But there are still a lot of undecided voters out there. One survey indicates that there are more undecided women than men. I wonder if this is due to the cruel promise that a change in electoral system alone will automatically result in more women in the legislature?

From the Elections New Zealand (a country that uses MMP) website:

As the Royal Commission and pro-MMP campaigners had predicted, Parliament has become much more diverse and representative of modern New Zealand society – in 2006 39 women, 21 Maori, four Pacific Islanders, and two Asian MPs are among the 121 MPs.

No, there’s no guarantee that MMP would do the same here. All we have is overwhelming evidence that it would. Perhaps Michael could explain why he thinks that drawing attention to that evidence is cruel?

Oct 9 Tuesday Toronto
Bread & Circus Theatre
193 1/2 Baldwin Street, just east of Augusta
8:00 pm

The referendum on Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) has become the latest victim of the costly and annoying “email hoax.” This time, instead of telling you about HIV-infected needles hidden in movie theatre seats, or a plan by the U.S. Congress to tax your email messages, the anonymous missive attempts to paint MMP as a mysterious government conspiracy to consolidate power. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so effective.

The email and its variations, with subjects like “MMP Referendum” or “The upcoming referendum – be wary,” capitalizes on the lack of knowledge that most people have about the electoral reform proposal before us. Some iterations contain legitimate criticism, others misleading statements, and some outright lies. And whether you support reforming our voting system or not, you should make your decision based on truth.

The email’s anonymous author begins by attempting to discredit the Citizens’ Assembly that created the proposal, saying, “purportedly, the members of the Citizens Assembly were chosen randomly but no one can establish which database or what information was used to determine such random participation.” That’s false. Members of the Assembly were selected at random by Elections Ontario from the Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario between April and June 2006. Since that information is easily available, the author is likely attempting to fabricate the sense that some sort of conspiracy is afoot.

In the same breath they claim that MMP is “the government’s solution” to our electoral dysfunction. Again, that’s not true. The government didn’t recommend MMP, the Citizens’ Assembly did, using an open and transparent democratic process under which they were not beholden to any political parties or special interests.

That feeds into their next (bolded) claim that MMP would “shift the power from the people of Ontario (local voters and ridings) to the politicians at Queens [sic] Park.” Since this is an argument, it’s less easy to categorize it as clearly being fact or fiction. Defenders of the status quo will maintain that this statement is true, while supporters of change say it’s completely false. The important question to ask, however, is why would a group of informed citizens, people, voters, design a system that decreases their own power? The most likely answer is that they wouldn’t and didn’t.

The email author then builds on their vague allusions to a conspiracy by saying “there has been no education on this referendum and its timing, coinciding with the October 10 Ontario election, may allow for an easy pass by sheer overshadowing.” This is disingenuous on one count, and false on the other. It’s disingenuous for opponents of MMP to complain about the lack of education surrounding the referendum, since they’re the ones that blocked the distribution of Citizens’ Assembly-produced materials explaining what they’re recommending and why. And it’s false to suggest this referendum is headed for any kind of “easy pass.” In fact, many observers have suggested that the odds have been intentionally stacked against MMP by those who are in power thanks to the current system. The most obvious example is the fact that supporters of MMP need a 60% threshold to carry the day, while defenders of the status quo, conversely, only need 40% plus one. Former Conservative MP Patrick Boyer, who Wikipedia describes as “one of the foremost experts in Canadian constitutional law,” has even suggested that the 60% threshold may be unconstitutional.

As the email gets more specific, it again becomes possible to clearly separate truth from lies. The author claims that MMP would “decrease the current number of elected MPPs” and “incorporate a new non-elected number of MPP.” This is false. According to Elections Ontario (a non-biased body), under MMP all representatives would be elected by voters. The 90 regional representatives would be elected by candidate vote, and the 39 list representatives would be elected by what’s called the party vote. If one wanted to argue that those list representatives are not elected, they’d have to make the same argument even more forcefully about the Premier under the current system, since they get to run the whole province even though they’ve only directly received a small handful of votes in one of 108 ridings.

