Yesterday saw another intellectually dishonest attack against MMP (following Claire Hoy’s earlier misguided missive), this time published in the Globe and Mail. My letter to the editor in response to Christopher Holcroft’s column, which was not published, reads as follows:

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.

Somewhere, there must be opponents of MMP who are able to argue their case without resorting to misleading statements and inaccuracies. The Sudbury Star’s Claire Hoy does not appear to be one of them. In yesterday’s paper he writes a frustratingly irresponsible attack against MMP that contains numerous fallacies which beg to be corrected.

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.

Last Thursday night I felt very privileged to be in Midland for what we think may have been Ontario’s first public information meeting about the referendum on electoral reform since the Citizens’ Assembly released its report earlier this month.

While the event was organized by Fair Vote Canada member Julie Barker, the intention was to make it primarily an information session that could explore both the merits and disadvantages of voting yes on October 10th to adopt a Mixed Member Proportional voting system. Members from each national political party were invited, with the Liberals, NDP, and Greens ultimately attending the meeting. (To be fair to the Conservative who didn’t show, he’s also the MPP for the riding we were in–Simcoe North–and had to unexpectedly be in Toronto that night on related business.)

I was not there as the Green Party representative. That role was filled by Valerie Powell (a fellow shadow cabinet member). Instead, I wore two different hats. First, I stood in for the area’s representative to the Citizens’ Assembly to explain the process they followed and how the system they’ve recommended, MMP, actually works. Then, after the three political reps had spoken, I put on my Fair Vote Canada hat and gave my non-partisan pitch for voting yes. (I did disclose the fact that I was a member of a political party, but was happy to hear from people afterwards that, until I told them which party, they wouldn’t have guessed based on my comments.)

Interestingly (and by accident), everyone on the panel advocated voting yes, though the Liberal was slightly cautious in doing so, and pointed out some valid concerns about the new system. As the two-hour evening went on, many intelligent and important questions were asked by those in attendance, and many of them were framed so as to try and identify weaknesses or flaws with MMP.

I think the most important thing we all came to understand during this meeting was that MMP isn’t perfect, won’t solve all of our problems, and shouldn’t be held to that standard. Of course there are some slight weaknesses or disadvantages to MMP, just as there are with any voting system. However, no one is more aware of those weaknesses than the Citizens’ Assembly itself. There wasn’t a single question or concern we could think of that they hadn’t already considered. And, as experts on all of the reasons why we wouldn’t want to choose MMP over our current voting system, the CA has still recommended that we do. That, for me, was a significant realization.

I concluded my remarks by saying that, while I do think everyone needs to learn as much as they can about the proposal and make up their own mind, there’s also something to be said for the fact that the Assembly members were our peers, followed an excellent, in-depth, open and transparent process, and they’re recommending to us that voting yes to accept their proposal is what’s best for Ontario and for voters.

Now, you might be thinking, “but hey, you didn’t have a representative from the ‘no’ side there.” This is true. However, as I said before, that wasn’t by design. The fact that all of the political reps present supported MMP was both accidental and telling. As for a so-called “no campaign,” as far as I know there isn’t one yet. If it existed, it would be top-heavy, with professional politicians and well-paid pundits comprising the bulk. At this time, there is no widespread grassroots movement to support voting no. There’s no organization you can call (like you can with Fair Vote Canada) and say, “please send me a ‘no’ speaker.” Again, that’s telling.

At the end of the night, someone in the audience suggested we get a show of hands to test the will of the room. There were about 35 people in attendance (given Midland’s population, the equivalent Toronto turn-out would be over 5000). Of them, only one indicated they were considering voting no, with everyone else raising their hand for yes. Everyone, however, also noted that there’s not nearly enough awareness or discussion of this issue taking place. It’s therefore imperative that we all start talking to our friends and neighbours about its importance. A grassroots, word-of-mouth campaign is the only way we’ll be able to clear the (I would suggest too) high threshold of a 60% yes vote to succeed. It’s a challenge and an uphill battle, but completely possible if we all get to work now.

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.