Lots of press on the referendum today
There was lots of press about MMP and the referendum today and I wanted to share some of the highlights.
First up is a great column by political scientist David Docherty, Dean of Arts at Wilfrid Laurier University. It's so good, I've just got to quote some great sections:
We are rarely given the opportunity to fully participate in democratic reform. Until now, most attempts at addressing the so-called democratic deficit have been in ways that we, as voters, do not directly feel. Improving the role of MPPs, directing more resources and power to legislative committees, and allowing more free votes are all important. But electoral reform -- determining how we choose the women and men to govern us -- is the single largest step we can take to reshape how our electoral and legislative system operates.
Docherty, who spoke to the Citizens' Assembly during the one weekend of their learned phase I observed in Toronto and really impressed me with his thoughtful points, argues that MMP would legislative scrutiny of the government significantly. He also dismisses the pro-status quo canard that list MPPs would be "hacks":
The actual individuals who will represent the party in Queen's Park will be chosen from a list created by the party. The method of choosing the list will be made public prior to election day so voters will know if the list was determined democratically or "in the backrooms" as some opponents have suggested. This provides voters with the opportunity to pass judgment not only on a party's platform, but on how they came up with their list of candidates, which is hardly undemocratic.
Further, the fact that the list compensates for the plurality system means that most list members will be in opposition, not in the government. As a result, unencumbered by constituency duties, these members will have more time to engage in the critical scrutiny function. We must remember that one of primary tasks of MPPs is to keep the government -- that is, the cabinet -- accountable for its actions. This means holding them to the fire to ensure that tax dollars are spent wisely and that needed services are provided to citizens.
He concludes by arguing that MMP would invigorate the political system, certainly among youth, who have been getting very engaged in the campaign for electoral reform:
[MMP] is not a panacea for all our democratic problems. It is not the single best system in the world: there is none. But it might just encourage some people who have checked out of our system to check back in.
I have talked to too many young citizens who are willing to vote but feel it is a waste of time. They feel the three major parties do not speak to them, and voting for a minor party produces no results.
If all mixed-member proportional does is get young people to vote, and if we end up with a few Green MPPs or one or two "Youth Party" MPPs isn't it worth it?
Our present system entrenches the status quo. Changing our electoral system is a bold statement that our democracy is a living institution. Let's not lose the opportunity to demonstrate this to the rest of the country.
Also, there were more great articles in other publications today. Rick Salutin argues (couldn't agree more) that voting for MMP is a "no brainer".
Ivor Tossell - rightly - complains about the lack of public engagement in the campaign. I don't think our site is "politics-as-usual", but I whole-heartedly agree that No MMP's site "reads like one long sneer, long on rhetoric and short on facts". Most importantly, Tossell accurately describes how Elections Ontario is failing democracy by pretending the Citizens' Assembly never happened:
This referendum is really a ratification of [the Citizens' Assembly's] decision. To make an informed vote, we don't merely need to know how MMP works; we need to know what made the Assembly think it's such a great idea compared to the status quo. And that's where this site falls down: To give a complete picture, it needs to broadcast the results of the process it set in motion, and it doesn't. By hiding behind a neutral stance, the Ontario government has hung its own election reforms out to dry.
Finally, there was a story in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen based on one of Vote for MMP's internal newsletters. It's always good to get press and as I'll argue in this blog, it's certainly fair to describe the campaign for the status quo as a "dirty tricks" campaign.
I'll end with a quote from my colleague and friend Steve Withers:
"These people are making these claims utterly disconnected from reality," he said. "They don't care what the truth is. That's why it's black propaganda and dirty tricks.
"It's just raw fear. They can't defend the present system, so all they can do is try to instill fear about the new one."
Mr. Withers saw MMP in action in New Zealand, where he lived until returning to Ontario this spring.
"It's bloody brilliant. This is why, when you see people sitting there telling half-truths about the party hacks and extremist parties, if you actually look at the real world, it's ... obvious it's complete rubbish."