Amusingly, the author goes on to make two completely contradictory arguments. On the one hand, they argue that MMP will create “decreased accessibility to government” since the number of local representatives would be decreased to 90. Then, they complain that MMP will “[use] our tax dollars to pay for 22 more politicians,” since the overall size of the legislature would be increased to 129. Well, which is it? Is this person (or group of people) advocating for more representation or less?

The fact is that if you’re worried about the overall size of the legislature, you should know that at 129 seats Ontario would still have fewer elected representatives than we did before Mike Harris cut it down, and would have fewer representatives per capita than any other province or territory in Canada.

There are other examples of where this email goes over the top (at one point it says we’re heading for a “form of government that is reminiscent of Communist regimes”), but an exhaustive list would be exhausting. Suffice it to say that it employs many of the fear-based tactics of a classic hoax email, which is probably why it’s being forwarded so widely and successfully. The other real cleverness of the email is that it capitalizes on cynicism about the current political system in order to argue that we should keep the current political system. It’s party due to our voting system that people feel like they’re not having their voices heard at Queen’s Park, and that sense of disenfranchisement helps feed into the believability of a government conspiracy to entrench their own power.

If that were true, however, then the recommendation to vote for Mixed Member Proportional would have come from politicians, not people. If that were true, then the people opposing it would have been motivated to help, not hurt the public education process. If that were true then the threshold for approving the recommendation would not have been set so high. But no, whether you support MMP or not, you must recognize that it was recommended by a democratic, citizens-driven group who ended up voting an overwhelming 94-8 in favour of change. Therefore, if we believe in democracy—the idea that, as a group, citizens know what’s best for the province—then we need to give this proposal very serious consideration. If we don’t believe that, however, then maybe we shouldn’t be letting citizens pick governments in the first place.

I say that because, as you hopefully know, the recommendation before us was created using a process of unprecedented (for Ontario) transparency, openness, and democratic engagement. 103 citizens were randomly selected and represent the diverse makeup of our province. In addition, they held public consultation meetings across the province, and solicited written submissions though their website. They worked for eight months to become the authoritative group on electoral systems in Ontario. They took their jobs very seriously, and I was extremely impressed and humbled whenever I had the opportunity to meet with one of them. (As the joke went, “you mean we randomly selected one person from each riding and we didn’t put them in charge of the province?!“) In the end, they voted 94-8 in favour of recommending MMP as better than our current system.

While I can find fault with the system they recommended (no system is perfect), I can find almost none with the process that was used to create it. While you may not agree with every detail of what they’ve done, I can’t imagine how we would get a better recommendation that would serve all voters. Especially when one considers the obvious truth that democratic systems, by definition, must be designed by the people through democratic means.

That’s why this is really a vote on democracy itself; not because MMP is more democratic than the status quo (though I think it is), but because if we believe that citizens, as a group, will make the right decisions for our province, then we must recognize that that’s what the Citizens’ Assembly has done in recommending MMP.

If we don’t believe that, on the other hand, then we are faced with something very troubling. If we don’t believe that citizens, as a group, make the right decisions, then we shouldn’t be letting them pick governments in the first place. We’d need to rethink democracy itself. And I, for one, am not prepared to go there.

While the No MMP campaign’s organizers agree that they have more public support leading up to October 10th vote, they are also aware of the fact that more support does not necessarily translate into more votes. They point to past elections where political parties with fewer members won surprise victories over larger parties.

Wait, WHAT? Got a problem with the results of past elections, huh? Not sure they accurately reflect voter intention? Interesting point. Perhaps we should strike some kind of Citizens’ Assembly to explore the issue and report back with recommendations.

They go on to complain that “many voters are either apathetic or confused about the upcoming referendum on October 10th.” Yeah, um, do you think that might have something to do with the fact that you guys blocked the distribution of materials from the Citizens’ Assembly explaining what they’re proposing and why? Think it might have something to do with the mass-circulation of anonymous emails that paint MMP as a mysterious government-driven plot? Just maybe?

