unhappy about the government’s referendum decisions, but she denies it.

June 20, 2007: The cabinet decision on the referendum question is announced. It ignores the Assembly’s recommendations.

Summer 2007: The Assembly report and a summary brochure are made available to the public through Service Ontario. However, the government subsequently decides to cease printing the brochure. Unlike voters in British Columbia, who received copies of their Assembly’s report in the mail, the great majority of Ontarians never see either a brochure or report from their Assembly.

Fair Vote Ontario
October 2007

Fair Vote Canada
26 Maryland Blvd.
Toronto, ON M4C 5C9

info@fairvote.ca
www.fairvote.ca
416-410-4034

York University Report: Why Ontarians Said No To MMP

2007-10-25T12:51:00.000-04:00

The York University Institute for Social Research released a study today by professors Fred Cutler (UBC) and Patrick Fournier (Université de Montréal) entitled, "Why Ontarians Said No To MMP." A report on the study was printed in the Globe & Mail today.

The study confirms that two elements of the Citizens' Assembly's Mixed Member Proportional proposal proved to be unpopular with Ontarians: "...increasing the number of members in the legislature by 22 was not well received. Ontarians who believed this was a good idea were clearly outnumbered. More important, there were the infamous party lists - the biggest weapon in the anti-MMP arsenal. A majority thought giving control over the composition of those lists to parties was a bad thing. Only 16 per cent liked the idea."

But the study also indicates Ontarians would've been prepared to support the MMP proposal in sufficient numbers if they had had more information about it and how the proposal was created:

"[The] Citizens' Assembly...was...unfamiliar to the public. Voters tend to be skeptical of referendum proposals from politicians, so the assembly might have provided much-needed grassroots legitimacy. But only if voters knew that its members were ordinary people.

"Few discovered that. The media paid little attention to the assembly and often described it as "set up by the government" - a half-truth that did nothing to dispel voters' assumption that the proposal was coming from the usual political suspects. At the start of the campaign, half said they knew nothing about the assembly and, amazingly, there was no gain in awareness over the campaign.

"So, knowledge about MMP and the Citizens' Assembly pushed voters toward the new system. Could referendum support have reached the 60 per cent threshold if voters had been fully informed about both? We can simulate the outcome if all citizens had known: (1) that MMP would give voters two votes, elect some members whose names never appear on a ballot, produce proportional outcomes with more parties and infrequent majorities; and (2) that assembly members "were ordinary Ontarians," "had an equal chance of being chosen," "represented all parts of Ontario," "became experts on electoral systems," and that "most members wanted what's best for all Ontarians" (rather than themselves).

"Under these conditions, our data indicate the result would have been 63 per cent for MMP and 37 per cent for the existing system - exactly the mirror image of the actual outcome.

"This is probably heartening, and yet disappointing, for electoral reformers. And perhaps opponents should show more relief than smugness."

Clearly, the decision by the McGuinty government to bury public information about the Citizens' Assembly, including its final report, was instrumental in defeating MMP.

Ontario Citizens' Assembly Chair: Bad timing undermined exercise in democracy

2007-10-24T09:30:00.001-04:00

Telling reading this morning in the Toronto Star from George Thomson, who was the chair of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Here's an excerpt:

"The [referendum] public education program faced another major challenge from the beginning: timing. The [Citizens'] assembly was set up very late in the government's mandate and completed its work less than five months before the referendum. Elections Ontario apparently was asked to take on the task of public education only as the assembly's report was being finalized and released.

"Many voters had little or no knowledge of the Citizens' Assembly, despite the fact that it was established and funded by the government to consider an important policy question on behalf of all Ontarians. Assembly members read, researched, analyzed, consulted (with citizens and experts) and debated the question of electoral reform for eight months. Both the government and Elections Ontario were concerned that making the assembly's report more readily available would appear as campaigning for the MMP option. One day after the referendum, I spoke to a class of 75 Carleton University students who had a strong interest in the topic. Not one of them had seen or read the 27-page report or any other assembly materials.

"Elections Ontario decided to focus on informing voters that there was a referendum and on providing only the basic elements of the two systems. It was left to others to foster discussion about how the different elements would work in practice, and to debate the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system.

"With ample time and substantial support for healthy discussion and debate, this might have worked well. With only one month after the summer break and an election campaign going on at the same time, it is not surprising that many voters knew little about the choice they were being asked to make.

"The impact of these factors on the referendum is impossible to assess and the clear result should, of course, be acknowledged and respected. The assembly members knew and accepted that it would be up to the electorate to adopt or reject their recommendation.

"I do regret that, for the most part, an opportunity for vigorous, informed public discussion on an important public policy issue was missed. As well, there are lessons to be learned about how to structure and respond to exercises in citizen engagement.

"What I hope most of all is that we recognize the enormous value of the Citizens' Assembly and other methods of involving Ontarians in the democratic process. In my long career, I have never observed an attempt to engage the broader public that approached the level of commitment, enthusiasm and self-sacrifice shown by the members of the Citizens' Assembly. These randomly selected Ontarians inspired all those who came to observe them in their work. One look at the low turnout in this election should make us all eager for more opportunities to inspire citizens to
participate so directly in our democracy."

Stephane Dion reportedly muses about voting reform referendum

2007-10-22T11:58:00.000-04:00

Bourque.org's headline this morning 'DION WOULD CHANGE THE WAY WE VOTE' links to an interesting blog posting by writer Curtis Brown on his Manitoba-based site, 'Endless Spin Cycle, Episode III'.

These comments from Liberal leader Stephane Dion seem to be in line with previous statements on the need to explore voting reform at the federal level.

Here's an excerpt from today's posting by Curtis Brown:

"During a 90-minute question and answer session with the audience at the Gas Station Theatre, Dion was asked to give his thoughts on electoral reform...The Liberal leader mused out loud about how a preferential ballot would be better...

"...Dion finished by saying this would lead to more respectful debate between parties and leaders since "if you're a Green or NDP voter, I don't want to insult you so you'll consider me as your second choice." Then, he said he wouldn't want to make this part of an election campaign promise, but would rather put it to a national referendum after taking office."

The fact that Stephane Dion continues to be open to discussing voting reform, as well as suggesting a possible referendum on the question, is good news for Liberals and all Canadians who support electoral reform. A move to a preferential ballot or an Instant-Runoff voting system would bring needed change to our antiquated winner-take-all Single Member Plurality system, which has actually exacerbated regional tensions at the federal level. While Instant-Runoff voting is not necessarily proportional representation, preferential ballots are used in PR-STV (Proportional Representation - Single Transferable Vote) which will be voted on again in a referendum in British Columbia in 2009.

Ontario, Alberta out of 'proportion'

2007-10-17T08:14:00.000-04:00

Check out this column by writer Graham Thomson from yesterday's Edmonton Journal. It's clear the Liberal government in Ontario sabotaged this effort at electoral reform as this Thanksgiving anecdote is no doubt very typical:

"Officials at Elections Ontario did a miserable job of explaining how the reformed system would work. More importantly, they failed to explain why the electoral system needed to be reformed in the first place.

The Liberal government also did its best to bury the issue, realizing, no doubt, that the MMP system would deny the Liberals a majority government unless they won a majority of the votes.

The result was an electorate who knew little about the proposed reforms. In fact, many voters didn't even know electoral reform would be on the ballot.

I discovered that for myself when, over Thanksgiving dinner with friends and family three days before the vote, I asked if they'd be voting in favour of the MMP.

"Are you talking about our MPP?" one asked me. "You know, our member of provincial parliament? You call them MLAs in Alberta. We call them MPPs here."

"Uh, no," I replied. "I mean the mixed member proportional system."

Blank stares.

"The referendum," I added helpfully.

More blank stares, this time with an offer of more gravy.

It turned out nobody at the table of 12 people had heard of the MMP referendum question. I should add at this point my family members in Ontario are not a particularly dense group even if they are related to a political columnist. They are usually up on current events, but this time the officials at Elections Ontario had failed miserably to inform the voters about the referendum."

Our thoughts on the referendum results and where we go from here

2007-10-15T10:32:00.000-04:00

With the Hill Times reporting today that about half of Canadians support holding a national referendum on changing Canada's electoral system in the next general election, and 45 per cent say that in such a referendum they would vote in favour of proportional representation (versus only 28% for our winner-take-all system), there is much to be encouraged about as we move forward in this debate.

We'd like to share our thoughts on the recent Ontario referendum on electoral reform.

In 2003, Dalton McGuinty said, "The time has come for a full, open debate on voting reform...When almost half of the public does not see the point in heading to the polls we have already had a non-confidence vote in our democracy."

While Ontario did have a debate on voting reform with the referendum, it's clear to us that this discussion was not full nor open. In fact, as most would agree, it was greatly clouded by the noise of the Ontario election campaign.

Also very disturbing was the low voter turn-out in this election at only 52.8% support. Voter turn-out for the referendum was even worse at only 51.1%.

Voters did not have enough information on their choices in this referendum. The McGuinty government failed in the run-up to the referendum to adequately inform voters that the process was even taking place. The decision by the government to bury public information on the Citizens' Assembly undermined the process. Most voters didn't even find out about the referendum until mid-September. Sadly for some Ontarians, the first they heard of the Citizens' Assembly was when they saw it mentioned on their referendum ballot on October 10th. Voters were rushed into this decision with little time for considering the great benefits of proportional voting.

Instead, there was too much misinformation spread by mainstream media outlets and supporters of the status quo. This was compounded by Elections Ontario's woefully inadequate education campaign, which can now be considered one of the most ineffective (and expensive) communications campaigns in recent Ontario history. The government should have decided to fund an official "Pro-MMP" campaign, as well as an official "Pro-FPTP" campaign to ensure more voters were properly informed of their choices.

While we accept the verdict of voters that this particular version of Mixed Member Proportional is now off the table, we do not accept that the debate on electoral reform is over in Ontario or across Canada.

We have the following recommendations for moving forward on this issue:

* The McGuinty government should appoint a new Minister for Democratic Renewal to tackle the troubling issue of low voter turn-out and engagement. The low 52.8% turnout in this election is deeply troubling.

* A legislative committee should study the referendum process to see if it was fair and the result valid.

* Many voters, while unsure about the strengths of MMP, expressed great dislike for our current system. Since Ontario voters don't appear to be willing to accept a major change to our voting system at this time, the government should consider other more modest changes that would fix some of the many problems of our current system. When more voters are ready to move toward proportional representation, we should consider better forms of PR for Ontario.

As we move forward, we are encouraged that voters in British Columbia will have another chance in 2009 to vote on their version of proportional representation called the Single Transferable Vote or PR-STV. We'll watch this referendum very closely.

Many say PR-STV is a better form of proportional representation as it ensures all politicians are directly elected by the voters in local constituencies. Since MMP was rejected in Ontario, we should consider PR-STV as an option to our antiquated First-Past-The-Post system in the future.

Welcome to the revamped 'Liberals For Electoral Reform' site

2007-10-13T12:05:00.000-04:00

With the defeat of the Citizens' Assembly's Mixed Member Proportional proposal this week, we've decided to revamp this site with a new title and mission: to promote the cause of electoral reform both in Ontario and across Canada.

Our official response to the referendum results and our recommendations on where we go from here on the issue of democratic renewal in Ontario will be posted here on Monday.

In the mean time, we wanted to bring to your attention two very different responses from Canada's two major newspapers in the post-referendum period.

The Toronto Star shamelessly printed misinformation about the MMP proposal on a few occasions during the campaign, contributing greatly to the false and unfortunately widespread belief that politicians would be "appointed" to the legislature if it had passed. This in turn contributed to MMP's defeat. Yesterday's Star editorial stayed true to the paper's establishment credentials by trying to argue the defeat for this particular proposal means the end of electoral reform in Canada. The Star even printed, "Ontario has now joined British Columbia and Prince Edward Island in rejecting proportional representation and choosing the status quo. That should be all the answer the advocates of electoral reform need."

Nothing could be further from the truth. First-Past-The-Post is still broken. Yes, MMP has been defeated in two provinces. But another form of proportional voting called Single Transferable Vote (STV) actually passed with over 57% support in the British Columbia referendum in 2005. But due to the high approval threshold of 60%, it wasn't implemented. To interpret this as a public "rejection" of change, as the Star does, is once again disingenuous. Indeed, British Columbians will get another chance to vote on STV in 2009.

For a better interpretation of the Ontario election and referendum results, check out the Globe & Mail's editorial today:

"Ontarians were not given a fair chance to reform the system; nor was there the full "debate" that Mr. McGuinty claims. Rather, a flawed model was put forward in a referendum that was barely publicized until the campaign's final days. By claiming the result settled the matter once and for all, Mr. McGuinty lends credence to claims that the referendum was intended only to reinforce the status quo.

"This much we know about Ontario's election results: The Liberals won, the Conservatives lost, and one particular brand of electoral change was rejected. Politicians should be careful not to read too much between the lines."

Ontarians embrace the status quo!

2007-10-11T02:58:00.001-04:00

Disappointing, but completely predictable results. Expect our response in the coming days.

With 27,661 of 27,679 polls reporting

The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)
2,702,324
63.1%
102 ridings

The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)
1,577,245
36.9%
5 ridings

Congratulations to the winners, and congratulations to Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberal Party on a well-earned victory in the election!

Choose Change Tomorrow

2007-10-09T00:00:00.000-04:00

Ontarians have a unique opportunity tomorrow to modernize our voting system.

