Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Conservative dissent (and hypocrisy) on Copyright

Via Saskboy, a interesting guest blog on Small Dead Animals. Looks like lance is hopefully one of many Tories now reconsidering their support for the freedom-hating Conservatives (as NDP candidate Dana Larsen notes, the NDP is definitely the most libertarian of Canada's major parties).

This is good to see. Hopefully, some of those voters will consider looking at the NDP in their ridings, who will no doubt be the party that pushes back hardest on this horrible legislation.

And this all reminded me of a little display of Conservative hypocrisy on this issue I observed this weekend. On the bus back from Kingston, there was a guy in front of me a couple of rows which a black Macbook. I was checking out its beautiful design when I noticed that his background was a picture of Harper and his white male caucus. So I'm assuming this guy is a Conservative staffer of some sort, because who else has a Conservative background for their Mac?

So I can resist, I have to trail my eyes lower to see what programs he has in the Dock at the bottom of the screen. And what do I find, icons for Limewire and Transmission (a Mac bittorrent client)!?!

I suppose I could've asked the guy, but I wonder if he is happy with Prentice trying to turn him into a criminal? Because I doubt he has those programs for sharing materials he owns the copyright for.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

NOW the Cons care about meeting international treaty obligations

I just had to pop back in to comment on the new Copyright law, Bill C-61, as I can see myself blogging about it regularly as it grinds its way through the legislative process. Yes, Jim Prentice is right that the new law will bring Canada into compliance with the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) treaty signed by the previous Liberal government over a decade ago.

Can any remember another international treaty, signed by the Liberal government about a decade ago, that the Tories have had no compunctions about breaking or even really trying to meet its goals?

Hint - it has the same name as Stephane Dion's dog.

And I think everyone, on all points of the political spectrum, can agree that climate change is more important an issue than internet piracy.

This C-61 is many things, but it's probably most frustrating as a gross misuse of the time and attention of our legislators, who should be solving, you know, problems that actually negatively impact Canadians, not multinational media conglomerates.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Abstaining from blogging

Hi blogosphere, I missed you. I finally submitted the thesis (Electoral Reform in PEI: A case study in deliberative democracy, a future classic) last month. Now that I'm looking for honest employment, I suppose I could blog on a more regular basis, but I'm really enjoying the laziness lately.

Just had to come back to hype up this brilliant idea. In that spirit, I may have to abstain from washing the rest of the dishes piling up near the kitchen sink ;)

I've got some thoughts on the Irish referendum, so I'll probably be back with those sometime next week. Over the weekend, I'll be going to this event at Queen's. I understand there still might be spots, so if your in the area and a political dork, maybe I'll see you there!

Confidential to IP, congrats, I think you'll do a stellar job. Let me know if you need any help!

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Vote Liberal - if you want a Harper majority!

As I walked around the nation's capital today, I couldn't help but notice a great story and accompanying graphic on the front page of the Ottawa Citizen.




The article
, by Glen McGregor (who's not only a great journalist but was really nice to this kid when I was Ottawa bureau chief for CUP), does a great job of highlighting the Liberal record - which clearly shows that they aren't standing up to Harper and, as such, are effectively giving him a majority.

As the article tells us:

"The Official Opposition supported the government on extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, motions on its centrepiece crime bill, and on other parliamentary arcana, such as a bill regarding the settlement of international investment disputes … The voting records support the growing contention that the Liberals are not truly functioning as an official Opposition as they seek to avoid running an election behind struggling leader Stéphane Dion.”


In the last election, the Liberals desperately asked Canadians to forget their record of failed promises, forget that inconvenient money laundering scam in Quebec and vote Liberal so they could "stop Harper's hidden agenda".

And what did those Liberal MPs go to Ottawa and do? Well, first they were distracted by organizing for their leadership race. And then once Dion got in and, once it became clear he'd wasn't going to have an office in Langevin Block anytime soon, they're now giving Harper a de facto majority so they can avoid facing the voters.

So I would think voters will be asking themselves, why vote Liberal?

Because it's now clear that, after the next election, your Liberal MP will be going back to Ottawa to organize for the next leadership race and stay in their seats when it comes time to stand up for the things they said they would fight for on the campaign trail.

Thankfully Canadians can vote for another party with a record of standing up for their beliefs - and against the Harper agenda.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Liberal blogfather: "how dare you disparage the family"

Just had to comment on Liblog founder and charter member of the Dionistas Jason Cherniak's blog post from earlier today where he begs Liberal bloggers to not take out their well-justified frustration over their party's parliamentary caucuses decision to give Stephen Harper the majority he wants so badly.

Other bloggers have chimed in on the absurdity of this far better than I, like my friend Idealistic Pragmatist who points out that Jason is the progressive blogsophere's top partisan bloggers.

Even prominent Libloggers seem taken aback by Jason's call to just shut up and smallow Dion's bitter abstention medicine silently. My friend Scott Tribe has a great post talking about the role of bloggers in the US Democratic Pary and how they should be seen by parties as windows on what the grassroots thinks. Dion seems to be deaf to their pleas, so I'll simplify it for him, your blogging supporters think you need to grow a pair.


All Politics is Local has a good post where he talks about the yawning gap between Liberal rhetoric and action:


If the government is destroying our country, then we need an election. If M. Dion doesn't want an election, fine. Then let's work with the Tories on the budget to try to find some middle ground. Let's drop the fire and brimstone rhetoric. If this government is terrible, M. Dion should be able as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada to convince the Canadian people of this fact and win an election. If the government is bad but workable, let's make it work. M. Dion could demonstrate leadership by working for a better compromise.
.

But really, after telling Liberal supporters hysterically for years that a Conservative government would be the end of Canada as we know it, is anyone surprised that their activists are upset that the party leadership is now propping up Harper?