Stop imagining. That’s the system we have now. When it comes to how parties appoint their candidates, there are almost no requirements for transparency. And, if party bosses decide they’re going to parachute a candidate into a “safe” riding, local people have nothing to say about it. Possibly even worse, at least some people will feel like they have to vote “strategically” for that candidate even if they don’t like them or object to how they were appointed, because they’re too afraid of who else might get elected.

Now, imagine a system where parties are required to disclose the process they use to nominate their candidates. A system where the make-up of their candidate list (gender balance, regional balance, ethnic diversity, etc.) as well as the democratic (or not) process they used to create it becomes an election issue.

Stop imagining. That’s just one of the advantages of MMP, the new voting system proposed by the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly. And, since voters get two votes (one for the candidate, and one for the party), they’re able to reward or punish parties and candidates accordingly. For example, if a party foolishly nominates unpopular candidates to their list, voters can punish them without needing to vote against their preferred local candidate. On the other hand, if a voter is happy with a party overall but dissatisfied with their local candidate, they can express that with their vote (by voting for the party but not the party’s local candidate). In that way, parties and candidates are even more accountable to voters.

To learn more or get involved with the campaign, go to voteformmp.ca.

For me, the most important thing to remember about the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) recommendation is that it was designed by people, not just politicians. 103 randomly-selected Ontarians worked for eight months on our behalf studying, consulting, and deliberating on which voting system is best for Ontario. They were not beholden to any political party or special interest—they were just everyday Ontarians trying to make the best decision they could. And in the end, by an overwhelming vote of 94-8, they decided that it’s time for change.

It’s also interesting to note that MMP is supported across the political spectrum, by Conservatives like Hugh Segal, Liberals like Carolyn Bennett, and New Democrats like Ed Broadbent. Therefore, we must conclude that the people most likely to benefit from this new system are voters themselves.

Here’s what I mean by that. Under MMP, we would each get two votes: one for a local candidate, and one for a party. So, we could decide to vote for a good candidate but not her party, or vice versa. In this way, MMP gives voters more choice. Then, the percentage of the vote each party wins determines how many seats they get, so that 10% of the vote would mean approximately 10% of the seats (unlike our current system). In this way, MMP produces fairer results. Finally, voters would be able to hold every party accountable or go to any party’s “list MPPs” with a request, since the fact that every vote counts forces parties to work hard for every vote in every region of the province. In this way, MMP provides for stronger representation.

Of course, no system is perfect. Opponents of MMP are quick to point out its flaws, conveniently ignoring all of the flaws with our current system (most notably that a party can, with less than 40% of the vote, get 60% of the seats and 100% of the power). They also ignore the fact that no group of people is more familiar with the advantages and flaws of both our current system and MMP than the Citizens’ Assembly that recommended the change.

What’s worse, some opponents of MMP resort to fear tactics and distortions, making claims about MMP that are not substantiated by any examples from countries that use the system (New Zealand, Germany, Scotland, and Wales). They do this because they know, as we learned from the Citizens’ Assembly process, that when Ontarians learn all of the facts about MMP, they overwhelmingly favour it to the status quo. October 10 is an exciting opportunity to make democracy better.

So, where’s the campaign to argue that FPTP (the current system) is the best for Ontario? It doesn’t exist. Instead, we get this, the “No MMP” campaign. Some of their criticisms are legitimate (no one ever said MMP was a perfect system), others are intentional distortions of the truth. (Isn’t there a word for when someone intentionally distorts the truth? I’m sure I’ll think of it later….) What the campaign doesn’t do, however–because it can’t–is defend or advocate for our current system, which the majority of Ontarians and Canadians acknowledge is no longer serving us well. If we actually had a province-wide discussion that pitted the merits of MMP against the merits of FPTP, MMP would win hands down. The “No MMP” folks know this, which is why they’re instead basing their campaign on fear of the unknown and misinformation.