The referendum is the final step in a unique process of citizen-based, deliberative democracy that began with the Citizens' Assembly.

This randomly-chosen group of citizens, free of partisan bias, chose the Mixed Member Proportional system over our existing system by a vote of 94 to 8.

While public understanding of the question was very low at the beginning of this campaign, there's little doubt that awareness has grown. By how much remains unclear. Most voters know little about why the Citizens' Assembly recommended they adopt the new system. Elections Ontario's campaign has done little more than inform voters we are having a referendum on electoral reform. Many establishment media outlets including the Toronto Star have printed misinformation about the new system. There have been many numbers flying around. Accusations and counter-accusations.

If you haven't already, please check out our Top Five Reasons MMP is Better For Voters. Or read our Questions & Answers page for more details on your choice tomorrow.

In the end, voters need to answer the following questions tomorrow: What kind of government do you want? Do you want a government where one party can win all the power with only 40% of the vote or less (the existing system)? Or should a party that wins 40% of the vote win 40% of the power (the new system)?

We agree with the Citizens' Assembly: we support the new Mixed Member Proportional system.

The new system gives voters more choice, fairer results and more representation.

You'll get two votes: one for your local candidate (just like now) and one for a political party. If you don't like your party's local candidate, you can vote against that candidate and still vote for the party with your second vote, or vice versa.

Under the new system, your vote will always have an impact on the overall province-wide result, unlike now where it only counts locally and only if you vote for the winner.

If the new system wins and is implemented, we'll get a legislature that reflects the true face and voice of the people for the first time in Ontario's history!

Tomorrow, choose change. Choose Mixed Member Proportional.

Liberals For MMP spokesperson Kate Holloway speaks at Queen's Park presser last week

2007-10-08T13:19:00.001-04:00

Liberals for MMP co-founder and Trinity-Spadina candidate Kate Holloway speaks at a press conference at Queen's Park on Oct 3rd, 2007 in favour of the new system, along with former NDP Leader Ed Broadbent, federal Liberal candidate Bob Rae, Tory Senator Hugh Segal and others.

Liberal MPP Lorenzo Berardinetti supports new voting system

2007-10-08T10:25:00.000-04:00

Lorenzo Berardinetti, the Ontario Liberal incumbent in Scarborough Southwest, announced last week he supports the Mixed Member Proportional option (or MMP) before voters on October 10th.

Berardinetti made his comments on the "Dale Goldhawk Live" broadcast on Rogers Cable 10 in Toronto last Thursday.

Berardinetti is now the eleventh Ontario Liberal candidate to publicly endorse the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change, joining incumbents Michael Bryant, John Gerretsen, George Smitherman, Ted McMeekin, Shafiq Qaadri and Tony Ruprecht, as well as candidates Kate Holloway, Steve Fishman, Selwyn Hicks and Ian Wilson.

Under new system, your vote will always have an impact right across the province

2007-10-08T10:24:00.000-04:00

As stated here last week, one of the greatest benefits of the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system is your vote will always have an impact on the overall result across the province, unlike now where it only counts locally and only if you vote for the winner.

Under the new system, you'll get two votes: one for your local representative (just like now) and one for a political party's team of province-wide candidates. This second vote will always have an impact right across Ontario as it determines the total number of seats each party will win.

Under our existing system, you can't vote for the leader of the party, you can't vote for the party as a whole. You can only vote for a local candidate. If you want to vote Liberal, but you don't like the local Liberal candidate what do you do?

Under the new system, you can vote for a strong local candidate of any party, and still cast your ballot for another party.

Under the new system, all party votes will be reflected in the make-up of the legislature. When you know your vote always counts, you're more likely to head to the polls on election day.

MMP means more voter choice, stronger representation and fairer results.

First-Past-The-Post/Winner-Take-All sometimes hands victory to the 2nd place party

2007-10-07T11:23:00.001-04:00

One of the most disturbing aspects of our existing "Winner-Take-All" voting system is its tendency to distort voters' wishes so badly that sometimes the second place party among voters actually wins the election.

This has happened in six out of 10 provinces in recent times: Ontario, Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskat chewan and British Columbia.

Fair voting systems will fix this and ensure seat totals match the popular vote.

The people choose the government, not the system!

Why our fabled democracy needs a tune-up

2007-10-07T11:00:00.000-04:00

The Toronto Star printed this article today by Dennis Pilon, an expert on voting systems at the University of Victoria.

Here's an excerpt:

"The proportional representation system that Ontarians have an opportunity to approve during the Oct. 10 referendum is simple, modest, and addresses many of the major problems with contemporary Ontario democracy that have long been identified by academics and political commentators from right to left. Imagine more accurate election tallies, a more competitive political environment where every vote would count for something, and better representation of Ontario's diversity. These are not hypothetical possibilities, but the actual experience of countries similar to Canada that have proportional representation, as documented in a considerable body of academic research.

"Opponents of the proposed mixed member system (combining local representatives with representation reflecting a party's overall vote) say it may come at the cost of local representation, individual MPP accountability, and political centrism.

"I maintain the defence of the political status quo hinges on a set of myths and false assumptions. I would like to systematically debunk three key fables about our current, first-past-the-post system: local representation, the role of parties in different voting systems, and alleged instability of the MMP alternative..."

To read more, click here.

Top Five Reasons MMP is Better for Voters

2007-10-06T11:04:00.001-04:00

1) Your vote will always have an impact right across the province, unlike now where it only counts locally and only if you vote for the winner

Under the new system, you'll get two votes: one for your local representative (just like now) and one for a political party's team of province-wide candidates. This second vote has an impact right across Ontario as it determines the total number of seats each party will win. Under our existing system, your vote only counts in one (1) of 107 ridings and only if you vote for the winner.

2) 40 MPPs elected to represent you, up from just one now

Under the new system, you're guaranteed one local representative, just like now. But you'll also be able to elect 39 new, province-wide representatives. That's 40 people directly accountable to you, elected to represent your interests at Queen's Park, unlike just one (1) representative now.

3) For the first time in Ontario's history, we'll have a legislature that reflects the true face and voice of the people!

Most Ontarians value diversity and equality. Yet Ontario has a terrible record of representation for women and minorities in our legislature. We've never elected an Aboriginal Ontarian to Queen's Park. Fair voting systems like MMP make better representation for all more likely. The voice of the people as reflected in the popular vote will be translated directly into representation at Queen's Park, unlike our existing system which frequently distorts our votes in favour of one party.

4) Laws that get passed in Ontario will be supported by parties representing over 50% of the people

Who knew in Ontario in 2007 we'd be fighting to ensure that laws passed by our government must be supported by the majority of voters?

Our existing, antiquated system has long produced phony majority governments where one party wins a majority of seats at Queen's Park with fewer than 50% of the votes. Under the new system, new laws will need to be supported by political parties representing over 50% of the people before they can get passed. This is good for all voters and good for democracy.

5) The second place party will never win the election again

Another disturbing aspect of our existing system is its tendency to distort voters' wishes so badly that sometimes the second place party among voters actually wins the election. This has happened in six out of 10 provinces in recent times: Ontario, Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. The new Mixed Member Proportional system will fix this and ensure seat totals match the popular vote. Under the new system, the party that elects the most MPPs will be asked to form a government.

The people choose the government, not the system.

Please feel free to pass along these "Top Five Reasons MMP is Better For Voters" to your friends and family...

Existing, antiquated system mostly penalizes supporters of the two biggest parties

2007-10-05T10:26:00.000-04:00

Some critics of proportional voting systems say they only help out smaller parties and their supporters.

But in reality, our existing, antiquated system mostly penalizes supporters of the two biggest parties.

In the 2003 Ontario election, Liberal and Progressive Conservative voters cast over two-thirds of all wasted votes. Why? Because they happened to live in ridings where another party had more supporters, so their votes elected no one. In the ridings outside Toronto, 500,950 Liberal votes translated into nothing in 2003.

VoteforMMP.ca released a study yesterday covering the seven Ontario elections from 1980 to 2003, illustrating how our existing "Winner-Take-All" voting system distorted results, created phony majority governments, wasted millions of votes and disenfranchised the electorate.

Among the findings in the study:

- in provincial elections, most Ontarians (51%) cast votes that elect no one (compared to the last New Zealand election under MMP where only 1% of the votes were ineffective)

- among all provinces during the study period, Ontario had the highest percentage of voters that elected no one

- in the last Ontario election, 70% of the ineffective votes were cast by supporters of the two largest parties

- if every Ontarian who cast a wasted vote in the 2003 election formed a line beginning at Lake Ontario, the line would extend north through the province and out into Hudson Bay

- during the study period, Ontario had the second worst voter turnout record among the provinces

- in the 2003 election, Liberal votes had twice the weight of Conservative votes; in 1995 election Conservative votes had twice the weight of Liberal votes; and in 1990, NDP votes had about twice the weight of votes for the other parties

- in 1990, Ontario set a record by having a majority government formed by a party attracting less than 38% of the votes

If we don't improve democracy now, when will we get another chance?

2007-10-05T08:42:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Dalton McGuinty, Ontarians have a unique opportunity next week to vote to modernize our electoral system.

The referendum is the final step in a unique process of citizen-based, deliberative democracy that began with the Citizens' Assembly.

In Ontario, the Citizens' Assembly was a group of 103 ordinary Ontarians selected at random by Elections Ontario (one person from every riding in Ontario, plus chair George Thomson.) They were asked to take a very close look at our current First-Past-The-Post voting system and consider possible replacements.

After months of study, they decided that our First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system should be replaced with a made-in-Ontario form of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

The opportunity to change something as deeply rooted as our inherited, First-Past-The-Post system has been truly rare indeed. This is the first time since Confederation that Ontario voters have had the opportunity to change it.

The process leading up to this referendum was unique because it was citizen-driven. The proposed alternative system had to come from ordinary citizens, not politicians who are inherently biased.

That's why Dalton McGuinty, in his wisdom, set up the Citizens' Assembly. A set of principles governed their deliberations: Legitimacy; Fairness of Representation; Voter Choice; Effective Parties; Stable and Effective Government; Effective Parliament; Stronger Voter Participation; Accountability; and Simplicity and Practicality. Now Ontarians will vote on the Citizens' Assembly's proposal next Wednesday.

This randomly-chosen group of citizens, free of partisan bias, chose the Mixed Member Proportional proposal over our existing system by a vote of 94 to 8. If we don't take the Assembly's advice now, when will Ontario have another opportunity to change its system?

More than likely, naysayers would view a defeat for MMP in this referendum as a mandate to keep First-Past-The-Post for the foreseeable future, despite their many admissions that the current system is greatly flawed.

If you support electoral reform, you should vote with the Citizens' Assembly and against the existing First-Past-The-Post system on October 10th.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Why can't we just give MPPs more power to vote freely at Queen's Park and ignore the flaws in our existing voting system?

2007-10-05T08:41:00.001-04:00

Power and control have evolved so tightly in the leaders' offices at Queen's Park. Despite the good intentions of some opposition leaders, substantial parliamentary reform remains a distant dream.

Mixed Member Proportional won't solve all of our democratic problems, but it sure will present the opportunity for greater party cooperation. Politicians will have to work together for the good of the province. The new system will ensure that any legislation that passes into law be supported by parties that represent over 50% of the people.

A healthy division of powers at the provincial level would be a welcome relief. And we know that government kept on its toes is the best kind of government of all.

Minority groups weigh in on electoral reform

2007-10-04T20:54:00.001-04:00

InsideToronto.ca published this article today by reporter Mike Adler: "Minority groups weigh in on electoral reform; New system would better reflect diversity of population"

Here's an excerpt:

The new voting system called MMP will make Ontario's government look more like Ontario, representatives of Toronto's ethnic communities are saying.

In the dying days of a campaign where the Oct. 10 referendum on mixed member proportional, or MMP, has taken a back seat to other issues, several groups said the present electoral system forces women and minorities to take a back seat at Queen's Park.

"If we're constantly being represented by people who don't look like us, what kind of country are we trying to build together," Andalee Adamali, program manager of Council of Agencies Serving South Asians asked this week.

The council and other organizations say the city's women and ethnic minorities find it harder to get the money required to run for an MPP's post and the result is fewer female or minority MPPs.

The proposed MMP system would still elect most MPPs from ridings, but would choose some from party lists based on province-wide support; it's these lists that would give women and minorities more chances as MPPs to address issues important to them, such as childcare or poverty, said Adamali and others.

This week, Dr. Joseph Wong, founder of the Yee Hong Centre for Geriatric Care, announced his support for MMP at a press conference hosted by Chinese-Canadian groups in Toronto.

"The existing system has been unchanged since 120 years ago and the world has changed a lot," Wong added later in an interview. While MMP isn't perfect and all political systems come with risks, what's being proposed in the referendum is "quite a bit fairer" than the system Ontarians now have, he said.

David Poopalapillai, spokesperson for the Canadian Tamil Congress, said the present system "shuts out the newcomers" and MMP is not as complicated as many people think.

MMP will bring more people into politics and lead more people to conclude that "my voice can be heard," which will be good for democracy, Poopalapillai argued last month.

Representatives of other groups expressed doubt that facts about the referendum were getting through to their communities, some voicing disappointment with government information on the subject.

Poopalapillai, however, suggested MMP was being promoted and discussed in the city's Tamil media to inform voters.

"We are trying our level best," he said.

