This feeling of prejudice and distrust of all politicians that many people feel is, I would suggest, at least party to blame on the current voting system. We keep getting government we didn’t vote for, while the governments or candidates we do vote for don’t get elected. It’s profoundly frustrating, and leads us to believe that no matter how we vote it doesn’t matter, since we always seem to end up with the same, unintended result.

MMP would add 22 seats to the legislature, and at an avg salary of $110,000 per and that doesn’t include benefits, constituency office costs, etc – the cost to the Ontario taxpayer would be likely greater than $3 million – at least.

The cost of MPPs makes up less than 1% of the total provincial budget. On the other hand, more elected representatives means more publicly accountable people scrutinizing expenses. Fewer elected representatives would mean more unelected, unaccountable staff doing that work instead.

And since no politicians can ever balance “our cheque book” in a responsible way, say hello to higher taxes – no way around it, this will cost us more.

While I don’t disagree that times have changed and new ideas need consideration, this MMP is not one of them.

The Citizens’ Assembly that recommended this proposal (103 randomly selected Ontarians just like you and me from all across the province) studied and consulted and deliberated for eight long months, and recommended MMP as the best system for Ontario. We won’t get a better recommendation (or any other recommendation at all).

We need smaller, more nimble governments that can truly be effective advocates for their ridings and deliver the services we are paying for. Less is more.

Reducing the number of elected representatives overall would mean fewer people to go to for help with government services, and fewer people to be “effective advocates for their ridings,” which would then be much larger. (Under MMP ridings grow only slightly–6 ridings will become 5.) I’m not sure how you think fewer people can spend more time with more people.

Pls encourage people to vote against the MMP proposal.
Thx.

You have many good comments, but others where I cannot but disagree with your interpretation. I do not like first-past-the-post either. However, you very easily and, I think incorrectly, understate what’s wrong with MMP.

First, MMP is less democratic. Voters go from choosing 100% of their representatives to 70%. The other 30% will be appointed.

Repeating that ad nauseum doesn’t make it true. No one gets into the legislature unless voters have voted for them or their party.

Second, there is no guarantee more women and minorities will get into the Legislature. That’s hypothetical and up to party bosses as to who they put on their list. As well, even if their intentions are good, it depends on support levels how many are selected from a list.

All countries that use MMP have a higher percentage of elected women. If there’s any reason to think this wouldn’t be the case in Ontario as well, I’m not aware of it.

Third, ridings will be bigger. That may not make a difference in many urban ridings, but it matters when it’s more than an hour’s drive from one end of a riding to the other.

They will only be slightly bigger–six ridings will become five. This will not make a noticeable difference in most people’s experience with their MPP. In fact, New Zealanders I’ve spoken with feel even more represented under MMP, since they can go to their local representative or any party’s list representative for help.

Fourth, I recently explained the system to a group of people. Most were confused. It is not as simple as voting twice, as determining the proportional vote could be quite challenging.

Our current system is actually complicated to explain as well (How do candidates get nominated? How do leaders get chosen–aren’t they just “appointed” by the parties? If a party gets 40% of the votes, why does it get 60% of the seats and 100% of the power?), but we’re used to it so we don’t notice. In order to participate effectively, voters just need to understand that their candidate vote will be counted towards electing their local representative, and their party vote will determine how many seats each party gets.

Fifth, I would say that it is possible for small parties to have support beyond their real influence. In New Zealand, a small party managed to force the Prime Minister to give it both the positions of Deputy PM and Treasurer (senior to Finance minister) in exchange for support.

Parties that get 10% of the vote deserve 10% of the seats. I won’t always like which parties get elected, but if I want to live in a democracy I have to accept that there are other people who think differently than I do who deserve fair representation as well.

I would prefer greater time for Ontarians to consider their options. The report of the Citizens’ Assembly came out in May, and people are generally quite distracted in summer. If MMP is their preferred choice, let’s make sure with a significant, provincewide debate, not 5 weeks during the middle of an election.

This issue has been studied for 8 months by the Citizens Assembly–our peers, randomly selected to do this work on our behalf–and they voted 94-8 to recommend MMP as the best voting system in Ontario. Every single one of their meetings was open to the public and all of their reports and interim decisions were posted to their website as the went. When we vote we will have had five months to study their report. How much more time would you suggest? How many more elections can we allow to go by without making every vote count?

We already vote with 3 or more ballots at once in municipal elections: school trustee, mayor, councillor, and in some areas regional councillor, board of control, or other position. If we can handle 3 or more choices durning municipal elections, why can’t we handle only 2 on a provincial ballot?