A few times a year, I write a column for the Osprey Media Group, which publishes more than 50 newspapers across Ontario.
Here's the latest column, about that "other" vote you should be considering on October 10th.
* * *
The latest public opinion polling suggests the Ontario election on October 10 could be the closest contest in more than two decades.
But, beyond the perennial question of who will win the right to govern the province, voters will also be asked to render their judgment on another issue that could be the most significant change since Confederation, to the way we choose our politicians.
And, so far, I suspect most Ontarians don't have a clue about the importance of their "other vote" on October 10.
Premier Dalton McGuinty has run into plenty of criticism over promises made during the 2003 campaign, but not kept over the past four years.
However, one promise he did make - and keep - was to establish a "citizens' assembly" made up of ordinary Ontarians to consider whether we need to change the way we elect our members of the legislature.
After much debate and study, the assembly has recommended Ontarians replace the "first-past-the-post" system we've used for 130 years with something called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) - a system that would introduce an element of proportional representation into our elections.
The idea behind MMP seems simple enough. The thinking is, too many voters are sick and tired of seeing political parties capture, for example, 38 per cent of the votes but win a disproportionate number of the seats.
In 1990, Bob Rae won 38 per cent of the total votes. Yet, that translated into 56 per cent of the seats and an NDP majority government.
Even when premiers have won very strong mandates, our current system makes those victories even more overwhelming. David Peterson won 47 per cent of the total votes cast in 1987, good for a whopping 73 per cent of the seats.
Beyond that math, critics say the current system woefully under-represents women and minority groups. (Just 23 per cent of the current MPPs are female; only six per cent are from visible minority communities.)
And finally, there may also be the sense that if you didn't vote for the eventual winner, your vote somehow didn't really count.
Proponents of the new MMP system say they can fix all that.
In addition to voting for your local member of the legislature, citizens would also get a second check on the ballot for a party, not a candidate. Other MPPs would then be selected from party lists, based on the proportion of "second votes" won. Those members - not tied to any particular riding - would presumably include more women and minority groups, not to mention New Democrats and Greens, who have trouble winning seats in the current winner-take-all system, but would be better rewarded under MMP.
If voters go for MMP (it would require a 60-per-cent approval in the referendum), the new system would be in place for the ensuing provincial election. Two years ago, British Columbia held a similar referendum. While B.C.'s electoral reform proposal won a majority of votes, the measure failed although it came breathtakingly close. It won 58 per cent support, but as in Ontario, required 60 per cent approval for passage.
MMP supporters have been beating the drum hard in hopes of securing its passage. Non-partisan groups such as Equal Voice and Fair Vote Canada - not to mention the NDP and Greens - are its most prominent champions.
But others fear the ills that MMP purports to solve will be replaced by other unforeseen consequences.
"Our system does not represent women or the poor or visible minorities well, " acknowledges Sean Conway, who spent nearly 30 years in the legislature as a Liberal MPP.
"But our system is executive. It creates governments that can make decisions. This new system would institutionalize minority governments, and I'm not sure people really want that at the end of the day."
Others worry about creating two different classes of MPPs: the 90 members who are tied to a riding, versus the 39 others who, they say, will need to curry favour with the leaders in order to be as high up the party list as possible, thereby improving their chances of winning a seat.
"I believe in parliament and the current party system," says Mac Penney, longtime backroom strategist for the Ontario PC party. "This is a jury-rigged solution."
Backers of MMP worry that, with all the attention on the traditional partisan horse race, voters may not realize the unprecedented opportunity they have to change their political system. Further, the issue is hardly "water cooler" conversation and without a major education campaign by the province, most people won't feel adequately educated to vote in the referendum.
The old joke in Cook County, Chicago, is to vote early and often. While Ontarians can't quite go that far, they should be reminded that they will be able to vote twice on October 10, both for their local member, and for how they want their politicians selected in future.
Steve Paikin is anchor and senior editor of The Agenda with Steve Paikin on TVO and a member of the Osprey Writers Group. Comments can be sent to writersgroup@ospreymedia.ca
© 2007 Osprey Media Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Steve, you have provided a good summary of some of the key issues. While I have a great deal of respect for the experience and wisdom of both Sean Conway and Mac Penny (Please bring back a regular political panel or at least have one once a week during the election!!!!!), the critics of the proposed system seem to be able to point out potential flaws but are not overall comparing the pros and cons to the current system. Neither system is perfect and I doubt that you can create such a system. However, the MMP overall has more benefits and less cons than the current system.
The idea that we will have more minority governments is questionable. Since almost two-thirds of the seats will be elected by constituency, the first past the post will still have the largest influence on the actual outcome on who forms the government. In a large province like Ontario, consistuency representation should be dominant. However,that needs to be balanced with representing the preferences of all the voters which is what MMP will do.
While there may be two distinct types of MPP's, I am not sure how it means two different classes. They will all the same rights in the legislature and it has the potential to vastly improve how government works. For example, most of the standing committees now only sit Monday to Thursday when the legislature is in session. This is to ensure MPP's have the opportunity to spend a significant portion of their time in their constituency. Under MMP, they could still do that but committee hearings could take place on Fridays or when the house is not sitting as the non constituency members could sit on the hearings. This would result in more pieces of legislation going to committee and more input into the legislative process.
If we are striving for perfection, we will never have change. I wish the government was just implementing the new system and not having a referendum but please vote in favour of the new system.
posted by Oxford on 06 September 2007 at 4:32 PM
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Don't have an account?
*You must have a FREE TVO account in order to comment on posts
Throughout my years at TVO, viewers have stayed in touch with me through letters, cards, faxes, emails, and phone calls. Here's another option: my blog. Through this forum, I'll let you in on some of what goes on behind the scenes of The Agenda. And I hope you'll send me your thoughts and constructive criticism on how we're doing as well.
The Agenda with Steve Paikin Allan Gregg in Conversation Big Ideas
Think Again
My experience mirrors yours...
You're right, very people I've come across are aware of this "other vote". I've placed phamlets in our office and so far no one has bothered to pick one up. I hope you will address proportional representation in an upcoming Agenda. Cheers
posted by Wolf AKA IAMSOUP on 05 September 2007 at 10:25 AM