Thursday Round-up

2007-10-04T13:13:00.001-04:00

Here's a really nice pic from last week's York University forum on Mixed Member Proportional featuring former NDP Leader Ed Broadbent, Ontario Liberal candidate Kate Holloway and Tory Senator Hugh Segal. Liberal party member Adrian Dafoe took the photo and provided it to this site.

Halton Liberal MP (and former Progressive Conservative) Garth Turner has endorsed the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change on his blog.

Vote For MMP has launched radio ads across the province. Listen out for them. Here's a link to the English version and a link to the French version.

Eye Weekly: Vote for real change

2007-10-04T12:27:00.000-04:00

Toronto's Eye Weekly ran an excellent editorial today on the October 10th referendum/election, entitled, "Vote for real change." We couldn't agree more with the editorial's comments on the proposed, new voting system.

Here's an excerpt:

"The referendum on electoral reform allows us a clear choice between the warped current system and a more democratic system called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

"The existing system, misleadingly called “first past the post,” is, as conservative columnist Andrew Coyne has pointed out, a winner-take-all system. Voters select from among multiple options in their local race, and the candidate who gets the most votes (which can be as few as 25 per cent) gets the seat. All others are shut out: allowed no representation in parliament. On the provincial level, this has led to hugely powerful “majority governments” who won elections with the support of less than half of voters. The last time an Ontario government actually had a mandate from a majority of voters was 1937. In other provinces, some majority governments have won every single seat in the legislature with fewer than half the votes; in British Columbia, a majority government once received fewer votes than their opponents. Meanwhile, parties with as much as 10 per cent of the vote are shut completely out of parliament. This is not democracy.

"MMP is a vastly superior system. Under MMP, voters cast two votes: one for a local representative, one for a party. The first vote elects members to the legislature under the same first-past-the-post system, and then the remaining one third of seats are alotted to ensure the seat distribution mirrors the popular vote for each party. Therefore, if a party gets 10 per cent of the vote, they'll get 10 per cent of the seats; if they get 45 per cent of the vote, they get 45 per cent of the seats.

"Last week we used this space to outline some lingering concerns about MMP. Much conversation and further research have convinced us that those concerns were unfounded. The system is not as complicated as it is made out to be. Rather than producing legislative gridlock, the minority governments produced under MMP in other countries using the system have been highly functional coalitions. Wing-nut fringe parties are shut out by a 3 per cent threshold. And the “list candidates,” selected by the party, are preferable or no worse than the existing system that allows parties to appoint candidates and even sometimes premiers without consulting the electorate. Under MMP there will be no more false majorities. The legislature will represent the will of the electorate. That's democracy.

"On Oct. 10, vote for real democracy in Ontario. Vote for MMP."

NEWS RELEASE: Bi-partisan campaign to ask Ontario voters to choose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

2007-10-04T00:18:00.000-04:00

For Immediate Release: Thursday, October 4th, 2007

Bi-partisan campaign to ask Ontario voters to choose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP); Conservatives and Liberals now working together on electoral reform

(Toronto) While each of Ontario's political parties are campaigning against each other for votes over the last week of the provincial election, members from both the Conservative and Liberal parties are campaigning together for the first time to ask voters to choose Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) when casting their ballots on electoral reform October 10th.

"More Ontario youth are voting for Canadian Idol than they do for candidates in either the federal or provincial elections," says Toronto school trustee and Liberal, Josh Matlow, "Under our current system, too many Ontarians simply don't believe their vote makes a difference. I'm hopeful that MMP will contribute to ending voter cynicism and make our democracy more accessible to the diverse priorities of Ontarians."

"Adopting MMP would help introduce a degree of stability to the electoral process where swings in party support would be more moderate and in line with the overall popular vote," says Patrick Boyer, former Progressive Conservative MP (Etobicoke-Lakeshore). "Discuss it with family members, and friends; make your feelings known on this issue to them."

If Ontarians choose the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system, voters will continue to be represented in local constituencies by 90 representatives. Ontarians will also benefit from an additional 39 representatives elected province-wide. Although the Citizens' Assembly recommended leaving it up to individual parties to decide how to nominate their province-wide candidates, all four major parties have already committed to choosing their list candidates in a democratic and transparent way.

-30-

For more information, please contact:
Josh Matlow (Liberal) at (416) 809-5674 cell.
Patrick Boyer (Conservative) (416) 225-3930

Backgrounder:

The Citizens' Assembly was a group of 103 randomly-selected citizens from the Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario - one from each of Ontario's electoral districts. With the Chair, George Thomson, 52 of the members were male and 52 were female. They were asked to assess Ontario's electoral system, and others, and make a recommendation whether Ontario should retain its current system or adopt a different one.

Together, Assembly members consulted with the public through meetings and written submissions. Using what they learned and heard, they recommended that Ontario replace its First-Past-The-Post system with a new electoral system, the Mixed Member Proportional system now before Ontario voters. That recommendation was outlined in a report submitted to the government on May 15, 2007.

The government promised to put the question of whether to accept the Assembly's recommendation to voters in a province-wide referendum in October 2007.

Liberal members launched this Liberals For MMP blog during the summer of 2007 and have thus far received over 8,000 visits, averaging over 300 to 400 hits a day. Liberal supporters of MMP include:

- Dr. Carolyn Bennett, Liberal MP for St. Paul's
- Michael Bryant, Attorney General and MPP for St. Paul's
- Elinor Caplan, former provincial and federal Liberal cabinet minister
- Steve Fishman, Ontario Liberal candidate in Simcoe-Grey
- John Gerretsen, Minister of Municipal Affairs & Housing and MPP for Kingston & the Islands
- Selwyn Hicks, Ontario Liberal candidate in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound
- Kate Holloway, Ontario Liberal candidate in Trinity-Spadina
- Ted McMeekin, MPP for Ancaster-Dundas- Flamborough-Westdale
- Dr. Shafiq Qaadri, MPP for Etobicoke North
- Bob Rae, federal Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre
- Tony Ruprecht, MPP for Davenport
- George Smitherman, Minister of Health & Long-term Care and MPP for Toronto Centre
- Ian Wilson, Ontario Liberal candidate in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington

Conservatives For MMP was launched by party member James Calder, and is supported by the following well-known supporters:

- Hon. Hugh Segal, Senator (Kingston-Frontenac-Leeds)
- Hon. Janet Ecker, Former PC MPP and Cabinet Minister
- Hon. Nancy Ruth, Senator (Cluny)
- John Oostrom, Former PC MP
- Justin O'Donnell, Past President, Niagara Centre PC Association
- Patrick Boyer, Former PC MP
- Rick Anderson, President & CEO, Zip.ca and Chair of Vote For MMP

New system ensures second place party will never win the election again...

2007-10-04T00:15:00.001-04:00

Another disturbing aspect of our existing system is its tendency to distort voters' wishes so badly that sometimes the second place party among voters actually wins the election.

This has happened in six out of 10 provinces in recent times: Ontario, Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskat chewan and British Columbia.

The new Mixed Member Proportional system will fix this and ensure seat totals match the popular vote. Under the new system, the party that elects the most MPPs will be asked to form a government.

The people choose the government, not the system!

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: I'm particularly concerned about declining voter turnout - would the new system increase political participation?

2007-10-04T00:13:00.000-04:00

Many factors affect voter turnout, but cross-national research shows that countries using fair voting systems have higher voter participation than countries using our outdated system - 5-12% higher in various studies. This should be of particular concern to Ontarians as voter participation in provincial elections since 1980 is only 60.7%.

The logic of fair voting systems should help address this problem. In our current system, many voters in safe-seat ridings (ridings always won by one dominant party) or those supporting smaller parties know very well their vote will likely not elect anyone so many don't bother to vote at all.

Under the new system, all votes will be reflected in the make-up of the legislature.

When you know your vote always counts, you're more likely to head to the polls on election day.

TVO to re-broadcast the Agenda with Steve Paikin Munk Centre referendum debate over long weekend

2007-10-04T00:09:00.000-04:00

To help citizens of Ontario make an informed choice in the MMP vs. FPTP referendum on October 10, TVO will re-broadcast a special edition of The Agenda with Steve Paikin featuring a full-hour, in-depth debate Saturday October 6, 2007, at 6 pm and on Thanksgiving Day, Monday October 8 at 8 pm & 11 pm. The interactive live-audience event was held at the University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies on September 27 and featured an informative and at times passionate discussion with guest experts from both sides of the issue including:

- David Fleet, Director, NO MMP Campaign
- Rick Anderson, Campaign Chair, Vote for MMP
- Marilyn Churley, former NDP MPP
- Dennis Pilon, author, "The Politics of Voting"
- Sheila Copps, former deputy prime minister and a columnist with Sun Media

The Agenda with Steve Paikin Munk Centre special is currently available as a video stream at www.tvo.org/theagenda where viewers can also access more information about the debate's participants, listen to podcasts, have their say in dedicated election themed blogs, or learn more about the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform got it right: Ontario voters urged to go directly to the source for the facts

2007-10-03T15:45:00.000-04:00

Media urged to print text of "One Ballot, Two Votes"

TORONTO, Oct. 3 /CNW/ - Today, the VoteForMMP.ca campaign and several prominent Ontarians from differing political backgrounds backed a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform call to Ontarians to take charge of their own learning process for the upcoming referendum. The group also called on the Ontario media to step forward and provide more substantive information on the Citizens' Assembly's proposal for electoral reform.

Joining Catherine Baquero, Patrick Heenan and other members of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform on the steps of the Ontario Legislature were:

- Rick Anderson, Campaign Chair, VoteforMMP.ca
- Ed Broadbent, former NDP leader
- Bob Rae, former Premier of Ontario
- Senator Hugh Segal
- Jim Harris, former leader, Green Party of Canada
- Rosemary Speirs, Co-founder, Equal Voice
- Kate Holloway, Liberal candidate, Trinity-Spadina

"We urge all Ontarians to take personal responsibility for casting an informed vote on the proposed mixed member proportional (MMP) voting system in the Ontario 10 electoral reform referendum," said Anderson. "Elections Ontario's information campaign does not adequately inform voters why the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform - after eight months of work - recommended the MMP system. We strongly urge all Ontarians to go right to the source - www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca - and learn why this Assembly of 103 Ontario voters, from all backgrounds, all regions of the province and with no axe to grind, proposed MMP as best for Ontario."

Media coverage on how and why the Assembly proposed the new system has been lacking.

"Unfortunately, instead of informed public discussion, we're seeing extensive misinformation being presented as fact, and emotional debate crowding out thoughtful learning and deliberation," said Anderson.

"Before this referendum is held on October 10, at the very least, every voter should have read Citizens' Assembly's summary leaflet "One Ballot, Two Votes". The content of that leaflet - explaining why the Assembly chose MMP - has information not being provided by Elections Ontario," said Anderson. "Today we are calling on Ontario's media to make an extraordinary commitment to fill that gap. We are calling on every daily and community paper to print the contents of this 800 word leaflet from the Citizens' Assembly so that everyone who casts a vote on October 10 has had opportunity to read exactly what the Assembly recommended and why."

Anderson stated that those who have more time should read the full 27 page report from the Citizens' Assembly, available at www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca.

VoteforMMP.ca is a multi-partisan citizens' campaign supporting the mixed member proportional (MMP) voting system proposed by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

For further information: Larry Gordon, (647) 519-7585 or larry.gordon@fairvote.ca; Rick Anderson, Campaign Chair, VoteForMMP.ca, rick@asci.ca, www.VoteForMMP.ca

Tom Kent: And the future is ... a two-vote electoral system

2007-10-03T11:00:00.000-04:00

Tom Kent, who served as principal assistant to prime minister Lester Pearson, has published this excellent piece in the Globe & Mail today, "And the future is ... a two-vote electoral system".

In it, he writes, "Next week's Ontario general election is less important than the accompanying referendum. Although the election will determine how the province is governed for four years, the referendum will determine whether creaking provincial politics can be repaired to fit the 21st century.

"The referendum choice is between realism and romanticism. People who want to stick close to what is familiar are usually seen as the realists. This case is different. It is pure romanticism to believe that we can go back to the good old days when politics was the normal business of two grand old parties. And since we can't, the current electoral system is indefensible."

The Globe & Mail also ran two other good articles on the referendum today: "Vote a key test for democratic reform" and "Changing the legislature's look".

MMP does not mean appointed party hacks

2007-10-03T10:37:00.000-04:00

Columnist Andrew Coyne writes another excellent piece in the National Post today (cross posted on his personal blog) called "MMP does not mean appointed party hacks". In it, Coyne writes, "the experience in other PR countries is that list members tend to be chosen democratically, by internal party elections...And in fact all four of Ontario’s major parties have formally committed to do the same. As one would expect -- if competition between parties were not enough to ensure a more open process, agitation from the membership almost certainly would."

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: What will province-wide list members do?

2007-10-03T10:36:00.000-04:00

List members will be a new form of public representative in Ontario. Their roles will be virtually identical to the roles of riding MPPs with one major difference: riding members take constituency work from one riding, list members take constituency work from anywhere in the province. They make it possible for our legislature to reflect how the greater populace actually voted.

List members will be required to respond to concerns raised from any Ontarian, not just those in one constituency. List members won't be bound by the usual urban/rural, geographical/regional divides. As a result, list members will be able to devote more time to specific issues of provincial concern and work more often on legislative committees. This will actually free up local members to focus more on local issues.

