Comments on: Do You Trust Your Fellow Citizens?

By: Chris Tindal

Chris Tindal — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 18:44:47 +0000

Hi Eric,

The BC Citizens’ Assembly recommended a type of instant runoff voting called Single Transferable Vote (STV), which involved ranking candidates. The Ontario Citizens’ Assembly also looked at this model, but decided to recommend MMP instead on the grounds that it did a better job of meeting the things that they’d identified as being most valued in a voting system.

I’d also point out that your concern about “being forced into supporting a candidate I do not want to support” under MMP is actually even greater under the current system, since you have no say in who your party’s candidate is and you only have one vote. At least under MMP you have more choice in who you support and why.

Regardless, if you’d like to continue to press for electoral reform in Ontario and Canada then I’d encourage you to join Fair Vote Canada.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:39:45 +0000

I am intrigued by MMP. I don’t completely understand it, or it implications.
I understand instant runoff. Why wasn’t that part of the referendum?
One thing I find immediately concerning is the notion of voting for a party and its selected list of representatives. If we are going to go through the effort of electoral reform I want some assurance that my vote is going to be exactly representing my voter intentions. Releasing my vote to a party to choose my representative, even if they publish a list, I may be forced into supporting a candidate I do not want to support.
Instant runoff gives this to me. clearly voting my preferences and expressing my mandates. The eventually winner – represents me – and I have had the chance to express my mandates.
MMP further obscures my representation. Not against it – I just think there need to be some changes. And we are in a new world – maybe a proxy system is better – are there any in the works?

By: Lord Kitchener's Own

Lord Kitchener's Own — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:11:16 +0000

I just feel the need to add that while Churchill indeed said that “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter” (which, let’s face it, is TOTALLY true!!!) he also said “democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”.

On the “democracy or not” debate, I’d place Churchill on the democracy side I think!

By: Jonathan

Jonathan — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 16:54:07 +0000

“Do you believe that, as a collective, the citizens of Ontario can be trusted to make the right decisions for our province?”

I am deeply troubled that more than one person I know would honestly answer “No” to that question. While there is some truth to Winston Churchill’s line that “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter,” it implies the worst kind of elitist, quasi-aristocratic attitude.

By: Josh Rachlis

Josh Rachlis — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:57:49 +0000

And win we will, Chris. Win we will! Let’s just hope everyone gets out there and votes for the right to have their votes count.

By: Herbinator

Herbinator — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 20:50:15 +0000

I lament your loss. However, you have to accept that the voting sample size was considerably larger than 103; making a more accurate result. Perhaps the method proposed was viewed as superior only by those intimate with details and nuance. Perhaps the average voter needs a method which produces a result more easily understood. This would mean the larger sample size got it right yet again.

Clarification: haven’t lost or won yet. The vote’s October 10th. -CT