By the way, who are the “No MMP” folks? We don’t know. While Vote For MMP and other progressive referendum campaigns are comprised of grassroots citizens and politicians of integrity from all political parties, the No MMP campaign has decided to remain anonymous (they announced their campaign through one unknown spokesperson, and have placed no detailed “contact” or “about” information on their site). How much credibility should they therefore be granted? Until they can demonstrate that they’re a legitimate group with at least some popular support and backing, next to none.

Update: Cam helpfully points out that the above sounds to him as if I’m saying that individuals who don’t support MMP lack credibility. That’s absolutely not my intention. (As I do mention above, some criticisms of MMP are legitimate.) I am, however, suggesting that we deserve to know what kind of support and membership the No MMP campaign has so that we can assess their credibility as an organization.

In attempting to argue against the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) recommendation arrived at by our peers in the Citizens’ Assembly, Christopher Holcroft provides no evidence to back-up his four main arguments. In fact, all existing evidence points to the contrary. Countries that currently use MMP such as Germany and New Zealand have seen increased accessibility and engagement (there are more representatives to answer public concerns), fairer election results (40% of the vote means 40% of the seats), more responsive government (making every vote count encourages all parties to compete for all votes in all ridings), and more voter choice (Ontarians would vote once for a candidate, and once for a party).

I can agree with Holcroft on one point, however. He writes that, “Ontarians [must] learn as much as possible about a proposal that would mark a historic change in the way we govern ourselves.” The 103 randomly selected members of the Citizens’ Assembly spent eight months doing just that. And after learning almost everything there is to know about all of the advantages and shortcomings of both our current system and the proposed alternative, they voted 92% in favour of recommending MMP as being the best voting system for Ontario.

Instead, today’s paper contains one letter in opposition to Mr. Holcroft’s column from Janek Jagiellowicz in Wellesley, Ontario, which reads, in its entirety:

A long-time Liberal activist is against electoral reform in Ontario? Hmm. That’s all the proof I need: I’m voting for electoral reform.

Brevity counts, my friends.

First, he claims that MMP would result in “considerably more politicians.” What he doesn’t say is that under MMP Ontario would still have fewer representatives than we did before the Harris years, and still less political representation per person than any other province or territory in Canada. Either way, most Ontarians will recognize stronger representation as a positive thing.

Second, he makes the equally inaccurate but often repeated claim that the list representatives under the new system would not be elected, but would rather be chosen in secret. In fact, it is our current system which allows parties to choose candidates in back-rooms without any transparency; the new system requires them to open up the process so that voters can make informed decisions. Parties will nominate their list candidates as they nominate candidates under our current system, but they’ll also be required to make public the process by which their list is chosen, making it all but impossible for “party hacks” to control the list in secret.

Third, Hoy inaccurately claims that MMP leads to minority governments. In reality, countries that use MMP (like Germany and New Zealand) experience coalition-majority governments that have proven to not only be stable (Germany has had exactly the same number of elections since adopting MMP as Ontario has had in the same time period), but also to do an extremely effective job of reflecting the will of the electorate.

Finally, Hoy feels the need to mock the Citizens’ Assembly itself, which is most objectionable. The Citizens’ Assembly–103 every-day Ontarians chosen at random from each riding–worked for eight months on our behalf learning, consulting, and deliberating about all of the world’s many electoral systems, including our current system and France’s system that Hoy favours. This represents an unprecedented exercise in democratic engagement for our province and should be applauded. The citizens who made up the assembly know more about the advantages and faults of MMP than any other group of people in Ontario, and yet they voted over 90% in favour of recommending MMP as being the best system for Ontario.

Of course, Mr. Hoy is free to disagree with them. However, he should do it using facts, and with a respect for the overwhelmingly democratic process that was used to arrive at the conclusion that Ontario should vote for MMP.