Under a system like Mixed Member Proportional, most candidates who run on party lists also run as candidates in individual constituencies. The rationale is that most governments under MMP receive few if any list members (because winning parties normally don't need a top-up of list members to ensure their representation matches their popular vote). Alternatively, parties that lose elections elect a smaller number of constituency members, and therefore need a top-up of list members. Thus, it's likely most list members will have run but lost in a district seat in the last election. Those elected from the list will benefit from having sought election and faced voters directly in a district seat. If they want to participate in the next government, they'll likely have to run for a district seat again. This will likely not be a rule under the new system, but it'll likely be the practise.

CBC News Online hosts Electoral Reform discussion with Dr. Dennis Pilon

2007-10-03T10:35:00.001-04:00

CBC News Online will be interviewing University of Victoria political science professor Dr. Dennis Pilon who wrote the book 'The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada's Electoral System' on Thursday, Oct 4th, 2007.

CBCNews.ca wants your questions for their podcast called "Your Interview." They'll pick questions, perhaps combining more than one suggestion, and include them in their interview. Click here to submit a question now and/or follow the discussion.

For more information on the proposed system, check out Liberal blogger Davey's Politics this week. He's doing a series of excellent posts on why MMP is better for Ontario.

Ontario Liberal Party commits to choose province-wide list candidates through democratic and transparent process

2007-10-02T14:58:00.000-04:00

BREAKING NEWS: The following email was sent today from Don Guy of the 2007 Ontario Liberal campaign to Joe Murray of Vote For MMP. Now all four major parties have committed to choosing their list candidates in a democratic and transparent way, should Mixed Member Proportional pass on October 10th.

This is great news as it absolutely dispels the notion that parties will use their province-wide lists to appoint party hacks, backroom cronies and bagmen, as alleged by opponents of the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change, including NoMMP.ca and the Toronto Star. Instead, the Ontario Liberal Party is committing to undertake a democratic and transparent process to pick such candidates.

From: Guy_Don
Sent: October 2, 2007 12:40 PM
To: Joe Murray
Subject: RE: quote on democratic Liberal nominations under MMP

We are committed to choosing all of our candidates through a democratic and transparent process. We are pleased that our party attracts people from all walks of life and we will continue to work to ensure our party reflects the diverse and multi-cultural nature of Ontario.

We are pleased to be the only party to meet its Equal Voice target of nominating at least 50% of women in our unheld ridings for this election campaign. And we remain committed to further improving the prospects of women candidates running for our party in the future.

Ontario Liberal Campaign, 2007

Under new system, your vote will always have an impact right across the province

2007-10-02T07:20:00.000-04:00

One of the greatest benefits of the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system is your vote will always have an impact on the overall result across the province, unlike now where it only counts locally and only if you vote for the winner.

Under the new system, you'll get two votes: one for your local representative (just like now) and one for a political party's team of province-wide candidates. This second vote has an impact right across Ontario as it determines the total number of seats each party will win.

Under our existing system, you can't vote for the leader of the party, you can't vote for the party as a whole. You can only vote for a local candidate. If you want to vote Liberal, but you don't like the local Liberal candidate what do you do?

Under MMP, you can vote for a strong local candidate of any party, and still cast your ballot for another party.

Under our existing system, many voters in safe-seat ridings or those supporting smaller parties know very well their vote will likely not elect anyone so many don't bother to vote at all.

Under the new system, all votes will be reflected in the make-up of the legislature. When you know your vote always counts, you're more likely to head to the polls on election day.

MMP means more voter choice, stronger representation and fairer results.

Why Backroom Cronies Won't Make It Onto Province-Wide Candidate Lists

2007-10-02T07:15:00.000-04:00

Under the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system, Ontarians will continue to be represented in local constituencies by 90 representatives. Ontarians will also benefit from an additional 39 representatives elected province-wide. The Citizens' Assembly recommended leaving it up to individual parties to decide how to nominate their province-wide candidates.

This one provision has been attacked by supporters of our existing, antiquated system as a flaw, many claiming that parties will abuse it by nominating backroom cronies and bagmen to their lists.

This argument is inherently illogical.

More than likely, parties will wish to nominate province-wide candidates who will help increase their appeal to the broader public. To do this, parties will likely nominate candidates to their list from every region of the province, balancing rural and urban nominees and ensuring Ontario's rich diversity is reflected. Each party will be required to report to Elections Ontario how they selected their province-wide lists long before the election takes place, creating greater public scrutiny and accountability. Voters will know who the party nominated on its team of candidates before they vote. If voters dislike either the process the party undertook to choose its candidates, or the candidates themselves, they can vote against that party.

Backroom cronies rarely make popular election candidates. Parties could easily nominate such backroom cronies or bagmen now, but they don't. That won't change just because our voting system changes. It's foolhardy to suggest a political party would deliberately alienate voters by nominating a high-profile, province-wide list filled with backroom cronies or friends of the leader.

Parties are vote-winning machines, not vote-losing machines. Why would a political party nominate backroom cronies to a high-profile province-wide list and undermine its support at election time? It makes no sense.

Andrew Coyne: Debunking the fearmongers

2007-10-01T15:54:00.000-04:00

The following article written by columnist Andrew Coyne appeared in the National Post on the weekend. It's another excellent read from a writer who generally supports conservative policies. Here's an excerpt:

"On the surface, the new electoral system proposed for Ontario would look a lot like the current system. The vast majority of members of the provincial legislature -- 90 out of 129 -- would be elected in the same way as they are now: in local ridings, by the first-past-the-post method. The other 39 members would be elected provincewide on the basis of a party's share of the overall vote, from lists of candidates drawn up by the parties for this purpose. Hence the name: mixed-member proportional (MMP).

"For voters, likewise, things would look much the same. You'd mark one X for the candidate you prefer in your riding, as you do now, plus another X for your choice of party. Where the number of members a party elected in the ridings was less than its share of the party vote, the list members would be used to bring it up to par. If, say, the NDP won 15 of the 90 local ridings, but had 20% of the vote -- entitling it to 26 seats overall -- the top 11 candidates on the party's list would also get seats.

"So in one sense, little would change. But in another sense, everything would. No longer would parties win massive "majorities" with a minority of the vote. No longer would a vote for one party count for three or four times as much as another. No longer would new parties with wide support be shut out, in favour of parties with a narrow regional power base -- though they would have to win at least 3% of the vote provincewide to be eligible.

"Indeed, apologists for the status quo have more or less given up arguing for first past the post on its merits. The pretense that it delivers 'stable majorities' can no longer be sustained: recent elections in Ontario have produced, in order, NDP, Conservative and Liberal governments, none with a majority of the votes, yet each interpreting the support of its own minority as a mandate to impose a succession of radically different policy regimes on the rest of us."

Top Four Reasons Fair Voting Systems are Better for Voters

2007-10-01T08:43:00.000-04:00

1) Your vote will always have an impact right across your entire region, province or country, unlike now where it only counts in one seat and only if you vote for the winner

Under fair voting systems, your vote will always have an impact on the overall result as it will always translate into representation in the legislature.

2) For the first time in Canadian history, we'll have legislatures that reflect the true face and voice of the people!

The voice of the people as reflected in the popular vote will be translated directly into representation, unlike our existing system which frequently distorts our votes in favour of one party.

3) Laws that get passed will be supported by parties representing over 50% of the people

Who knew in Canada in 2007 we'd be fighting to ensure that laws passed by our government must be supported by the majority of voters?

Our existing, antiquated system has long produced phony majority governments where one party wins a majority of seats with fewer than 50% of the votes. Under fair voting systems, new laws will need to be supported by political parties representing over 50% of the people before they can get passed. This is good for all voters and good for democracy.

4) The second place party will never win the election again

Another disturbing aspect of our existing system is its tendency to distort voters' wishes so badly that sometimes the second place party among voters actually wins the election. This has happened in six out of 10 provinces in recent times: Ontario, Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskat chewan and British Columbia. Fair voting systems will fix this and ensure seat totals match the popular vote.

The people choose the government, not the system.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: The new system will give Ontario 22 more politicians and their staff at Queen's Park?

2007-10-01T08:42:00.000-04:00

Currently, Ontario has 107 representatives who represent almost 13 million people. That's one Member for about 119,000 people. This makes Ontarians the most under-represented citizens in Canada by far.

Under the new model proposed by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly, the total number of members will rise to 129. That will be one Member for about every 95,000 Ontarians, a marked improvement.

At 129 seats, the new legislature will still be smaller than previous Ontario legislatures. Queen's Park had 130 seats from 1987 to 1999.

This will represent a tiny portion of the overall Ontario budget. That will be money well-spent to ensure that every vote counts (unlike now) and that laws passed by our government are supported by parties representing over 50% of the people (unlike now.)

Under MMP, you're guaranteed one local representative, just like now. But you'll also be able to elect 39 new, province-wide representatives. That's 40 people directly accountable to you, elected to represent your interests at Queen's Park, unlike just one (1) now.

Vote for MMP: Conceptualizing electoral reform

2007-09-30T12:14:00.000-04:00

Liberal Party member John Lennard, originally from Sudbury, Ontario, wrote this excellent analysis back in the summer on his blog on how the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system reflects the twin relationships the voter has with both the representative and the political party, unlike the existing system which only gives voters a relationship with their local representative. With John's permission, we're re-printing it today.

Vote for MMP: Conceptualizing electoral reform
by John Lennard

I have recently become a strong advocate for electoral reform. I came to this position after much reflection.

I started out by looking at where we stand. Right now, our legislative system is founded on the idea of local representation. The province of Ontario is divided into 107 specific geographic regions (or "ridings"), each of which is represented by an MPP. Among numerous candidates in each riding, these MPPs are elected by a plurality of voters: Whichever candidate gets the most votes, wins.

As envisaged by our current electoral framework, the predominant relationship is between the MPP and her riding. We, the citizens of a given riding, are electing a person to represent us at Queen's Park. It is expected that our MPP will fight for our interests and be responsive to our needs and the needs of our communities. At the provincial level, our MPPs are expected to meet and collectively discuss, debate and set public policy.

A fairly simple system, no doubt. But the simplicity of our process masks the overall complexity of our politics.

First of all, the relationship between the MPP and the voter is not as straightforward as it would seem. There are other factors at play, including (and especially) political parties. Not only is the MPP a representative of a riding, she also represents the policies, the platform and the philosophy of her party. Thus, the voter is not just electing a local representative: in selecting between candidates representing various political parties, he is also (implicitly) endorsing a political philosophy.

With this in mind, I submit that there are two major relationships at play: voter and representative, and voter and party. I further submit that our electoral system should reflect these overlapping, yet distinct, relationships. It currently doesn't. It ignores the relationship between voter and party, and that's the problem.

In many cases, local representatives are elected with far less than a majority of votes. If political parties weren't part of the equation, and if the singular relationship were between voter and representative, this may not be an issue. But of course, parties and philosophies are fundamental to our democracy.

As voters, we rightfully expect that our votes will help determine the philosophical direction our province takes. Most of the time, this is not the case. Most of the time, majority governments are formed by political parties which have received a plurality of votes in most ridings, but far less than a majority of votes overall. Most of the time, a majority of Ontarians are governed by a minority of Ontarians whose votes happened to be more efficiently spread throughout the ridings. Most of the time, most Ontarians have no real say in shaping our public policies.

And so, what's the solution? As I said earlier, our system needs to reflect the twin relationships the voter has with both the representative and the party. Local representation must remain a key feature of any new system. But party preferences need to be included as well. Just as every voter deserves a local representative to fight for local needs, every voter (insofar as practical) deserves a philosophical voice in the broader public policy debate.

The Mixed Member Proportional representation model proposed by the Citizens' Assembly achieves both goals. It maintains local representation while achieving proportionality, so that the percentage of votes each party receives is more accurately reflected in their numbers in the legislature.

I think this is a fair and effective solution to a very real problem facing our democracy. I hope readers will take the time to look into the Citizens' Assembly's recommendations and to otherwise inform themselves fully on this issue.

John Lennard is an Ontario Liberal Party member originally from Sudbury, ON.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: I've read that MMP will give one-issue fringe parties the balance of power. Is this true?

2007-09-30T11:58:00.000-04:00

There are some who claim that MMP will allow small fringe parties to call the shots. But the 3% threshold chosen by the Citizens' Assembly will keep out many of the single-issue extremists.

In 2003, even the Green Party won less than 3% of the vote. No other small parties have won more than 3% of the vote in recent times. But even if some smaller parties do achieve the 3% threshold, it is far more likely that a major party will want to form coalitions with other large parties where compromise is both possible and more agreeable.

Any fringe parties that win representation at Queen's Park would be under scrutiny by the public and the media for their actions. Narrow-interest parties that have little broad appeal tend to have short staying power. In other jurisdictions with MMP, such parties emerged with representation, but frequently disappeared after voters got a closer look at them (and decided they didn't like what they saw) and subsequently those parties slipped back under the vote threshold for representation. Such a scenario would likely happen here.

There is no history of fringe parties holding the balance of power in European countries with MMP.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Won't the new system produce shaky, weak governments like the Toronto Star said today?

2007-09-30T11:47:00.000-04:00

It's completely untrue. It's unfortunate the Toronto Star continues to mislead its readers on this question because voters don't have access to an adequate education campaign.

