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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Measuring wasted votes

Just wanted to highlight a couple of great sites done my electoral reformers that illustrate just how many Ontario citizens' votes are "wasted", that is are not counted towards electing an MPP.

But first a little trivia. If all voters in Ontario who cast a wasted vote in the last election got together and held hands, starting at the base of the CN Tower and going up Yonge St., where would the human chain of ignored voters stretch?

a. Vaughn
b. Barrie
c. Sudbury
d. Hudson Bay

If you guessed D, you're right! Over 1.5 million Ontario voters in the election cast votes that elected no one.

If MMP passes on October 10, this number will likely drop down to under 5% of the voting population or around 150,000 voters.

The first site - www.wastedvotes.ca - was done by a frustrated voter in a safe seat who was tired of seeing his vote not elect anyone. It catalogs pretty extensively just how many wasted votes have been cast in recent Ontario and federal elections.

Finally, I just saw this site today, done by another young electoral reform activist with a background in geography. It graphically shows the number of wasted votes in any given riding.

Vote for MMP dominating on Facebook

Saw this piece on the Globe and Mail's "Campaign 2.0" blog and I just had to share it.

Apparently, the pro-democracy forces at Vote for MMP have the largest Facebook presence - woot!

Despite the fact that few people even understand what the proposal involves, the "Vote for MMP" group -- which is devoted to stirring up support for the "multi-member" representation model -- had a whopping 1,939 members at last check, more than all of the major party groups combined.

While I could go without the gratuitous reference to the lack of understanding about MMP (which certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the lack of attention the Globe has paid to the issue, so well described here), it's great to know that there's so much support for MMP on Facebook.

Although I'm not surprised, this confirms the great reaction our campaigners are getting on campuses all across Ontario. Once young voters learn about MMP they seem to instinctively understand how it's better than the status quo.

And by the way, the group is still growing at leaps and bounds - it's now at 2,193 members! That means it's growing at more than 100 people every day!

If you want to join the group - click here.

UPDATE: Once I finished this post, I was alerted to the Infoscape Research Labs' excellent report on the online election campaign - which echoes Ingram's blog piece.

Best article yet on the referendum

Just wanted to also give a shout out to a former colleague, who's written the best piece on the referendum I've read so far.

In a recent piece in the Walrus, Daniel Aldana Cohen captures, in a beautiful narrative, the problems with the current system, the need for reform and a hopeful (and evidence-based) look at how MMP would change our politics for the better.

Top notch work - that could teach most of the Toronto based commentariat a thing or two about balanced and informed coverage.

MMP and truthiness

I've been planning a blog series for the rest of the campaign. I've sketched out a bunch of ideas but was looking for a way to tie them all together.

Then today, on the train to Toronto, as I was taking a break watching an episode of my favorite satirical news program - it dawned on me!

I'll have to do the series exposing the "truthiness" of the arguments against MMP.

As the American Dialect Society definied it when they named it 2005's "Word of the
Year", truthiness:

refers to the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true.

So I look forward to exposing the truthiness of the arguments against MMP over the next three weeks. It should be educational, as I'll provide references and evidence debunking all the wild accusations made against the Citizens' Assembly's recommendation.

As one of my colleagues notes often, if MMP were a person, they could sue the people organizing for the status quo in the referendum for slander. Their arguments either gloss over, or plainly ignore, the best evidence and research on voting systems and electoral behaviour.

And as one of my favorite bloggers noted last week, I've been proud to be associated with an organization and a campaign that "[more than] any non-academic organization ... argue[s] so much from research findings rather than trying to play on raw emotion". Wish I could say that about our truthy opponents - but then again, if they weren't distorting the facts, they'd have to admit that MMP will work just fine for Ontario.

To paraphrase Colbert, opponents of MMP don't trust books. They're all facts, no heart.

And opponents of MMP won't let facts get in the way of defending the status quo.

Prominent PC delivers passionate case for how MMP will improve Ontario democracy

Prominent Progressive Conservative Senator Hugh Segal delivered a passionate case for voting for MMP in the upcoming referendum before a business audience today at the Economic Club of Toronto. Entitled "Repairing the Infrastructure of Democracy Before It Collapses", Segal went after the critics of MMP head on and made the case for MMP providing more stable, effective and legitimate government for Ontario.

The full text of his speech is available online at the Vote for MMP site and is reported on at the National Post site.

In the address to the business crowd, Segal make the link between good governance and accountability:

This room understands better than most the relationship between corporate profits, efficiency and proper governance. You understand that legitimacy and accountability are not trivial to success and progress in business. Annual general meetings bring shareholders, directors and management together – as they are the owners and operators of any public company – and offer them the opportunity to express their views by casting their votes, votes plural, for the auditor, the board of directors and for any special resolutions requiring their approval. The right of management to manage, to spend, to invest, to innovate and plan is based on this core process of electing directors, one by one, and choosing the framework of corporate oversight and shareholder protection.

My question to you is this - why are taxpayers and voters not accorded the same rights when choosing their government’s board of directors (our parliaments), their leaders (our governments) and their representatives in what is usually the largest corporation, effecting all aspects of our lives and livelihoods? As taxpayers, we are the majority shareholders and stakeholders of the “government” corporation and also the investors - providing the necessary dollars for operational and capital expenditures. And the notion that we are prepared to “invest” our hard-earned dollars – albeit not always voluntarily – and then be hamstrung in voicing displeasure by not having the option of meaningfully changing the board of directors goes against all good common sense. But this is what our ‘first past the post’, old and hoary electoral ‘winner take all’ system actually ensures when a majority of votes are wasted in almost every riding.