Liberal leadership are now choking on the bitter fruit of what their rhetoric has produced. Who wants to bet that's it's not so easy to recruit Liberal volunteers when Dion finally decides to face voters?

Monday, March 10, 2008

"“Why vote for the Liberal party when the Liberal party won't stand up and vote for you?”

It's not often I agree with Peter Van Loan, but I think this quote should be in the mind of all progressive voters when they're getting ready to cast their votes in the next election.

Despite staking his political reputation on the environment, Liberal leader Stephane Dion ordered his party to stay away from the House tonight on a vote on a opposition motion of non-confidence in the Harper government on their inaction on reducing greenhouse gases.

Thankfully, voters concerned about the environment have another party in parliament who are willing to take action on climate change.

Source: Globe and Mail.

Thursday, March 06, 2008

Still entitled to their entitlements ... 26 months later

I just couldn't resist blogging about this one - the latest Liberal opposition motion, a clearly desperate attempt to distract voters from the Dion-Harper coalition. And it's not just this Dipper saying that, Canada's foremost blogger-from-France Paul Wells agrees.

After a budget amendment that decried the Tory government's "NDP-like lack of fiscal prudence" (which of course ignores the evidence from the Finance department that shows that NDP goverments in Canada have had the BEST record of fiscal surpluses of any party), now the Liberals are bringing forward a motion that "condemn[s] the irresponsible and self-serving actions on Nov. 25, 2005, by the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebecois which led to the installation of a government that is hostile to the rights and needs of vulnerable Canadians."

I've got to agree with the unnamed NDP strategist, this motion is laughable!

Funny, I could've sworn it was CANADIAN VOTERS that put the Harper government in office.

Have the adults left the Official Opposition offices? Do they really think that this sort of whining does anything to bring the Liberals closer to power? Methinks it was precisely this sort of sense of entitlement that led voters to want to turf the Martin government out of office in the first place.

As this blogger notes, "don't expect that the average Canadian is still seething over that last election... they aren't. They've moved on. So should [Liberals]."

And Stephane if you keep this kind of whining up, you'll never get to see the inside of 24 Sussex. The smart Liberal bloggers realize this as well.

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Manana winter!

Going to a deserted Caribbean island for the week. I figure the revolution needs my hard currency and my system needs the Vitamin D.

Will try to blog more regularly when I get back. May scrawl some good thoughts to share on this blog about North American elections while in the white sand.

In the meantime, I just thought this picture from a Hillary rally in Texas is too funny.

Who wants to bet that sign was pre-made by the campaign?

The #1 book I'm looking forward to reading while sipping on a Cuba Libre.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Want to help renew Canadian democracy? Last minute activism for MMP

I should be getting to bed but wanted to make a little post to share some ideas I've got for simple last-minute activist things you can do to help bring a renewed democracy to Ontario. Please consider taking a moment, because if we don't get a strong vote for MMP, then say bye-bye to meaningful electoral reform in Canada for a long while.

Here are some easy suggestions:

- Call friends and family and encourage them to vote - but more importantly vote for MMP.
- Email friends about MMP. This is a great template, but adding a brief personal note about why you're supporting MMP at the top will make it much more effective.
- Change your Facebook picture to include a call for Vote for MMP. Here and here are some good graphics you can use.
- Get some campaign materials from the Vote for MMP site and hit the streets!

Don't comment on this, just go work it for MMP - go! What are you waiting for?

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Truthiness about MMP and "fringe" parties

Another favorite canard of the defenders of the electoral status quo is that proportional representation, like MMP, will hand our government over to "fringe parties" and extremists who will bring in government policies that most voters abhor.

As the Toronto Star wrote in an editorial that will hopefully become infamous:

Routinely, whoever heads the leading party is forced to cater to the demands of small, sometimes radical special-interest parties that enjoy no wide support, just to stay in power. That in itself is a distortion of the voters' will.


Except well, there's NO evidence to show that situation has happened anywhere in the world under a PR system. In fact, I've been all over the internet for months now asking people who make those kind of statements to back them up with concrete examples. But for some reason, they never provide them?

But the media elites and opponents of fair elections won't let silly little things like reality getting in the way of their campaign to defeat MMP.

Under proportional systems, even when smaller parties enter into government they never get to enact their unpopular policies. Why? It’s simple when you think about it. All parties in a coalition government will be held to account for their policies, so why would larger parties risk losing support by bringing in “extreme” and unpopular positions?

They wouldn’t and, if people looked at the evidence, they don’t.

Don't take my word for it. Here's what Campaign Life Coalition - "a Canadian national pro-life organization" and "one of the first pro-life organizations to emphasize the international dimension of attacks on life and family" - has to say about MMP, in a piece entitled "We Oppose Proportional Representation":

"We understand that there is great disillusionment with the current political situation and frustration with the lack of progress on moral issues in the political arena. CLC appreciates that many people are looking to electoral reform as an answer to these issues ...

Some pro-lifers believe that proportional representation will result in the appointment of Family Coalition Party members at the provincial level and Christian Heritage Party candidates at the federal level ...

There are very few examples of social conservative legislation being passed in countries with PR. This summer The Interim newspaper had a team of three people examine the records of other countries to track the progress of prolife and pro-family legislation in countries with PR. They found just one significant example. In the Netherlands, the Christian Union Party, as part of the coalition government there, has effected some positive change in closing down brothels, reducing the number of marijuana shops and introducing guidelines requiring cooling off wait times for abortions.

But, for the most part, the researchers at The Interim found the reverse to be true: many countries with PR have experienced an advance of anti-life and anti-family agendas in recent years"


In fact, evidence shows that citizens in PR countries, like MMP, are more satisfied with government and feel better represented.

The cross-national comparisons show that citizens in countries using PR are significantly more satisfied than those in countries using systems like ours.