Most jurisdictions which use MMP have a history of very stable, effective governments that last for many years between elections. Comparing the results for the German and Irish proportional voting systems with results in Canada we see that the frequency of elections is unlikely to change significantly :

Ireland: 16 elections since 1948 - 1 election every 3.63 years
Germany: 16 elections since 1949 - 1 election every 3.56 years
Canada: 18 elections since 1945 - 1 election every 3.39 years

In these two countries, majority coalition governments are the norm. The great majority of major democracies are governed by coalitions. In fact, many countries (including Switzerland, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands) with very diverse populations have a history of very stable coalition government.

It seems the Toronto Star's research on other systems around the world stopped at Italy and Israel, both of which only suffered from instable governments when they had all-list Proportional Representation. To compare Ontario's version of MMP to those different versions of PR is disingenuous, but what else would you expect from the Star in this debate?

There are many people who wrongfully believe that minority governments or coalition governments can't get things done. Nothing could be further from the truth. Minority governments have a great history of accomplishment in Ontario, across Canada and around the world.

Mike Pearson's Liberal minority government in the 1960s not only introduced Medicare in Canada, but also many historic changes including the adoption of our Canadian flag. David Peterson's Liberal minority government from 1985 to 1987 was viewed by many to be one of the most effective and accomplished governments in Ontario history.

All MPPs, both local and province-wide, will be elected by voters under new system

2007-09-29T13:09:00.000-04:00

As Mark Twain famously observed, a lie can go half way around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.

The lie in this referendum debate we've often heard from supporters of our antiquated voting system is that the new province-wide Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) under Mixed Member Proportional will be "appointed" or "selected" or "chosen" by party leaders.

In fact, all province-wide MPPs will be elected by voters. Even Elections Ontario, the unbiased referee in this referendum, states on its website: "If a political party is entitled to more seats than it won locally, 'List Members' are elected to make up the difference."

Under the new system, voters will have two votes: one vote for their local representative (just like now) and one vote for a political party.

Political parties will be required to present their list of nominated province-wide candidates to the public well in advance of election day through Elections Ontario, and explain what process they undertook to elect them. Parties will likely ensure their nominees are very representative of the province's population and regions, including rural and Northern Ontario. If a party nominates only urban nominees, this will hurt that party's electoral chances in rural regions of the province. It's foolhardy to suggest a political party would deliberately alienate all rural voters by nominating an all-urban province-wide list.

Parties will rank their lists in the order nominees are to be elected. For example, if the Liberals win 60 riding seats, but their popular vote means they should have 62, the first two from their province-wide list are therefore elected.

The voters determine who and which number of province-wide candidates get elected with their party votes.

Some say these new members won't be directly elected by voters. But in reality they are directly elected by voters as voters will know who's on the list and in what order before they cast their ballots for that party. Some say these new members won't be accountable to voters as they don't represent a constituency. In truth, province-wide members will represent all Ontarians, not just one constituency like now. The entire province will be their constituency.

Under MMP, when we vote for the party, we're essentially voting for that party's province-wide list. The province-wide list is a party saying to voters, "Here is our team, vote for our team." If you don't like the people on the party's team, you can vote for another party, or no party at all.

This is better than our existing system where you only get one vote in one riding for one local candidate. You don't determine who those local candidates are, the parties do. The parties sometimes appoint those local candidates. Your vote today has no impact across the province, only in your local riding (and only if you vote for the winner.) You can't vote for the leader of the party, you can't vote for the party as a whole. If you want to vote Liberal, but you hate the local Liberal candidate what do you do? Under MMP, you can vote for a strong local candidate of any party, and still cast your ballot for another party.

The Ontario MMP proposal is a mix of members & proportional systems. Some proportional representation systems have only lists, no members (Netherlands). Some have half and half. Ontario has 70% riding, 30% list. This is one of the highest percentages of local reps under any mixed system.

Coming soon on this site, "Why Backroom Cronies Won't Make It Onto Province-Wide Candidate Lists..."

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS: Citizens' Assembly & Why First-Past-The-Post is Broken

2007-09-29T11:59:00.000-04:00

Over the next week and a half, we will be re-publishing portions of our Liberals For MMP Questions & Answers section. Today, a basic introduction for the many voters still looking for greater context on why Mixed Member Proportional is being proposed and why voters should change to the new system...

WHAT WAS THE CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY AND WHAT DID IT DO?

The Citizens' Assembly was a group of 103 randomly-selected citizens from the Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario - one from each of Ontario's electoral districts. With the Chair, George Thomson, 52 of the members were male and 52 were female. They were asked to assess Ontario's electoral system, and others, and make a recommendation whether Ontario should retain its current system or adopt a different one.

Together, Assembly members consulted with the public through meetings and written submissions. Using what they learned and heard, they recommended that Ontario replace its First-Past-The-Post system with a new electoral system, the Mixed Member Proportional system now before Ontario voters. That recommendation was outlined in a report submitted to the government on May 15, 2007.

The government promised to put the question of whether to accept the Assembly's recommendation to voters in a province-wide referendum in October 2007.

WHAT IS FIRST-PAST-THE-POST?

First-Past-The-Post refers to Ontario's current voting system, also known as Single-Member Plurality. Under this system, the province is divided up into 107 electoral districts. Voters in each district cast one vote for the candidate they want to represent them at Queen's Park. The candidate with the most votes on election day wins the seat, regardless of whether or not that candidate won a majority of the votes cast in the constituency.

On election night, the party with the most seats across the province is typically asked to form a government, regardless of how many votes that party received.

HOW DOES FIRST-PAST-THE-POST DIFFER FROM THE MIXED MEMBER PROPORTIONAL PROPOSAL?

Under the current system, it doesn't matter if a political party is supported by the majority of Ontarians, or even a plurality of Ontarians. All that matters is which party wins the most seats. Under First-Past-The-Post, because parties need only win the most votes in any given constituency to win the whole constituency outright, it's very easy for a political party to win a majority of seats with only a minority of votes across the province. For example, in 2003 in Ontario the Liberals won 46% of the province-wide vote. However, that vote translated into 72 out of 103 seats for the Liberals, or 70% of the seats.

Under the current system, voters only get one ballot in one constituency. You can't vote for the leader, you can't vote for the party. You can only vote for a local candidate. Voters who may wish to vote for a party, but don't like that party's local candidate are faced with a difficult dilemma.

Under MMP, voters will have two votes. Voters will be able to vote for their local representative, as they do now. But voters will also be able to cast a second vote for a political party. Voters can even cast a vote for one party's local candidate and then vote for a different party if they wish. Under the proposed system, the votes won by political parties will be used to determine the number of overall seats each party will win. If a party receives 46% of the vote, it will receive about 46% of the seats at Queen's Park.

Right now, there are 107 constituencies across the province. Under MMP, the number of constituencies would drop to 90. But 39 new province-wide seats would be added for a total of 129 Members of Provincial Parliament (or MPPs.)

The new system guarantees both local representation and proportional results. First-Past-The-Post only guarantees local representation.

WHY SHOULD WE GET RID OF FIRST-PAST-THE-POST?

Because First-Past-The-Post has a history of distorting voters' wishes at election time. It typically translates minority support for one party into a majority government for that party.

Voters who don't back the winner in their constituency find their vote is wasted because it has no impact on the make-up of the legislature. As a result, many voters under our current system feel pressured to vote strategically - meaning cast a ballot for a candidate they don't want in order to stop another candidate they want even less - in order to impact the outcome and make their vote count.

Even more disturbing, sometimes First-Past-The-Post actually gives the second-place party a majority government. In Quebec in 1998, the separatist Parti Quebecois won 43% of the vote, compared to the Quebec Liberals who won 44% of the vote. Despite this, the Parti Quebecois won a majority with 76 out of 125 seats. Similarly in British Columbia in 1996, the Liberals won 42% of the vote, versus 39% for the NDP. But this translated under First-Past-The-Post into a NDP majority with 39 out of 75 seats! In Ontario in 1985, the Liberals outpolled the Tories in the popular vote by 38% to 37%, but the PCs still won the election 52 seats to 48, with 25 for the NDP.

In recent decades, First-Past-The-Post has handed the second place party a victory in 6 out of 10 provinces: Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. As an electoral system, First-Past-The-Post is clearly broken.

Reax to Ian Urquhart column today

2007-09-28T09:31:00.001-04:00

Toronto Star columnist Ian Urquhart has been huffing and puffing against electoral reform for months, often claiming all of our democratic problems can be solved in Ontario with a little parliamentary reform at Queen's Park.

Of course, such a suggestion has always seemed willfully naive. As most political observers have long noticed, power and control have evolved so tightly in the leaders' offices at Queen's Park. Despite the good intentions of some opposition leaders, substantial parliamentary reform at the provincial legislature remains a distant dream.

Mixed Member Proportional won't solve all of our democratic problems, but it sure will present the opportunity for greater party cooperation. Politicians will have to work together for the good of the province. The new system will ensure that any legislation that passes into law be supported by parties that represent over 50% of the people.

But Urquhart today, in his column attacking the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change, takes a different tact, alleging that fringe parties will hold the balance of power under the new system. While such a scenario has been rare in other jurisdictions with Mixed Member Proportional, that doesn't stop Urquhart (and sadly many other opponents of change) from making the suggestion. He makes no mention of parliamentary reform, but wrongly claims that supporters of voting reform are merely motivated by a desire to prevent another Mike Harris-style government.

Check out these excellent rebuttals to Urquhart's arguments here and here.

Coming soon to this site, our Top Five Reasons MMP is Better For Voters...

TVO outdoes itself: Great debate on The Agenda with Steve Paikin and amazing website!

2007-09-28T09:09:00.000-04:00

TVO's coverage of the referendum is picking up big time. Last night's live debate on The Agenda, carried also online on their website, was very lively and informative.

Streaming video of the the entire Agenda with Steve Paikin on electoral reform and post show chat is now available here.

Or you can get the video and audio podcast of the show here.

TVO has also set up an excellent website page aptly titled the, "Citizens' Assembly Referendum". It contains a nicely produced animation explaining the proposed voting system, and other great videos on the Citizens' Assembly process. The site also contains a discussion board plus links to TVO's archive site for full coverage of the Citizens' Assembly from the very beginning.

Globe & Mail online discussion today: The Ontario referendum on electoral reform

2007-09-28T09:08:00.001-04:00

Ontario Deputy Chief Electoral Officer Loren A. Wells will be online today at the Globe & Mail's website from 1-2 pm EDT to answer questions on the ongoing referendum campaign.

You can join the Conversation at that time or submit a question or comment in advance. Your questions and Ms. Wells's answers will appear at the bottom of this page when the discussion begins.

Loren Wells, the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer of Ontario, has an extensive background in election administration in Canada, at both the federal and provincial levels. At Elections Ontario, she deputizes for the Chief Electoral Officer and assists him with the administration of all aspects of the electoral process, including voter registration, the conduct of voting, the training of election officials and providing voter education and information to the public.

Elections Ontario Encourages Media to Increase Discussion of Ontario's Referendum on Electoral Reform

2007-09-27T18:19:00.000-04:00

Elections Ontario sent out this news release this afternoon, perhaps acknowledging that the non-partisan agency needs more help from the media in educating voters about their choices in the referendum.

Elections Ontario Encourages Media to Increase Discussion of Ontario's Referendum on Electoral Reform

TORONTO, Sept. 27 /CNW/ - Elections Ontario is encouraging Ontario media to increase the conversation and debate regarding the provincial referendum on electoral reform on October 10.

"Ontario Voters need to be both aware and educated regarding their choices in order to make an informed decision on October 10," said John Hollins, Chief Electoral Officer, and head of Elections Ontario. "Media are important partners with Elections Ontario in helping to educate Ontario voters. We are very appreciative of the strong media interest to date and encourage Ontario media to continue their attention."

On Thursday, September 27th at 8:00 p.m., TVO's "The Agenda with Steve Paikin" will be hosting a live taping on First-Past-The-Post vs. Mixed Member Proportional, from the Munk Centre for International Studies on the campus of the University of Toronto. The episode will look at Ontario's upcoming referendum on electoral reform and both systems on the ballot. Elections Ontario encourages Ontario voters to watch the broadcast debate.

"Media initiatives like Thursday's edition of 'The Agenda' are an important part of fostering voter engagement and debate regarding the October referendum," says Hollins. "We are appreciative to TVO and look forward to other media leading similar formal debates and dialogue."

For further information: Matt Roth, GCI Group for Elections Ontario, (416) 486-5911, mroth@gcigroup.com

Xtra: Ontario referendum has deck stacked against it

2007-09-27T17:54:00.000-04:00

Capital Xtra, serving Ottawa's LGBT community, published this article by reporter Laura Mueller this week on the referendum debate.

Here's an excerpt:

"Despite the doom and gloom perspective extolled by critics of MMP, history has shown that minority governments have been good for queer rights — a Liberal-NDP coalition added sexual orientation to the Ontario Human Rights Code in 1986. And let's not forget that minority governments at the federal level gave us universal health care, old-age pensions, and unemployment insurance among other popular legislation.

"Nathan Hauch, longtime political activist, says that minority governments limit the ability of social conservatives to scale back gay rights.

"The politics of divide and conquer, which can have very negative ramifications for [queer] voters, will be far less attractive for political elites" in minority governments, says Hauch."

Mike Wise's MMP Explainer

2007-09-27T10:24:00.001-04:00

This CBC report by reporter Mike Wise provides a "tasty" explanation of how the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system might work differently than our current first-past-the-post system.

