Monthly Archives: May 2007

Government delivers PR, but it’s the wrong kind

The following press release was just released, and is also here.

OTTAWA – In public opinion polls, provincial referenda and the recent Citizens’ Assembly in Ontario, Canadians continue to make it clear that they have one priority for democratic reform: scrap the current antiquated and inequitable first-past-the-post voting system and replace it with PR – Proportional Representation.

This week, in its much-heralded “Week of Democratic Reform”, the federal government has delivered PR – public relations.

“It would be laughable if it wasn’t so worrying,” said Green Party leader Elizabeth May. “What we are seeing is a government so deeply committed to deflection and avoiding the real issues that they are starting to believe their own spin.”

Ms. May said that the so-called Week of Democratic Reform was really a week of gimmickry and housekeeping: new rules on loans to political parties; more seats in parliament for growing provinces and an extra day of voting.

“Meanwhile, the government happily stands by and watches our electoral system teeter on the shaky foundation of an unpopular and fundamentally unfair voting system that most countries abandoned years ago.

“On the occasion of Democratic Reform Week, I call on all parties in the House of Commons to stand with the vast majority of Canadians who believe that our current electoral system produces unfair results and that proportional representation needs to be explored.”

Green Party democratic reform advocate Chris Tindal said that any conversation about democratic reform that does not include proportional representation is a joke.

“Does [minister responsible for democratic reform] Peter Van Loan really believe that adding another day of voting is going to arrest the slide in voter turnout?

“People have stopped voting because they’re disillusioned with politicians, and because they don’t think their vote makes a difference. Real democratic reform would make every vote count.”

Ms. May repeated her call for an open and transparent nationwide consultation on the issue of proportional representation. “Ontario’s Citizens’ Assembly is a great model,” she said, “and the fact that it has come out overwhelmingly in favour of the change to proportional representation proves that this is an idea whose time has come.”

-30-

To Those Who Would Vote No…

This is the third of three posts concerning the the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform’s recommendation that Ontario vote yes to adopt a Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system in the October 10, 2007 referendum. The first two outlined the need for change and described what is MMP.

There are very powerful and convincing opponents of voting yes to MMP. In fact, as a general rule the people who are in power now do not want this renewal to succeed, because, as a general rule, people who are in power now have benefited from the system that put them there.

Knowing what we do about MMP, in some ways a “no” vote is a vote against more elected women and minorities, and against what most Ontarians and Canadians perceive as “fairness” in our voting system. Regardless, you’ll hear many arguments against. Here are some of the more common ones, and my responses to them.

MMP will give fringe parties lots of power.
Not true. First of all, only parties that pass a threshold of 3% of the vote will be able to win any proportional seats under the MMP system. In the last Ontario provincial election, no parties other than the Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, and NDP passed this threshold. Second, even if a party receives 5% or 10% of the vote, they will still have only a small number of Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) compared to other parties. True, they may be a player in a coalition government, but their level of influence will be determined by how many seats they have, which is determined by how many votes they get. Finally, if you have a problem with a party who has received 10% of the vote getting 10% of the seats, then I’d suggest you have a problem with some basic principles of democracy.

MMP will result in unstable, minority governments.
Also false. It’s easy for us to forget that there’s a big difference between a minority government–where parties jockey for position and attention and the governing party does everything it can to secure a majority–and coalition governments, where political parties form formal alliances and agree to cooperate, for the common good, based on their common ground. The former is what we have now, the latter is what many of us would love to see more of from our politicians.

But countries who use Proportional Representation have unstable governments.
Some countries that use a pure list PR system have had some trouble with unstable governments, most notably Italy. However, a pure list PR system is quite different from the MMP system we’re considering adopting in Ontario. The most prominent countries using MMP are Germany and New Zealand, which have had very positive experiences.

MMP makes ridings bigger, which means people will lose representation.
Yes to the first part, no to the second. Ontario’s proposal would make ridings slightly bigger, but would also introduce another level of proportional representatives, meaning that each Ontarian would be represented directly by their riding’s MPP, and also by a group of list MPPs. The increased riding size is not so severe that it will interfere with an MPP’s ability to serve his or her constituents. At worst this argument could be considered one of the “trade offs” for acquiring the enhanced features of the MMP system, but if so, it’s certainly a minor and worthwhile trade-off.

MMP means that some Members (MPPs) will be appointed by parties instead of elected.
In fact, MMP means that the make-up of the legislature will more accurately reflect how people vote. The above argument refers to Members who will be elected from party lists, but since the number of list Members that get elected is determined by voters, it’s disingenuous to claim otherwise. MMP means voters have more say when it comes to who’s representing them, not less.

MMP is too confusing for voters.
It’s really not. You cast one vote for your local candidate of choice, and one vote for your party of choice. It’s that simple. There may be a slight learning curve, but if we don’t think voters can figure out how to mark two X’s instead of one, then why are we letting them decide the fate of our province? Let’s give voters some credit.

Our current system is traditional and has stood the test of time.
I’ve explained what’s wrong with our current system in a previous post. Allow me to add here, however, that 90% of the world’s parliamentary democracies have already abandoned our First Past the Post voting system in favour of some form of Proportional Representation like MMP. Our current system worked really well when there were only two main political parties and it was generally acceptable for only white men to be elected. Times have changed. We’ve matured, and so should our democratic systems.

MMP threatens the unquestioned political supremacy of white men.
There. Now you’re getting it.

Nomination Crashers II

Last night I crashed another Toronto Centre nomination meeting, this one for the NDP. I honestly didn’t have any throughly thought-out strategies or reasons for being there. I’m a political junkie, and it just seemed like the place to be.

Unfortunately, I also don’t have any (mildly) amusing stories like the one that came out of crashing the Liberal nomination meeting. The winner of the nomination was El-Farouk Khaki, who out-polled Sandra Gonzalez. I’ve gotten to know El-Farouk a little bit over the past few weeks (he and I, as well as our Conservative opponent Mark Warner, have been showing up at a lot of the same community events), and I really like him. He seems very genuine and friendly, and has an impressive resume and life story. Knowing the full list of “major party” candidates (in order of nomination: me, Green Party; Mark Warner, Conservative; Bob Rae, Liberal; El-Farouk Khaki, NDP), it’s now clear that Toronto Centre is going to be one of the most fun and exciting ridings to watch in the next campaign.

I’m looking forward to being part of it. (I know, it’s a sickness.)