In another measure of voter satisfaction, it has been demonstrated that in PR countries the difference in voter satisfaction between winners of the election (those who voted for parties in government) and losers (those who voted for parties not in government) is significantly SMALLER in countries with PR systems.

Finally, two different studies, using data from the late 70s to mid 80s, shows that governments in PR countries are more like be closer to the median voter, as measured on a left-right scale.

Does that sound like what you'd find from countries where "the voters' will is distorted" and are ruled by "fringe" or "extremist" elements? Didn't think so, looks like we've found more truthiness about MMP!

Truthiness about MMP and diversity

I did a panel debate at UTM yesterday and after hearing some pretty weak arguments from the defender of the status quo concerning how MMP might affect diversity in the legislature, I knew I had to do a piece about the truthiness of his assertions.

One of the big arguments the forces for democracy have been making is that MMP would increase the representation of women and minority communities at Queen's Park.

Here’s what they say about this question on their website.

QUESTION

Will MMP allow for more women and minorities to be elected?

ANSWER

That is entirely up to the political parties. If political parties do not want to field more women or minority candidates, they are not compelled to do so. There is no guarantee that political parties will put more women or minority candidates on their party lists.


As it stands now, the Liberal Party of Ontario have promised to have women make up 1/3 of their candidate slate, and the Ontario NDP have managed to have women make up 50% of their candidate list for the upcoming election. MMP will not make political parties step up their efforts in this area.

Now, the above quote is technically correct. There is nothing in the proposed MMP system that compels political parties to nominate more women. But is it a reasonable assertion that MMP would not affect female or visible minority representation at Queen’s Park?

Not in the least.

But first, let’s look at how MMP has actually affected minority representation in MMP countries.

It is clear that proportional representation systems, like MMP, elect more women. Of the twenty democracies with the most women elected, they all have proportional voting system. The main western democracies using MMP – Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales – all have at least 50 per cent more women in their parliaments.

Also, the MMP experience in New Zealand provides strong support for arguments that MMP would improve legislative representation for other minority groups. Here's a graphic showing the representation of minorities in the New Zealand House of Representatives, pre- and post-MMP (note that 1996 was the first MMP election in NZ):



As we can clearly see, after adopting MMP, New Zealand saw a dramatic increase in the representation of women, aboriginals and other minority groups. In fact, the number of Maori elected is now greater than their share of the population!

How did this occur? Because parties in New Zealand democratically selected candidate lists that were more reflective of the population than they had when they only selected single candidates in single districts.

Recent polling has shown that between 80 and 90 per cent of Ontario voters would like to see more women elected. Would any party risk alienating this large majority of voters by failing to nominate plenty of female list candidates? Not if they wanted to win the election.

The same goes for candidates from other under-represented groups, like visible minorities, youth and the disabled. The list of at-large candidates will be carefully parsed by the media and interest groups. While parties might be able hide their continued under-representation of their groups in the halls of power under the current system, it is highly likely they would continue to do so under the current system.

This is why it is certain that MMP, or any other proportional voting system that uses multi-member districts, will increase women’s – and other under-represented groups’ – representation at Queen’s Park.

This is why women groups like Equal Voice, the national movement to improve women’s representation in elected office, and several multi-cultural groups have endorsed MMP.

Finally, in the quote above, the enemies of democracy, assert that the increased nomination of women by the Liberals and NDP will increased the number of women elected. Sadly, the logic of the current voting system does not allow this – and I expect those writing that know that full well.

Under first-past-the-post, over half the seats in the province are “safe” – that is, barring massive vote swings, they will be won by one party. Indeed, there are parts of the province that have only been represented by one party for generations. So for women’s representation, what matters less is the number of female candidates, but rather where they are located in the province.

For example, the provincial Liberals have nominated women in more than half of the ridings where incumbents are not running. This is a positive sign, but as the Liberals are unlikely to gain many seats, their proportion of female MPPs is not likely to rise appreciably. The same goes for federal Liberal leader Stephane Dion’s commitment to running 1/3 women candidates. Again, a good principle, but will likely not lead to more women elected if they run mostly in Alberta, the Prairies and Quebec, places where the party is unlikely to make gains.

The evidence is clear, if we’re concerned about having legislatures that better reflect our diversity – and I think we should be – than we need proportional representation. And clearly the best way to get PR is to vote for MMP tomorrow.

No wonder the opponents of democratic improvement feel the need to misinform voters on this.

Thursday, October 04, 2007

Truthiness about the Citizens’ Assembly

I haven't been able to put as much time as I've wanted to on my series about the "truthiness" of the defenders of the electoral status quo. But I've started a few and I promise to squeeze out a few more between now and referendum day. First is a piece about the truthiness being spread about the heroes of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

There are many things that are frustrating about the campaign to preserve the electoral status quo, but one of the most frustrating is how they have ignored, suppressed and distorted how the Assembly brought us to this historic referendum.

Its ultimate success remains to be seen, but it is clear that the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly can be seen as an innovative experiment in making the ideas of deliberative democracy a reality.

The Citizens’ Assembly – promised by the McGuinty government in the 2003 election – was based on a similar experiment in British Columbia and built on that experience. It is premised on the idea that average citizens can come together to make good decisions on various policy issues. In particular, it is seen as a particularly good method for studying electoral reform as politicians face a fundamental conflict of interest when it comes to evaluating the system that elects them.

Jonathan Rose, Queen’s political scientist and academic director of the Assembly, told the Kingston Whig Standard why he wanted to be a part of the process:

Rose became involved in the process because, he said, political scientists always talk about the capacity of citizens to reason, but no one has ever had this opportunity in the province.

The assembly "really put it to the test," he said. "Are citizens able to learn about complex political issues? And they can."