Election Reform on The Agenda with Steve Paikin live from U of T's Munk Centre Thurs, Sept 27 at 8 pm on TVO

2007-09-27T10:16:00.000-04:00

Election Reform on The Agenda with Steve Paikin live from U of T's Munk Centre Thursday, September 27 at 8 pm on TVO

TORONTO, Sept. 21 /CNW/ - On October 10, citizens of Ontario will be asked to vote for more than a new government. Ontario will also hold its first-ever referendum on electoral reform. The Agenda with Steve Paikin aims to help voters make an informed choice with its first Munk Centre special of the season on Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 8 pm on TVO. Broadcasting live from the University of Toronto's Munk Centre for International Studies, Steve Paikin will lead a discussion on which electoral system Ontario should use to elect members to the provincial legislature: the current First-Past-The-Post system? or the Mixed Member Proportional proposed by the Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform? Guest experts from both sides of the debate will be on hand to take questions from the studio audience and from viewers at home.

The program will also be webcast live at tvo.org/theagenda where The Agenda with Steve Paikin's extensive coverage of the election continues online.

Quebec anglos would benefit from two-ballot voting system, say reform supporters

2007-09-27T09:57:00.000-04:00

Ontario isn't the only province where supporters of electoral reform are active. This article ran this week in Montreal's The Chronicle.

In the 1998 Quebec provincial election, first-past-the-post handed the Parti Québécois a majority government (76 out of 125 seats) even though it trailed the Quebec Liberal Party in the popular vote (the PQ won 43% versus the Liberals' 44%).

Quebec is one of six provinces in recent decades where the second-place party in the popular vote won the most seats, thanks to first-past-the-post. It happened in Ontario in 1985 when the Tories won the most seats even though they trailed the Ontario Liberals in popular support. It's also happened in Newfoundland & Labrador, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and British Columbia.

Mixed Member Proportional would correct this flaw in our current system, ensuring party representation matches its popular support.

The Chronicle article reads: "The Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights (or APDR) has launched a lawsuit in Quebec Superior Court through which they hope to invalidate the current system. The case, which is being argued by well-known Montreal lawyer Julius Grey, is scheduled to be heard in December next year. In a summary analyzing the current electoral system's faults, the APDR recommends the provincial government adopt legislation along the same lines as a proposal for electoral reform that is being voted on in a referendum taking place in conjunction with the upcoming provincial election in Ontario. The APDR is proposing a mixed-member proportional model entailing two ballots. One ballot would be for single-member districts, a second would be used to calculate each political party's support. One of the ballots could also be cast for candidates running in a single, province-wide, multi-member district."

REMINDER: Two big Toronto forums on referendum

2007-09-26T20:51:00.000-04:00

On Thursday, Sept 27th, York University in Toronto is hosting 'Change The System: A panel on MMP'. The tagline for the event is "Three perspectives on why we need change!"

The panelists will be former federal NDP Leader Ed Broadbent, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal and Ontario Liberal candidate (and Liberals For MMP co-founder) Kate Holloway (pictured). As the only panelist actually running in this Ontario election, we wish Kate all the best as she shares the podium with these political veterans on this important issue. The panel takes place Thursday from 1:00pm - 3:00pm at the Recital Hall - Accolade East on the York campus at 4700 Keele Street in Toronto.

On Friday, Sept 28th at 7 pm, the Queen's University Centre for the Study of Democracy is staging a major referendum debate at the MaRS Complex at 101 College Street in Toronto.

The National Post's political affairs columnist Andrew Coyne and former Ontario minister Marilyn Churley will make the case for adopting the new Mixed Member Proportional electoral system proposed by Ontario's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. They will square off against Toronto Sun Queen's Park columnist Christina Blizzard and former Ontario minister Charles Harnick who will defend Ontario's existing First-Past-The-Post electoral system.

The debate will be hosted by the Centre's director Thomas Axworthy and will include introductory remarks by George Thomson, Chair of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The audience will be asked to cast a vote before and after the debate to see whether the debaters succeed in making their case. Seating is limited and available on a first-come basis.

Andrew Coyne: The case against first-past-the-post

2007-09-26T19:11:00.000-04:00

National Post columnist Andrew Coyne published this superb article today on the shortcomings of our current first-past-the-post voting system.

Here's an excerpt:

"Democracy, as everyone knows, is a system of majority rule. It is a system marked by free and fair elections between rival political parties, their success or failure depending on the number of votes they can attract. It is a system in which every adult citizen has an equal say in choosing who should represent them.

"By every one of these definitions, Canada, under the electoral system in use today, is not a democracy. We are not governed by majorities, competition between parties is not free and fair, nor do their relative fortunes depend on their popularity with the voters. Most striking of all, we do not give every citizen equal say at election time. Everyone may get one vote, that is true. But some votes count more than others. Some --most, in fact --do not count at all.

"That is the record of plurality voting, the system Ontario voters are to be asked to replace in next month's referendum. Its supporters appeal to a sentiment of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But it is broke, and this is the opportunity to fix it."

Dalton McGuinty should publicly state his position on the referendum question

2007-09-26T12:09:00.001-04:00

Three out of the four major party leaders have, for the most part, let Ontarians know where they stand on the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system before voters on October 10th. NDP Leader Howard Hampton and Green Party Leader Frank de Jong have come out in favour of the proposal. Conservative Leader John Tory has criticized it, going so far as to spread misinformation about it and hinting he might appoint Tory backroom cronies to his province-wide list of candidates if it passes.

But the exception on the issue continues to be Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty.

Liberals For MMP have praised the McGuinty government for keeping its word to put the issue of electoral reform in the hands of the people. The McGuinty government initiated the Citizens' Assembly process in 2006, which has resulted in this referendum. The Citizens' Assembly was a group of 103 ordinary Ontarians selected at random by Elections Ontario (one person from every riding in Ontario, plus chair George Thomson.) They were asked to take a very close look at our current First-Past-The-Post voting system and consider possible replacements.

After months of study, they decided that our First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system should be replaced with a made-in-Ontario form of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

But as voting day approaches, it seems that many Ontario voters remain uninformed about their choices in the referendum.

Yet Premier Dalton McGuinty thus far has refused to let Ontarians know his position on the referendum question.

On Tuesday, when asked why he hasn't taken a position, the Liberal leader said he made a "specific commitment" that he would not "attempt to influence the outcome of this debate."

All candidates are free to express their personal opinions on where they stand on the question, the province's Chief Electoral Officer John Hollins has said.

"This is not something that's going to be decided by the premier or the cabinet or the government caucus or (elected politicians). It's up to the people of Ontario," McGuinty has said.

Yet if public understanding of the question runs as low as 12% and as high as 40%, it begs the question how can Ontarians make an informed choice?

Recently, a provincial Liberal official, who asked not to be identified, reportedly said, “It's not our responsibility to educate people on this.”

The government decided before the referendum campaign to stop printing any more materials on the Citizens' Assembly process (even though the Citizens' Assembly is specifically mentioned in the referendum question before voters.) Materials on the Citizens' Assembly are still available online and can be accessed here and here. Yet many Ontarians don't have access to the internet.

At the very least, voters deserve to know where all the party leaders stand on this issue.

It's time Dalton McGuinty let Ontarians know which system he thinks would be better for the province.

Toronto Star continues to print misinformation about new voting system

2007-09-26T11:48:00.001-04:00

Those sneaky Toronto Star editors continue to slip misinformation about the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system into their coverage of the referendum.

Today, the Star reprinted a Canadian Press story by Gregory Bonnell (which also contained the error) with the headline, "Referendum awareness on the rise, official says."

Leaving the misleading nature of this headline aside (voter awareness of this referendum question continues to be woefully low according to another recent poll), the article goes on to state that only 40 per cent of voters understand a mixed-member proportional electoral system is being proposed in this referendum. Later, the article reads, "If voters vote "yes" in the referendum, Ontario would elect politicians as they do now but also award seats in the Legislature based on the popular vote. Parties would draw those members of the Legislature from prepared lists of appointed candidates."

There is no provision in the Mixed Member Proportional system for province-wide candidates to be "appointed" as the Star and Canadian Press write.

This isn't the first time the Toronto Star (or other papers like the Toronto Sun) have printed misinformation about the provision for province-wide list candidates under MMP.

The Toronto Star did it in the first week of the campaign as well and failed to correct the record.

After many protests, Star editors emailed the VoteForMMP.ca campaign to say they agreed that describing province-wide candidates as "appointed" was a loaded and unfair term and they said they'd try not to use it again. But the Star also admitted the term "appointed candidates" might slip in again in future stories (as it did today) if copy editors got lazy.

*******************UPDATE******************

The Toronto Star doesn't always get it wrong on MMP. In today's edition (Thurs, Sept 27th), reporter Kerry Gillespie thankfully doesn't use the "loaded" word "appointed" to describe province-wide candidates in this article. Instead, we get the less inaccurate description: "The new system, if people vote for it, would expand the Legislature from 107 to 129 MPPs. Of those, 90 would be directly elected by voters in individual ridings (the way it is now) and 39 would be selected from party lists to reflect the parties' percentage of the popular vote."

VoteForMMP.ca calls upon John Tory to reject appointment of MMP candidates

2007-09-26T11:41:00.000-04:00

TORONTO, Sept. 26 /CNW/ - The VoteForMMP campaign is calling upon Conservative Party Leader John Tory to clarify his approach to nominating candidates under the new system.

According to a CP wire story, Mr. Tory yesterday repeated the misleading suggestion that province-wide candidates under the new MMP electoral system would be "appointed" rather than elected. "I think the whole notion of having appointed people may be heading in the opposite direction that we should," Mr. Tory is reported to have said.

"We certainly agree with Mr. Tory that appointed candidates have no place in the province's legislature," said Rick Anderson, chair of the VoteForMMP Campaign. "No one is proposing that there be appointed candidates under MMP - unless Mr. Tory is intending that Conservative party province-wide list candidates would be selected in this undemocratic manner."

Most advanced democracies have moved toward some kind of more proportional system, as the Ontario Citizens' Assembly has recommended Ontarians adopt.

"In all countries where MMP is used, parties use democratic processes to nominate their list candidates - just as in Canada today the parties use democratic processes to nominate riding candidates," said Anderson.

"Mr. Tory's remark stands to confuse and mislead voters on the matter of whether candidates will be democratically nominated. Is he saying that the Conservative Party will not select candidates democratically? Is he accusing the other parties of this? Is he advocating that Ontario's Elections Act specify how parties select candidates, a matter heretofore left to parties in the expectation they will proceed democratically?"

About Vote for MMP: Vote for MMP is a multi-partisan citizens' campaign supporting the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system presented to Ontarians for adoption in the electoral reform referendum on October 10. MMP was proposed by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, an independent body of 103 randomly chosen Ontario voters. Assembly members were asked by the Ontario Legislature to (a) determine whether Ontario needs a new voting system, and (b) if so to recommend an improved system. The Assembly studied proportional electoral systems used in 81 democracies around the world, and selected MMP as the approach best-suited for Ontario. Vote for MMP is funded by donations from citizens and organizations who agree with the Citizens' Assembly recommendations, and believe it is time to strengthen democracy and modernize Ontario's voting system that gives voters more choice, fairer results and stronger representation.

For further information: Steve Withers, Media Coordinator, VoteForMMP Campaign, Tel: (519) 282-1078, e-mail: steve.withers@VoteForMMP.ca; Rick Anderson, Chair, VoteForMMP Campaign, e-mail: rick@asci.ca; Website: www.VoteForMMP.ca

Students' Assembly calls for Elections Ontario to send out the Citizens' Assembly's Final Report

2007-09-25T21:15:00.000-04:00

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Today five members of the Students' Assembly on Electoral Reform held a press conference near Queen's Park where they called for Elections Ontario to do more to ensure that the public is well informed and make the Citizens' Assembly's final report available to all Ontarians. They also called on party leaders to lead on this issue and participate in the referendum debate.

"Something’s not right. The public hasn’t been informed. They don’t know enough about this issue or the Citizens’ Assembly. It’s sad that I’m surprised when I meet someone who knows anything about the upcoming referendum. It shouldn’t be that way.

"And with two weeks to go before election day, we’re feeling disappointed.

"We’re disappointed that the leaders refuse to discuss this issue. During the recent leaders' debate, they took a question about recall, but they didn’t discuss the referendum. How weird. We look to our political leaders for political leadership and we’re not getting that right now. Doesn’t leadership on this issue matter?

"We’re disappointed that there is so much misinformation floating around. That somehow Ontario would end up like Israel or Italy if the referendum passes. But Israel and Italy don’t use MMP – the comparison isn’t just misleading – it’s factually wrong. Yet it keeps getting repeated.

"We’re disappointed by Elections Ontario which is telling people to get informed, is scaring them with television ads that say terrible things can happen if you don’t understand the question. They’ll tell us how the systems work. But not why they work. Or even why this issue matters at all. This issue deserves more than a thirty-second slot.

"The Citizens’ Assembly created wonderful learning materials that are fair and balanced and which explain both systems. These should have been made directly available to Ontarians. Every Ontarian should have received a copy of the Citizens’ Assembly's final report."

The students are available for studio and telephone interviews over the balance of the week.

For more information, please call:
Jonathan Yantzi, SAER member, Grade 12 student,
Burlington, (905) 484-4632, 1yantzijon@hdsb.ca; www.studentsassembly.ca

-30-

About the representatives of the 103 members of the Students’ Assembly:

Xing Chiu, 17, was the representative for Trinity-Spadina on the Students' Assembly. She is currently a grade twelve student at North Toronto CI, and hopes to study social science at university. Since becoming a member of the Students' Assembly, Xing has done various presentations on electoral reform at school, informing students about the significance of the upcoming referendum.

Jonathan Yantzi, 17, was the Students’ Assembly member representing Burlington. Jonathan is a Grade 12 French Immersion student at Burlington Central High School. He is eager to continue exploring the worlds of political science, sociology and law at university next year. Jonathan has facilitated electoral reform workshops in his high school and community, and he was also among the five SAER members who presented to the Citizens’ Assembly in February.

Natalie Lum-Tai, 17, was the Students' Assembly member for Mississauga Centre. Natalie is a grade twelve music student at Cawthra Park Secondary School, in Mississauga Ontario. She is anxious to start university, and is wishing she had skipped grade three when she had the chance. She was one of five SAER members who presented their findings to the Citizens' Assembly in February. She is planning to participate in a referendum information session in Mississauga before October 10th.

Joseph Singh, 16, was the Students Assembly member for the riding of Scarborough East. Joseph is currently enrolled in grade 11 at St. Michael's Choir School in Toronto, Ontario. He hopes to pursue a career in politics and study diplomacy at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Since participating in the Students Assembly, Joseph has visited schools and youth groups talking about electoral reform and even gave a brief talk on electoral reform at the Liberal Leadership Convention last December. He does not support the move to MMP.

Zannah Matson, 18, was the Students' Assembly member for Hastings Frontenac Lennox and Addington. Zannah is in her first year of studies at the University of Toronto. She hopes to enter into the Peace and Conflict program, while concurrently majoring in Urban Studies. Since becoming a member of the Students' Assembly, she has worked with the Vote for MMP movement, made a set of videos to get youth thinking about the referendum, and has an upcoming speech at a public meeting.

Etobicoke North Liberal MPP Shafiq Qaadri endorses new voting system

2007-09-25T07:58:00.000-04:00

Shafiq Qaadri, the Liberal incumbent in the highly-diverse riding of Etobicoke North, announced last night he supports the Mixed Member Proportional option (or MMP) before voters on Oct 10th.

Qaadri made his comments on the "Dale Goldhawk Live" broadcast on Rogers Cable 10 in Toronto shortly after the 9 pm live show went to air on Monday evening.

"(Voters are) basically asking me to explain what (MMP) actually means because as you know there are a lot of numbers. It's a bit complex," Qaadri said, when asked if voters are asking about the referendum at the doors.

"I will say though that I'm a supporter of MMP because I think...if it works the way they say it will, it'll actually lead to a diversity of voices," offered Qaadri. "For example whether it's visible minorities or women. I expect even that we might have our first Aboriginal Ontarian in the legislature," he said.

Local Green Party candidate Jama Korshel and NDP candidate Mohamed Boudjenane also supported the Citizen's Assembly's recommendation for change.

Only Tory candidate Mohamed Kassim echoed John Tory's recent doubts about the Citizens' Assembly's proposal.

Etobicoke North is the first riding in Ontario history where all major party candidates running are Muslim.

Qaadri is now the tenth Ontario Liberal candidate to publicly endorse the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change, joining incumbents Michael Bryant, John Gerretsen, George Smitherman, Ted McMeekin and Tony Ruprecht, as well as candidates Kate Holloway, Steve Fishman, Selwyn Hicks and Ian Wilson.

Pro-MMP group calls on John Tory to affirm respect for citizen democracy

2007-09-24T21:40:00.000-04:00

The following press release was issued today by VoteForMMP.ca.

TORONTO, Sept. 24 /CNW/ - Noting that Conservative Party Leader John Tory's name is listed on an anti-MMP website, the www.VoteForMMP.ca campaign has called upon Mr. Tory to promise to follow voters' wishes should they vote to implement MMP.

"Mr. Tory apparently has little regard for the work of the 103 regular citizens who toiled long and hard on behalf of their fellow voters in Ontario's Citizens' Assembly," said Rick Anderson, Chair of the VoteForMMP.ca Campaign. "Voters deserve assurance that a Tory Government will not show similar disregard for voters' intentions should the MMP referendum pass, and that a Tory Government would proceed to implement change in accordance with the Electoral System Referendum Act."

On October 10, Ontarians will vote in an historic election reform referendum, deciding whether to approve or reject modernizing of Ontario's old-fashioned electoral system with reforms aimed at:

- making future legislatures more representative of votes cast
- making every vote count
- increasing opportunities for women and minorities to be elected, and
- allowing voters to vote twice in future elections, once for their preferred local candidate and once for their preferred party.

Two years ago the Ontario Legislature passed an act establishing an independent citizen-based process to consider Ontario election reform, in a manner purposefully arms-length from partisan politics. The 103-member Citizens Assembly strongly recommended that Ontario adopt the "Mixed Member Proportional" (MMP) system for future elections. Consequently, under the provisions of the Referendum Act, voters at large now have the responsibility to accept or reject the MMP recommendation, in a nonpartisan referendum where political parties are also precluded by law from campaigning.

"It is regrettable that Mr. Tory's name is being used to sway voters one way or another in this important referendum," said Mr. Anderson. "When this process commenced, the Legislature was very wise to have placed redesign of Ontario's antiquated electoral system beyond the self-interest gamesmanship of competitive partisan politics. It would be a shame if today partisan politics are allowed to lower the level of thinking on this important matter in the way they unfortunately do on so many issues."

"We encourage Mr. Tory to have his name withdrawn from the anti-MMP website, and to state clearly to voters that their decision will be respected."

-30-

About Vote for MMP: Vote for MMP is a multi-partisan citizens' campaign supporting the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system presented to Ontarians for adoption in the referendum on electoral reform on October 10. MMP was proposed by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, an independent body of 103 randomly chosen Ontario voters. Assembly members were asked by the Ontario Legislature to (a) determine whether Ontario needs a new voting system, and (b) if so to recommend an improved system. The Assembly studied proportional electoral systems used in 81 democracies around the world, and selected MMP as the approach best-suited for Ontario. Vote for MMP is funded by donations from citizens and organizations who agree with the Citizens' Assembly recommendations, and believe it is time to strengthen democracy and modernize Ontario's voting system that gives voters more choice, fairer results and stronger representation.

For further information: Steve Withers, Media Coordinator, VoteForMMP Campaign, Tel: (519) 282-1078, e-mail: steve.withers@VoteForMMP.ca; Rick Anderson, Chair, VoteForMMP Campaign, e-mail: rick@asci.ca; Website: www.VoteForMMP.ca

Liberal MPP Ted McMeekin endorses Mixed Member Proportional

2007-09-24T10:38:00.000-04:00

News Release/Communiqué

For Immediate Release
Monday, September 24, 2007

The number of Ontario Liberal candidates endorsing the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change continues to grow.

Ted McMeekin, Liberal Member of Provincial Parliament and candidate for Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale, says he's in favour of the Mixed Member Proportional option before voters on October 10th.

McMeekin was first elected as the Liberal member for the former riding of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot in a by-election in 2000.

Prior to his election to Queen's Park, McMeekin served as the mayor of Flamborough, Ontario. He was also for a number of years Flamborough's representative on the Hamilton-Wentworth regional council, which the former provincial government of Mike Harris eliminated in 2000 by amalgamating the city and outlying regions into a single political entity. McMeekin was one of the most vocal opponents of this change, noting that it would result in a loss of autonomy for Flamborough.

McMeekin was re-elected to Queen's Park in 2003 and is currently the Chair of the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly and Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Education.

McMeekin is now the ninth Ontario Liberal candidate to publicly endorse the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change, joining incumbents Michael Bryant, John Gerretsen, George Smitherman, Tony Ruprecht, as well as candidates Kate Holloway, Steve Fishman, Selwyn Hicks and Ian Wilson.

Referendum? Now what referendum would that be?

2007-09-24T09:21:00.000-04:00

With just over two weeks to go before Ontarians head to the polls, many voters still say they know "nothing" about the Citizen's Assembly recommendation for improving the province's voting system.

According to a Strategic Counsel poll conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV, 47 per cent of those polled said they knew nothing at all about the proposal. Only 12 per cent said they knew a lot. Forty-one per cent said they knew "a little."

Half said they don't plan to vote in the referendum, or remain undecided. Among decided voters, a slim majority, 54 per cent, said they would vote for it.

The Citizens' Assembly process has been going on for over a year, but it seems many voters have heard nothing about it.

"This thing came out of the blue at me," said voter James McNee yesterday in the Toronto Star. "I'm more interested, more aware, more engaged about political issues than most of the people I know. If it didn't register with me, I'd be amazed if I'm the only one taken aback."

A provincial Liberal official, who asked not to be identified, reportedly said, “It's not our responsibility to educate people on this.” Accordingly, the government decided just before the referendum campaign began to stop printing any more materials on the Citizens' Assembly process (even though the Citizens' Assembly is specifically mentioned in the referendum question before voters.) Materials on the Citizens' Assembly are still available online and can be accessed here and here.

Rick Anderson, chairman of a citizen's campaign in support of the alternative voting system and a former Liberal, said Sunday he is “optimistic” voter interest will perk up in the 17 days left before Oct. 10.

“I don't think the election campaign or the referendum campaign could be predicted by anyone at this point in time,” said Mr. Anderson, chairman of Vote for MMP. “The voters have not clicked in.”

He praised Elections Ontario for its work in explaining the referendum process, but said the provincial government could have done more, much earlier on, to explain the choices. “A bit more neutral public education funded by the government authorities would have been a plus in terms of the voters getting up to speed on this,” he said.

In other news, the Toronto Star ran an article today on the last Ontario province-wide referendum which took place in 1924. The vote was not held in conjunction with an election as this one is, and there were two simple questions. The first was: Are you in favour of the continuance of the Ontario Temperance Act? The second: Are you in favour of the sale as a beverage of beer and spirituous liquor in sealed packages under government control?

The Star considered alcohol one of the "greatest social ills of its time and waded into the debate with all the crusading passion it could muster. Front-page editorials, feature articles and guest opinions all elaborated on the destructive hold and ruinous effect of alcohol. The paper pointed to the ill effects of repeal in other provinces, the rise in drunkenness and public disorder. The Star decried the bootleggers, speakeasies and out-of-province smugglers, particularly from Quebec, where the sale of liquor was banned, but beer and wine allowed."

The above photo is from the Library and Archives Canada and shows Ontario premier Howard Ferguson (left), Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King (centre) and Quebec premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau in November 1927 soon after prohibition was repealed in Ontario.

Ontario election 2007: Flummoxed about MMP?

2007-09-24T00:03:00.000-04:00

Electoral reform expert Peter MacLeod of the Queen's University Centre for the Study of Democracy has fast emerged as one of the most articulate (and unbiased) voices in this ongoing Ontario referendum campaign. Mr. MacLeod is also principal of public systems design studio The Planning Desk.

The following three answers to questions about the proposed Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system were provided in MacLeod's blog on the National Post's website this weekend.

Flummoxed about MMP?

Q: I am curious as to whether the new map for the riding boundaries (107 to 90 seats) has already been drawn. As a resident of Northern Ontario I am concerned that a redrawing of the boundaries could result in fewer seats for the North at Queen's Park. If there are fewer Northern seats how can Northern Ontario residents be certain that the party lists will represent Northern, or for that matter, Aboriginal constituents on a basis that is reflective of their populations?

One of the very difficult things for any electoral system to overcome is a massive disparity between the size of a territory and the size of its population. Right now, Howard Hampton's riding of Kenora-Rainy River is famously larger than PEI, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia combined, yet it also has the fewest number of constituents of any riding in the province. When electoral boundaries are set by the province's independent Boundaries Commission they struggle to create ridings with roughly similar populations, but they also have discretion to weigh in additional factors like the history of a political constituency, its demographics and its geography. Doubtless, a Boundaries Commission charged with dividing the province into 90 new, larger ridings would have difficulty preserving the eleven northern ridings that currently exist. It's impossible to know how many would remain, but some back-of-the-envelope long division suggests that as many as three ridings would need to be combined.

But the story would be incomplete if we stop there because one of the most important features of the proposed MMP electoral system is the party vote. There are two reasons why this feature could make it possible for the North to command even stronger representation at Queen's Park and should be of interest to Northern voters. First, if a Northern or Aboriginal Party was formed it would likely secure seats through the list system, with the potential of enjoying support not only from Northerners or Aboriginals in northern ridings but from Ontarians in all parts of the province who care about the issues such parties might represent. Second, because all parties would be hungry for those party votes, I think you'd find that the parties generally would spend more time campaigning in Northern Ontario and creating North-friendly platforms.

Q: Can politicians still cross the floor under MMP?

Great question! Let me answer this two ways because it begs a second question: what happens if an MPP resigns or is unable to complete their term? Basically, all electoral systems have rules to fill seats that may become vacant between elections and the MMP system would be no different. Under the proposed MMP system if a local seat becomes vacant, a by-election will be held. This is the practice under Ontario’s current system and unlike an MMP general election, there would be no second party vote on this by-election ballot. If a list seat becomes vacant, Elections Ontario will select the next available person on that party’s list as submitted for the previous general election.