The members of the Assembly spent months learning about electoral systems, consulting with Ontarians and deliberating on the question of which electoral system who best meet Ontario's democratic aspirations for the next century. I wouldn't go so far as to say voters should reflexively support their recommendation, but I think we owe it to them to inform ourselves about how and why they chose MMP. Thankfully, their original website is still up and has an overwhelming amount of publicly accessible material. All in all, the Assembly is a model of open and transparent public policy making.

Throughout the process, the Assembly contracted the respected Institute on Governance think tank to evaluate their work. Here's what they had to say about the Assembly in their evaluation report, which is available online here in PDF:

The whole Assembly process was undertaken in an open and transparent manner and is well documented for the benefit of future exercises of a similar nature. It serves as a model of how to engage and empower citizens to deliberate and decide on selected public policy questions


Most disturbingly, the opponents of MMP are trying to mislead Ontarians on the topic of the Citizens’ Assembly, likely because they (logically) think that the more voters know about the Assembly and its work, the more likely they are to support its recommendation.

Either the opponents of MMP are completely ignorant of their work (which is kind of disturbing to see from people arguing against their recommendation) or they are choosing not to fairly present it to voters. Here are some of the falsehoods they're spreading about the Citizens' Assembly.


TRUTHINESS - the Citizens assembly was "appointed"


Here are some distortions from an email the opponents of democracy are sending out across the province:

“The government spent millions of our dollars on a Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. 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, or history making participants.”


Actually, we do know how the Assembly was chosen and that information could be easily found out by anyone with decent research skills. As the Assembly process was marked by transparency, all their learning material and the results of their consultation phase are still available online here.

TRUTHINESS - ”The people of Ontario did not ask for this referendum.”

Actually, the Citizens’ Assembly was promised by the Liberal government in the last election. Are MMP opponents encouraging governments to break their promises – or just the ones they disagree with? That doesn’t seem like democracy to me.

Rose describes how the group was selected very well in this quote from a recent speech he gave in Kingston:


Formed in spring 2006, the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform was made up of 103 citizens, one from each riding in the province, plus a chair - Kingston's own George Thomson, who is a retired judge and former deputy minister. Half of the assembly was men and half women, and it had at least one aboriginal. Most importantly, the Citizens' Assembly was independent of government. It was given the task of assessing our electoral system and others in use around the world. After a thorough analysis, it had to recommend whether Ontario should keep its current system or adopt another one. If it did recommend change, it had to provide design details about what that system should look like.

Members were randomly selected last spring in a process run by Elections Ontario, which sent out 124,000 letters asking voters if they wanted to be part of the assembly. From the 10,000 who replied, 1,000 voters were invited to attend selection meetings across the province where 103 assembly members were randomly selected by drawing a name out of a box. At these meetings, the feeling of excitement at being picked was palpable. More than one member who was chosen was heard to say that it felt like winning a lottery. But why? This was for the chance to devote two weekends a month from September to May to discussing a subject that many had not thought about; to work on a project that would have no immediate benefit to them except the opportunity to talk to and learn from their fellow citizens. So rare in a democracy is this form of policy-making. In fact, other than in British Columbia, there has never been a citizens' assembly. It says a lot that the opportunities are rare for citizens to be part of a meaningful public conversation on an important matter.
The assembly was diverse in terms of age, occupation, education, country of origin and political beliefs. Members spoke a total of 28 languages, while 66 were born in Ontario, 27 were born outside of Canada and 11 were from other provinces. This great diversity meant that there were many perspectives and experiences from which the group could draw. It was remarkable that people who had nothing in common could work so effectively together in developing a proposal. Author James Surowieki describes this as the "wisdom of crowds."

It is the first citizens' assembly for Ontario and the second time in Canada that this innovative model of policy-making has been attempted. The rationale for letting citizens make this decision was simple: politicians are elected to make policy decisions but have a conflict of interest when it comes to choosing what system should be used to elect them. To paraphrase a British MP, "Asking politicians to vote for an electoral system is a little like asking turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving." An electoral system - how votes are translated into seats - is so fundamental to democracy that it should reflect the preferences of citizens, not those whose interests it could benefit.



TRUTHINESS - the mandate of the Citizens’ Assembly pointed them in a particular direction


Other status quo lovers are baselessly charging that the Assembly was tricked or mandated into “strengthening political parties” by the terms of their mandate. Even smart and politically saavy folks like sponsorship scandal whistleblower Allan Cutler, who wrongly comments on Rick Anderson’s blog that “the Citizens Assembly did an admirable job given that they were given a mandate that was to increase the power of the party system.”

Here’s the actual principle from the mandate given to the Assembly from the legislative committee that directed their work.

Effective Parties - the system supports strong parties that can offer different perspectives.


Clearly, this says NOTHING about “strengthening” political parties. It calls for effective political parties, which is very different – and very reasonable – consideration in designing an electoral system. Even the most cynical observer of politics has to recognize that no jurisdiction as large or as populous as Ontario functions without political parties. All the Assembly was asked to do was to consider how their decision would affect political parties.

And if the political parties are given so much more power under MMP, how come they aren’t openly campaigning for it? Or are they more concerned about it because MMP makes parties more accountable to voters by giving them a vote that counts?

TRUTHINESS - the Citizens’ Assembly was a “biased” body

Another outright fabrication from the naysayers:

As for the assembly, you have a selection bias problem with the Citizen's Assembly, which is overwhelmingly stocked with zombies from Fairvote, whose preformed opinions have been reinforced with more conversations with other such zombies. The Citizen's Assembly is a lobby group.


As noted above, Assembly members were randomly selected by Elections Ontario. None of them were Fair Vote members. Although I'm sure some of them are more interested in getting involved with the multi-partisan movement for electoral reform now that they've seen how the media and entrenched interests have distorted and misrepresented their hard work.

Also, I've heard it charged that the Assembly's learning phase pointed them towards reform or MMP specifically. If that was the case, it wasn't evident to the Assembly members themselves. As part of the independent evaluation of the Assembly, the members rated the neutrality of the secretariat and the facilitators 4.6 out of 5.


Conclusion


As noted above, the Citizens’ Assembly was randomly selected. But this created a decision-making body far more representative of Ontario than the current legislative assembly.

Here are some statistics from the Assembly's extensive background report - of course, available online here - and summarized here.

Gender

52 women and 52 men (including the chair who was a man).


Currently, there are only 26 female MPPs at Queen's Park.

Age

18 to 24: 11 25 to 39: 23 40 to 54: 32 55 to 70: 26 70+: 12


Currently, there is only ONE MPP under the age of 40.

Place of birth

Ontario: 66 Other provinces: 11 Outside Canada: 27 (Citizens' Assembly members were born in Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Croatia, Egypt, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Hong Kong, Iraq, Korea, Malta, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Serbia, Sri Lanka, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and the United States).


There are currently only 18 immigrant MPPs and 8 visible minority MPPs.

Language

The Assembly members spoke a combined total of 28 languages: English, French, Arabic, Aramaic, Bengali, Cantonese, Dutch, Fanti, German, Greek, Hindi, Hungarian, Ibo, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Maltese, Mandarin, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Tagalog, Tamil, Ukrainian, and Urdu.


I'd bet that with only 18 immigrant MPPs and 8 visible minority MPPs, our provincial legislators are less multi-lingual than the mosaic of the Citizens' Assembly.

As you can see, the Assembly is clearly more representative of Ontario's diversity than Queen's Park. I think this gives their deliberations an added legitimacy.

When Ontarians head to the polls and get their referendum ballots, they face a crucial choice about the future of our democracy.

They can believe the backrooms and the party bosses that MMP is bad for Ontario. That will mean either choosing to remain ignorant about the positive record of MMP in countries that use it or pretending that record doesn’t make a difference.

Or voters can trust the the group of average people like us who got an amazing education on the topic of voting systems and came up with a moderate and sensible recommendation for modernizing the way we elect our representatives.

Maybe that's why the defenders of the status are so set on misrepresenting the Citizens' Assembly's work.

Student unions across Ontario endorse MMP

This release come out from the campaign today. It's been a great pleasure of mine to work with hundreds on young activists from across the province to improve our democracy.

Sixteen Ontario student unions, from all regions of the province, have endorsed the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform recommendation of a mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system and are encouraging all Ontarians to vote for change in the October 10 referendum.

"We are excited to have the support from student leaders from across the province," said Mark Greenan, campus campaign coordinator for Vote for MMP. "We have hundreds of young activists working hard on campuses across Ontario to get out the word about how MMP will make Ontario democracy more diverse, legitimate and democratic."

The following student unions have endorsed MMP:

Algoma University Students' Union
Carleton University Students' Association
Guelph Central Student Association
Laurentian Student's General Association
Association des étudiantes et étudiants francophones de l'Université Laurentienne
Laurentian Association of Mature and Part-time Students
Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
Continuing Education Students' Association of Ryerson
Ryerson Students' Union
University of Toronto Graduate Students' Union
Association of Part-Time Undergraduate Students of the University of Toronto
University of Toronto Students' Union
University of Toronto at Mississauga Students' Union
Trent Central Student Association
York Federation of Students
York University Graduate Students' Association

Those student unions have been joined in the campaign for a new electoral system by the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario, a provincial group representing over 300,000 university and college students. CFS-O endorsed MMP at their annual general meeting in August and launched a website – www.changethesystem.ca – aimed at student voters.

"Many of our supporters are voting for the first time and are excited to Vote for MMP and ensure that their votes will count to elect someone, in every election, for the rest of their lives," added Greenan. "Young voters are engaged in politics but are frustrated with a voting system that produces unfair results, silences new voices and does not reflect the diversity of this great province."

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Eye weekly says "vote for real democracy in Ontario - Vote for MMP"

I was just getting ready to get to bed after a long day of changing the system and I saw a link to this editorial in Eye Weekly on the campaign site . Makes a hard day of work completely worth it!

So far, this seems to have the prize for best editorial about MMP. Other media outlets in Ontario, try and beat them though, please :)

Seriously, it's really good. It's a well-written analysis of MMP and comes down on the side of democracy. Enjoy some selections:

"For the first time many of us can remember, we're actually excited to get out and vote in a provincial election. Well, all right, we'll admit that it isn't any of the prospective governments that has us whistling to the polls. Once again, we're underwhelmed in that department."


It goes on to describe the election. I've got nothing to say on that for a good while:

... "this time we have the power to change the electoral system; to fix it.

The referendum on electoral reform allows us a clear choice between the warped current system and a more democratic system called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) ...

MMP is a vastly superior system. Under MMP, voters cast two votes: one for a local representative, one for a party. The first vote elects members to the legislature under the same first-past-the-post system, and then the remaining one third of seats are alotted to ensure the seat distribution mirrors the popular vote for each party ...

Last week we used this space to outline some lingering concerns about MMP. Much conversation and further research have convinced us that those concerns were unfounded. The system is not as complicated as it is made out to be. Rather than producing legislative gridlock, the minority governments produced under MMP in other countries using the system have been highly functional coalitions. Wing-nut fringe parties are shut out by a 3 per cent threshold. And the “list candidates,” selected by the party, are preferable or no worse than the existing system that allows parties to appoint candidates and even sometimes premiers without consulting the electorate. Under MMP there will be no more false majorities. The legislature will represent the will of the electorate. That's democracy.

On Oct. 10, vote for real democracy in Ontario. Vote for MMP.