Governing what happens when an MPP crosses the floor is a bit more complicated. If they represent a local seat, then they would be free to cross. If a member was elected from the list, then it is likely that the legislature would adopt a rule forcing the MPP to resign and run again, either for a riding or on the other party's list at the time of the next general election. Of course, if that member resigned, the list seat would be filled by the next available person on the party's list.

Of course, more complicated still is if a party wishes to discipline a member by ejecting them from the party's caucus. If the member is elected from a riding, then they would be free to join another party's caucus or sit as an independent. If the member had been elected from that party's list, it's likely that the leader of the party could simply call for their resignation from the legislature. This was not part of the Assembly's recommendation because strictly speaking it is outside the purview of the electoral system. Once elected, it is up to the legislators themselves to create the House rules that govern these unusual scenarios.

Q: What happens to the 39 list seats if the results of an election are perfectly proportional?

This question goes to the heart of how the two votes intersect and work together and why MMP is called a hybrid system. Put plainly, there's no such thing as a perfectly proportional vote -- proportionality is achieved only when the two votes work together.

Under MMP top-up seats are always required because if a party wins 40% of the party vote and exactly 40% of the local vote, it will still need to 'top-up' its caucus with list seats to bring it to 40% of the 129 available in the legislature. Remember that we're talking about the difference between winning 40% of the 90 seats available in local elections (or 36 seats) and 40% of the 129 seats available in the legislature (or 52 seats). Clearly, this party will need to be compensated with an additional 16 list seats

If the party overshoots the mark, winning say 50% of the seats in the legislature with only 40% of the party vote then the result is disproportionate and the other parties are compensated with a greater number of list seats.

Interested readers may want to come out for a debate Queen's University is staging in at the MaRS complex at 101 College St. in Toronto on Friday, September 28th at 7 p.m.

National Post political affairs columnist Andrew Coyne and former Ontario minister Marilyn Churley will make the case for adopting the new Mixed Member Proportional electoral system proposed by Ontario's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. They will square off against Toronto Sun Queen's Park columnist Christina Blizzard and former Ontario minister Charles Harnick who will defend Ontario's existing First-Past-The-Post electoral system. The debate will be hosted by the Centre's director Thomas Axworthy and will include introductory remarks by George Thomson, Chair of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

MMP: "The end of civilization as we know it"?

2007-09-23T12:04:00.005-04:00

Check out this great video/commercial from Vote For MMP featuring Don Ferguson. Every step to improve democracy throughout history has faced the kind of opposition we are seeing today from the supporters of the status quo. We can add the folks at NoMMP.ca and others in the establishment to that same class of past opponents who opposed similar progress.

Rick Salutin and David Docherty endorse the new voting system

2007-09-21T12:11:00.000-04:00

Political scientist and Dean of the Faculty of Arts at Wilfrid Laurier University David Docherty wrote an excellent article this week in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record in favour of Mixed Member Proportional.

Rick Salutin also wrote an incredible piece in the Globe & Mail today entitled, "Ontario's no-brainer referendum," in favour of the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change. The Globe doesn't provide an accessible link to their online version, so here it is in its entirety:

"I consider a "Yes" in Ontario's coming referendum on voting reform to be a no-brainer. That's because the process we have isn't very democratic. In fact, it's undemocratic, due to the stupid system known as first past the post. If there are four candidates in your riding, and one gets 10 votes and the rest each get nine, Mr. 10 wins the pot and gets to be in office, although 73 per cent of voters didn't choose him. There's no runoff or resolution, it just stops there. That applies in all ridings. You could have one party taking every seat this way. In reality, you almost always get a government with a majority of seats that allows them to do anything they want for up to five years, though they received a minority of votes, often around 40 per cent. The majority of voters, 50 to 60 per cent, have to lump it. Minority rules. Canada, the United States and Britain are the only western "democracies" that use this system. It's an embarrassment. It's as if we hadn't noticed.

"Various systems elsewhere avoid this. They assure that the majority somehow rules. None of them usher in a messianic era, but they're all better than what we have. Voters in B.C. in 2005 voted 57.5 per cent for a complex system known as STV, or single transferable vote. Most didn't understand it but they made the point that almost anything is preferable. Sadly, the government had set the bar at 60 per cent. The system Ontario is voting on is simpler. You vote for a local member, plus you vote for your preferred party and the combined result assures that the outcome reflects the choices of the population. It's one small step for democracy.

"But what a reaction there has been! The Globe's normally sober columnist, Murray Campbell, calls it "a solution to a problem that doesn't exist." I'm afraid some of us think an undemocratic voting system is a problem in a democracy. When most voters are disenfranchised, apathy and cynicism tend to follow. You might as well skip today's election and watch The Daily Show. He also says the change has the "potential to rip apart Ontario's body politic." He asks if Premier Dalton McGuinty could have "resisted the pressure to adopt sharia law if he had needed an Islamist party to govern?" That's alarmism of a totally hypothetical sort. There is no Muslim party in Ontario, much less an Islamist one, and no factual basis to think one would be formed. What's more pertinent is that former premier Mike Harris would not have been able to actually "rip apart Ontario's body politic" had there been the proposed voting system to rein him in, rather than the present one that gave him total power despite massive opposition.

"What mainly seems to nettle the No-ers is loss of stable government, meaning one party in power for a predictable term. Well then, why not a one-party state, like China? Have they got stable for you! Besides, stable government doesn't mean stable society. Under stable provincial governments for 20 years, Ontario has been a whirligig of instability: vanishing industries, degraded services, disruptive strikes, fractured communities - largely, I'd argue, due to arrogant behaviour by governments that didn't represent the majority and didn't have to worry about it. I imagine what people really want is stability in their lives and communities. You might get more of that under a more representative, more democratic system.

"But perhaps stable is code for malleable, or accessible. If you're rich (like the rich) or influential (like The Globe and Mail), you can work with any leadership in power. But it's easier if there's one party at a time to deal with, for a set period. I'm sure they'd do fine making their points with regimes that were more multiparty and shifting, as they do in places like Germany or New Zealand, which have systems like the one proposed here. But maybe they'd rather not bother retooling. For most of us though, the only thing I can think of in favour of this system is that we're used to it."

Two big Toronto forums on referendum next week

2007-09-21T09:13:00.000-04:00

York University in Toronto is hosting 'Change The System: A panel on MMP' next Thursday, September 27, 2007. The tagline for the event is "Three perspectives on why we need change!"

The panelists will be former federal NDP Leader Ed Broadbent, Conservative Senator Hugh Segal and Ontario Liberal candidate (and Liberals For MMP co-founder) Kate Holloway (pictured). As the only panelist actually running in this Ontario election, we wish Kate all the best as she shares the podium with these political veterans on this important issue. The panel will take place next Thursday from 1:00pm - 3:00pm at the Recital Hall - Accolade East on the York campus at 4700 Keele Street in Toronto.

Next Friday, the Queen's University Centre for the Study of Democracy is staging a major referendum debate on Friday September 28th at 7pm at the MaRS Complex at 101 College Street in Toronto.

The National Post's political affairs columnist Andrew Coyne and former Ontario minister Marilyn Churley will make the case for adopting the new Mixed Member Proportional electoral system proposed by Ontario's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. They will square off against Toronto Sun Queen's Park columnist Christina Blizzard and former Ontario minister Charles Harnick who will defend Ontario's existing First-Past-The-Post electoral system.

The debate will be hosted by the Centre's director Thomas Axworthy and will include introductory remarks by George Thomson, Chair of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The audience will be asked to cast a vote before and after the debate to see whether the debaters succeed in making their case. Seating is limited and available on a first-come basis.

Leaders' debate moderator ignores referendum before voters, but allows question on 'recall'?

2007-09-21T09:09:00.001-04:00

It's too bad last night's leadership debate moderator Steve Paikin (and the mainstream media team organizing the debate) saw fit to allow a question on the long-dormant issue of "recalling politicians" for breaking promises, but completely ignored the actual democratic renewal question before voters on October 10th. The debate would've been an excellent chance for the referendum question to get some much-needed limelight.

Concerns about the lack of information before voters on the referendum continue to increase.

There's a great article on the Globe & Mail website today by writer Ivor Tossell on the inadequacy of the public education campaign being conducted by Elections Ontario on the referendum entitled, "What's that second question on the ballot?"

Tossell writes that Elections Ontario's campaign is a, "studiously even-handed affair, but it fails to do the two things it needs to do: first, making the proposed system as plain as day, and second, communicating why the Assembly thought it was a smart enough idea to recommend.

"Instead, what we get is a presentation that's so dreary and neutral it says almost nothing. You can hunt around to find some paragraphs of small print explaining Mixed Member Proportional, or you can watch a strangely off-kilter video that bogs down in the mechanics of the referendum itself, before blowing past the new system with a perfunctory explanation. Neither will leave you with a clear picture of what's being proposed here.

"Worse, it doesn't satisfactorily explain the critical "Why?'s" - like why should we support MMP? At first blush, it makes sense that the government should remain neutral. But this high-minded approach manages to imply that the Citizen's Assembly came up with two equally valid systems of government for us to consider. In fact, the Assembly decided that Mixed Member Proportional was the better way to elect MPPs, and that our current system should go out the window.

"This referendum is really a ratification of their decision. To make an informed vote, we don't merely need to know how MMP works; we need to know what made the Assembly think it's such a great idea compared to the status quo. And that's where this site falls down: To give a complete picture, it needs to broadcast the results of the process it set in motion, and it doesn't. By hiding behind a neutral stance, the Ontario government has hung its own election reforms out to dry."

The Vote For MMP campaign is also alleging dirty tricks on the part of status quo supporters in this referendum campaign.

"In an e-mail this week, the Vote for MMP Committee told supporters it was starting to run into "active resistance" from "old-guard politicians, and their hangers-on and the sponsors behind them, especially the private media owners.

"The old guard, its excessive power imperilled, is now spreading black propaganda, misinformation and confusion about MMP," says the e-mail, signed by Larry Gordon, Vote for MMP's campaign manager.

"It warns that the old guard's "hysteria and dirty tricks will increase as MMP gets closer to victory," adding: "It may resort to negative TV ads."

Liberal candidate Ian Wilson (Randy Hillier's opponent) endorses MMP

2007-09-20T15:41:00.000-04:00

Another Ontario Liberal candidate running in rural Ontario is endorsing the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change in the October 10th referendum.

Ian Wilson, Liberal candidate in Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox & Addington, says he's in favour of Mixed Member Proportional.

"I am in favour of MMP and would be willing to have my name added to [your] website," says Wilson in an email to Liberals For MMP member Tricia Waldron.

"I laboured over this a bit then was asked the question at an all-candidates meeting on Amherst Island. I am still concerned about increasing the size of the riding – it is already big enough – but the idea of every vote counting and the legislature representing the will of the electorate by being composed of an equal percentage of representatives to the vote received won me over," says Wilson.

Wilson is facing off this election against far-right Conservative candidate Randy Hillier.

Wilson joins seven other Ontario Liberal candidates endorsing the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for change: Michael Bryant, John Gerretsen, George Smitherman, Tony Ruprecht, Kate Holloway, Steve Fishman and Selwyn Hicks.

Could the unique Citizens' Assembly process simply start over again if MMP loses on Oct 10th?

2007-09-20T10:23:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Dalton McGuinty, Ontarians have a unique opportunity on October 10th to vote to modernize our electoral system.

The referendum on October 10th is the final step in a unique process of citizen-based, deliberative democracy that began with the Citizens' Assembly.

In Ontario, the Citizens' Assembly was a group of 103 ordinary Ontarians selected at random by Elections Ontario (one person from every riding in Ontario, plus chair George Thomson.) They were asked to take a very close look at our current First-Past-The-Post voting system and consider possible replacements.

After months of study, they decided that our First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system should be replaced with a made-in-Ontario form of Mixed Member Proportional (MMP).

The current voting system frequently produces legislatures that bear little resemblance to how people actually voted. For example, under our current voting system, it's not infrequent for a party which wins 45% of the popular vote on election day to end up with 60% to 70% of the seats in the legislature. Sometimes our current system even gives the second place party a victory! Furthermore, many votes cast under our current system are wasted as they have no impact on the make-up of the legislature.

The opportunity to change something as deeply rooted as our inherited, First-Past-The-Post system has been truly rare indeed. This is the first time since Confederation that Ontario voters have had the opportunity to change it.

The process leading up to this referendum was unique because it was citizen-driven. The proposed alternative system had to come from ordinary citizens, not politicians who are inherently biased.

That's why Dalton McGuinty, in his wisdom, set up the Citizens' Assembly. A set of principles governed their deliberations: Legitimacy; Fairness of Representation; Voter Choice; Effective Parties; Stable and Effective Government; Effective Parliament; Stronger Voter Participation; Accountability; and Simplicity and Practicality. Now the Citizens' Assembly's proposal is being put to voters.

To suggest that this unique process of citizen-driven reform can simply start over again at some point in the future and come up with a better alternative defies credibility. This randomly-chosen group of citizens, free of partisan bias, chose the Mixed Member Proportional proposal over our current system by a vote of 94 to 8.

More than likely, naysayers would view a defeat for MMP in this referendum as a mandate to keep First-Past-The-Post for the foreseeable future, despite their many admissions that the current system is inherently flawed.

Of course, we're betting that Ontarians will agree with us and vote for Mixed Member Proportional in overwhelming numbers on October 10th.

And Ontario will finally get rid of its archaic First-Past-The-Post system and enter a new era of more representative, accountable and effective government, where every vote counts.