Rainbow coalition calls for Ontarians to Vote for MMP

Outside Queen's Park this morning, a "rainbow coalition" of prominent Ontarians, from all political parties, came together to call on Ontario voters to vote for MMP in the October 10 referendum (press release here). Noting that most Ontarians do not feel informed about the question, they also called on the media to step up to plate in the last week of the campaign and let voters know why the Citizens' Assembly recommended MMP - by reprinting the Assembly excellent brochure "One Ballot, Two Votes".

First, Catherine Baquero and Patrick Heenan from the Citizens' Assembly spoke about their work and why they recommended MMP. They scolded the media and Elections Ontario for failing to let Ontario voters know WHY the Assembly recommended MMP and implored the media (which were actually present!) to get their message out in the coming week.

After the Assembly members were done, then the great lineup of speakers went to the mic:
Rick Anderson, Campaign Chair, Vote for MMP
Judy Rebick, CAW-Sam Gindin Chair for Social Justice and Democracy, Ryerson
Bob Rae, former Premier of Ontario
Kate Holloway, Liberal candidate, Trinity-Spadina
Rosemary Speirs, Co-founder, Equal Voice
Jim Harris, former leader, Green Party of Canada
Ed Broadbent, former NDP leader
Senator Hugh Segal

I won't go into detail about their remarks, but they were all passionate advocates for MMP. They agreed that despite many disagreements on public policy issues, Ontario democracy would be significantly improved if voters choose MMP. No matter what your political views, you will be well served by voting for MMP.

It was an inspiring start to the campaign day and hopefully the eloquent words of these respected Ontarians were broadcast throughout the media over the course of the day.

UPDATE: Just saw a great CP story about the press conference. Here's a great quote from Catherine Baquero, a young and articulate member of the Assembly:


"I'm very disappointed there's been a lack of meaningful debate," said Catherine Baquero, a member of the citizens assembly that recommended changing the system.

"I'm disappointed that Elections Ontario's education campaign has been so toothless. What I expected was a more detailed discussion of the pros and cons of each system."

Respected public servant Tom Kent calls for Ontarians to Vote for MMP

One of the great people I've had the pleasure of meeting through my electoral reform activism is Tom Kent, former principal secretary to Pearson, academic, and respected public servant. At a conference at Queen's last year, I got the chance to chat briefly with him about electoral reform, the Liberal leadership race and to thank him for a piece he'd written for the PEI MMP campaign.

He's got a stellar piece in the Globe and Mail this morning. Here are some highlights:


The referendum choice is between realism and romanticism. People who want to stick close to what is familiar are usually seen as the realists. This case is different. It is pure romanticism to believe that we can go back to the good old days when politics was the normal business of two grand old parties. And since we can't, the current electoral system is indefensible.

It worked well enough in the past. But a world war followed the economic breakdown of the 1930s and began the rapid transformation of technology and society. For 60 years, our way of empowering governments has been out of joint with the times. That is the underlying cause of the great public disillusion with politics. Realists recognize the fact


Kent notes just how ancient our current voting system is:

Our current way of choosing governments goes back to the time when leaders of local interests tamed the power of English kings. The resulting parliament gradually moved to democracy, notably when the franchise was extended to women ...

As long as government had a relatively small part in our lives, political opinions could be easily concentrated between just two parties. As public affairs have become more complex, opinions about them have inevitably become more divided. And with more than two parties, the old electoral system cannot work either efficiently or fairly.


I particularly like Kent's conclusion:

Some people worry that members nominated provincially, not by party associations in the constituencies, would strengthen the self-seeking "party boss" element in politics. If that were so, the big party organizations would be backing MMP. They are not, because electoral reform would force politicians to improve their ways.

Now only one party at a time, with a majority in the legislature, though not in public opinion, has an interest in the practical business of government. Political controversy is concentrated on negatives, not on what should be done. With electoral reform, politicians will have less incentive to make special promises to special interests, and more incentive to campaign on what is good for the province as a whole. They will need to co-operate with other parties to get things done. The mood of politics will shift significantly from mindless, spin-doctoring combat toward more constructive competition.

This is not to predict instantaneous conversion. The atmosphere of public cynicism surrounding politics is too heavy for quick dispersion.

But electoral reform is a matter not only of fairness, of every citizen's right to have his/her vote count equally with others. It is necessary for rebuilding public confidence and participation in public affairs. On Oct. 10, the people of Ontario can take a decisive step that way. By endorsing a two-vote electoral system, we can move toward a future of constructive democratic government.


But after that great opinion piece, we then find the Globe making this unconscionable factual error in this piece - "The parties would be allowed to appoint a number of members from their lists based on their share of this vote".

If you're as shocked as me with this now debunked error, maybe you'll take a second to ask the Globe to print a correction in tomorrow's paper.

The big lie about MMP

From a recent Vote for MMP email that we've been sending around:

The defenders of the status quo have been repeating a statement about MMP that is fundamentally wrong: that the new at-large seats would be filled by “appointment” rather than by election.

Set aside for a moment the obvious question: why would a Citizens’ Assembly of Ontario voters propose something so stupid? Because they didn’t.

Every legislator under MMP would be elected – put in office by attracting votes and removed from office by losing votes. All of the party leaders have already said their parties would use a democratic process to nominate their at-large candidates (standard practice in all MMP countries). Those candidates are then elected according to how successful they and their parties are at attracting votes.

Electing candidates to fill at-large seats, as well as riding seats, gives voters stronger and better representation than we have now – which is why the Citizens’ Assembly recommends MMP.


Here's a great release from the campaign on this issue. Hopefully the media will give it similar prominence as the defenders of the status quo's hysterical - and now clearly unfounded - claims about appointed candidates.

Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Coyne: "MMP does not mean appointed party hacks"

Another great - and timely considering the Liberals' announcement today - post from Andrew Coyne.

It's a concise and well-written piece that accurately describes how parties will choose list candidates.

"Appointed" List MPP myth debunked

A little birdy sent me an email from Don Guy at the Liberal campaign. Here it is:


We are committed to choosing all of our candidates through a democratic and transparent process. We are pleased that our party attracts people from all walks of life and we will continue to work to ensure our party reflects the diverse and multi-cultural nature of Ontario.

We are pleased to be the only party to meet its Equal Voice target of nominating at least 50% of women in our unheld ridings for this election campaign. And we remain committed to further improving the prospects of women candidates running for our party in the future.


So now that all of the major political parties in Ontario have committed to democratically selecting their list candidates under MMP, I expect that defenders of the electoral status quo will stop misinforming Ontarians by claiming they will.

Intellectual honesty would demand that, I'd think.

(More on this important issue at Scott's Diatribes, Democratic Space and Liberals for MMP)

Adventures in MMP - Northern edition

Sorry the blog posts were more sporadic last week but I had less time to write (and more sporadic internet access) last week as I did a little trip up to Northern Ontario to do some speaking engagements with some student unions in the North that have got behind the push for MMP.

Tuesday was a crappy day thanks to a really late Canadian. I’ve enjoyed my travels with VIA this summer but getting up really early, only to get to Union Station and find out the train to Sudbury was going to leave five hours late! By the time to got to Sudbury, rented a car (if you’re ever renting a car in Sudbury, go with Marc at Discount – top notch service!) and drove to Sault Ste. Marie – it was nearly 3:00 a.m. by the time I got tucked into my bed.

On Wednesday, I had the opportunity to speak to a small lunchtime crowd of students at Algoma University College over some pizza and fair trade coffee. We first had a very good presentation from the Elections Ontario referendum information officer for that riding – who should be commended for an informative and balanced presentation. We’d heard less than glowing reviews of the information officers’ presentations but I was impressed by how this retired teacher got across the material.

I was also joined at the session by recently retired Algoma political science professor Terry Ross and the very articulate local member of the Students’ Assembly, a high school Kid named Spencer.

Prof. Ross brought the discussion back the essential principles of democracy – equality and majority rule – and argued that while the status quo fails those principles, MMP ensures that all voters are equal at the ballot box and that we are ruled by governments that reflect the views of a majority of Ontarians.

Spencer echoed a call made by his colleagues in the Student’ Assembly and bemoaned the lack of education about the referendum and the persistence of myths about MMP.

After our presentations, we took questions from the students who stayed around for close to an hour and a half. As expected, many of them were concerned about the issue of Northern representation, which I’ll get back to later in this post.

Wednesday evening, I manned the literature while my friend June MacDonald, the driving force behind Women for Fair Voting gave a great presentation to the Zonta club. I thought June did a great job and I was really impressed with you this group of female leaders reacted to MMP. Many of them expressed concerns that voters are not sufficiently informed on the facts about MMP and were glad to take literature to educate their social circles. And after all, that’s how we will win this referendum – one voter at a time.

On Thursday morning, I caught up on some emails and drove back to Sudbury. I really enjoyed the making the drive back during the day. It was a really scenic drive and I’m glad to have made it while the Fall colours were out. I look forward to making the trip again in a time where I can be less worried about political things and can just take in the landscape.

When I got to Sudbury that evening, I spoke to a small crowd at Laurentian and met with a group of campus activists who are working hard to get the word about how MMP in Sudbury. It was also nice that some media were in attendance and I got to speak to the local cable station Persona 10 (you can find part of my presentation online here) and CBC Radio for Northern Ontario.

My trip up North was great but certainly indicated that Northerners are concerned about how MMP might affect their community. However, it was frustrating that the defenders of the status quo are pushing several unsupported statements to try and keep down support for a new and fairer voting system in the North.

As I said when I was up North, I may not be from that community, but I think I understand their concerns about their economic future. Being from PEI myself, I can relate to the concerns about the exodus of young people from resource producing communities. But it is crucial to note that the relative decline of North has occurred under the existing electoral system. So it would be appear to me that first-past-the-post isn’t exactly good for Northern issues. And I think there’s little concrete evidence to support the assertion that MMP would be any worse.

So to that end here are some of the myths about how MMP would affect Northern Ontarians.

MYTH - MMP would mean less attention paid to Northern concerns

On my drive into Sudbury, I heard a CBC radio story that has Sudbury mayor John Rodriguez lamenting the prominence of Northern issues in the ongoing election campaign. So again, it would appear that the current system is not good for bringing Northern issues to the fore it would seem. But why is this?

FACT – The current system leads to parties ignoring certain regions

Simply, the logic of winning elections under first-past-the-post – where all votes are most certainly not equal – ensures that parties concentrate their efforts on “swing voters” in coveted “swing seats”. As Greg Morrow noted in a great press release from Vote for MMP last week (which regrettably was ignored by the media), this distorts the policy priorities of parties:

“Under Ontario’s outdated voting system, the outcome of next month’s election will once again be decided by about 75,000 “super-voters”, whose lucky location and vote-changeability mean their votes count for a whole lot more than the other millions of Ontario voters, says election expert Greg Morrow of democraticSPACE.

“One would think that in a democratic system, the votes of all Ontario voters should count equally,” says Morrow, who also works with Ipsos Reid on election seat projections. “But in reality, under Ontario’s unrepresentative first-past-the-post voting system, only a small fraction of votes end up deciding the outcome one way or another.”

Based on past elections, an estimated 4.7 million Ontarians will vote on Oct 10. In a recently-published online report, Morrow estimated that only about 1.5% of voters will determine the outcome of the election. Under today’s FPTP system, “since the government is decided by a series of one-on-one riding battles, it will be determined by 5% of voters in the closest 30% of the ridings.”


Vote for MMP Chair Rick Anderson, an experienced electoral strategist goes on to explain how the status quo ensures that regions like the North can often be ignored at election time:

“Rather than court all voters in all parts of the province, the undemocratic first-past-the-post system encourages parties to focus on a tiny minority of strategically-targeted voters,” said Anderson. “A proportional voting system such as MMP gives equal weight to all voters, meaning that parties need to compete for votes in all parts of the province. Whether a vote is cast in Timmins or Toronto, for party A or party B, in a swing riding or a safe one - they will carry the same weight and value under MMP.”

“This deeply changes the way parties compete for votes - and how they govern when in power,” said Anderson. “Under first-past-the-post, parties know they can win overwhelming control of the legislature and governing agenda with as little as 40 per cent of the votes. When parties focus on swing ridings, other voters, other ridings, and entire regions become a less-than-equal part of the picture when the cold hard calculus of policy-making is applied.”

“It’s time to replace the two-tier democracy and ’super voters’ of our winner-take-all system, and modernize our democracy by adopting MMP on October 10.”


Frankly, it’s no wonder that the North is marginalized under the current system. The swing voters and ridings are just not in the North. As Morrow notes, the real fight is concentrated in Southern ridings between the Liberals and the PC, primarily in the 905 region.

But under MMP, the logic of winning elections would be completely different. Parties would not be able to take strongholds for granted, as it’s in their interest to get as many votes as they can in every riding. Also, parties would not be encouraged to ignore areas where they don’t expect to win local seats. Every vote, even when in a region where a party is relatively weak, is counted towards electing members at Queen’s Park.

MMP means more competition for voters – in all regions of the province. This will very likely mean MORE attention paid to Northern concerns.

MYTH - MMP will mean less Northern MPPs

As mentioned, this was a concern I heard repeatedly; however, there is NO BASIS for this claim. It would be accurate to say that we don’t know how many Northern MPPs there would be under MMP. There could be a slight decrease – or a slight increase – in the proportion of MMPs at Queen’s Park that come from North of the French River if we move to MMP.

The result will be influenced by two factors. First, how the legislature redraws the new 90-seat electoral map and, second, the proportion of Northern candidate on the party slates of “at-large” candidates.

But there are a couple of important things that we can be relatively sure of under MMP. First, it’s that we can expect to an increase in the absolute number of Northern MPPs. As the legislature size increases slightly, we can be very confident that there will be at least the current number of MPPs that have offices in the North.

Equally importantly, we can be very confident that MMP will be that Northern members are elected from all political parties represented at Queen’s Park. This is not an insignificant change. It will ensure that Northern voices are included in all party caucuses and that Northern issues are taken into consideration during party policy-making processes.

The existing voting system distorts election results in Northern Ontario. This becomes crystal clear by looking at the results in the last seven elections.

First, it took dramatically different numbers of votes to elected MPPs from different parties. The past seven elections saw NDP voters in the North get the best representation as it took on average 18,144 votes to elect a NDP MPP. On the other hand, it took almost 50 per cent more votes (26,826) to elect a Liberal MPP and 30,795 votes to elect a PC MPP.

Interestingly, we have seen more NDP MPPs from the North than Liberal ones, despite the latter party winning over 50,000 mote votes in the North than the NDP since 1981 (831,600 compared to 780,192). Since 1981, the NDP have sent 43 MPPs to Queen’s Park, while the Liberals have only elected 31.

Meanwhile, the PCs have only earned about 135,000 less votes than the NDP in the North (646,704 compared to 780,192), but have won less than half the seats (21 compared to 43)!

FACT – We don’t know what the new map will look like

On the question of the new map, no one, either in the pro-MMP or pro-status quo camps, knows what final shape it would take. It should be noted that in the last re-distribution the legislature did not increase the size of Northern districts, recognizing their already vast geographical expanse. It is certainly possible that they might make similar accommodations when redrawing the district boundaries for MMP.

From my perspective, it is very justifiable under MMP to have slightly less populous riding in less densely populated areas. Under the current system, where the legislature is shaped by 107 individual riding races, there are concerns about inequality of votes when some ridings are much larger than others. But under MMP, the shape of the legislature is determined the province-wide vote totals for each party. As someone who lives in a larger urban riding, I would have no problem with Northern ridings remaining the same size under MMP, because in the new system all Ontarians votes would count equally in electing members to Queen’s Park.

REASONABLE ASSUMPTION – Parties will fairly represent all regions in their at-large candidates

In terms of the proportion of Northern candidates on the party slates of at-large candidates, I think it is a faulty assumption to thing that Northern candidates would be under-represented.

All parties have previously committed to holding democratic selection processes for their candidate lists.

It is very likely that candidates will be chosen in regional conventions and with an eye to regional balance. We also know that those lists will be made public before the election. This means that voters in every region of the province will be able to look at the lists to see if parties have strong candidates from the region.
It is certain the regional media, particularly in the North, will be ready to critique the party lists and inform their readers about which parties have “fairly” represented their region. I would also imagine that other parties would be ready to inform Northerners if any part under-represented that region on their slate.

From my experience talking to Ontario voters form many different regions of the province, I just don’t think that parties will fill their at-large slates with candidates with those from the GTA. Frankly, because there’s no votes in that! The issue of representation for that region is not as important for voters from larger urban centres, but it is in rural Ontario and the North. A party that over-represents those areas is not likely to lose many votes because of that, but a party that doesn’t present strong provincial candidates from those regions they will be harshly criticized in those areas and likely lose votes because of it.


FACT – MMP will give every Ontario voter, no matter where they live, a vote that elects someone.


I don’t know why the defenders of the status quo are so afraid of this. But I hope this long post as has helped people understand why MMP will preserve strong local representation while improving voter choice and ensuring fair election results.