Segal added that the proposed MMP system clearly increases voter choice by using one ballot with two votes:

We are consistently asked, as voters, to cast just one ballot with which to express our preference as to who should represent our riding and as to who should form the government. Oftentimes these are not one in the same. Many voters have been faced with the dilemma of wanting to support a local candidate but not his or her party, or wanting to support a party but not its local candidate. Many a superb local candidate has been sunk because of a province-wide trend against their party or their leader.

He added that the wild policy lurch that has characterised Ontario governance over the past few decades has been anything but good for the province's productivity:

Wild swings in government and regulatory policy every four years is simply bad for everyone as individuals and businesses as a collective. Remember the aforementioned Rae majority government of 1990 (elected by a minority of voters) who altered the Labor Standards Act - at great cost to business? Remember the subsequent Harris government, also a majority elected by a minority, who changed it back? If political parties had been forced to work together because there was no artificial majority creating an undeserving "king of the road" (despite voters having voted otherwise), the swings would either not have happened, or been more moderate. Apply this to taxes, regulation, environment, business practices etc… Artificial and illegitimate majorities do not help business or political stability. Business may prefer the taxation or trade policies of one party, may even contribute financially to the party or the candidates. But on Election Day, it is the individual who marks his or her X on a single ballot. The option being presented, the ability to concretely state with both your Xs who should represent you and who should govern you provides a level of balance that is beneficial to the individual and to the collective. It would force bi-partisan cooperation; it would give voice to the campaign platforms of all parties and ensure the accountability of the representative MPP and the promises made by the separate parties.

Segal also launched a broadside against those who would demean Ontario voters by saying MMP is too complicated for them:

And to those entrenched defenders of the inequitable status quo – who argue that two ballots will be confusing to the average voters – let me say politely, how dare you attack the intelligence of Ontario’s voters – we all deserve more credit than that.

Finally, he concluded with a excellent critique of those who mislead Ontarians by charging that list candidates would be unaccountable or appointed. Right noting that MMP will encourage parties to be more democratic internally:

The new proposal for Ontario would include 39 “list members” who would be chosen to proportionally balance the final outcome of election results. The list of members would be open - made freely available by each party and could be scrutinized by the voting public. Electors would be well aware in advance of who might be taking a seat in the Legislature after all the results are tabulated. Any of the parties who do not seek out the best candidates and build their lists on balance, competence and quality, would be crushed like a bug. And I agree with the notion that if these lists are made up by the “back room gang” based on blind party loyalty, it would be a retrograde and unhelpful step. Any party that did not have an open process – transparent and even-handed – in the compilation of this list, so that the full face of Ontario, gender-balanced, rural, multi-faceted, from all walks of life and from all the rich hues and diversity of this province, would pay a serious price with electors. The proposed change and the scrutiny of the voting public would actually force political parties to be more open and accountable than they are today. And the ability to reach out to scientific, business, cultural, artistic and specialist leaders who might not win a nomination in what are often closed and manipulated Riding Associations would be broadly enhanced, as would gender balance – a vital and important concern.

Cheers (and another jeer) for the Star

Just wanted to note that the Toronto Star's coverage of MMP hasn't been all bad.

The editors certainly deserve kudos for running this piece over the weekend about how MMP will improve environmental policy. Cameron Smith explains:

The first is that a premier would be more inclined to make the environment a top priority.

Secondly, proportional representation will result in more minority governments and coalitions, which means responsibility for government policies would lie with more than one party.

The current system breeds instability. It's a blood sport, where opposition parties focus more on gaining power than on good government, largely because they have little hand in creating policies and have no commitment to them.

As a result, government policies often have a short life span. In the face of global warming, short-term, ever-changing policies are a recipe for disaster.

Of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't link back to a previous post here, where I discussed the evidence that proportional systems like MMP, produce better environmental policies:

In Arend Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy, the respected political scientist and renowned expert in comparative government, looks into the question of the relationship between political systems and environmental policies.

His conclusions on environmental policies? Consensus democracies have lower carbon dioxide emissions, fertilizer consumption, deforestation and higher energy efficiency.

So if you're concerned about the environment, ask your local candidates if they support MMP. If they don't, they likely don't really support concrete action on the environment.

Finally, as my friends at Liberals for MMP note here, the Star has yet to retract their error from yesterday about MMP, but at least they ran some good letters on the topic. Maybe tomorrow?

MMP and environmentalism

I came across a blog post that I just had to respond to.

Let's file it under ridiculous claims about MMP.

I'll expand my comment on his site a little bit on mine. Apparently, "both sides of the issue have legitimate points, and this blog is not the place to debate them (please)", so I wouldn't flood him with comments, but if you're as confused about his post as me, I'm sure the Ottawa regional director for the NO MMP campaign is a democrat so that he wouldn't mind a little polite discussion on the relationship between environmentalism and electoral reform. (Also, note in his post the smelly red herring of the Scottish "voter confusion" that's now become a favorite of democracy's opponents).

As I point out more succinctly on his blog, the evidence is crystal clear that MMP would be GOOD for the environment.

In Arend Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy, the respected political scientist and renowned expert in comparative government, looks into the question of the relationship between political systems and environmental policies.

The book looks at 36 democracies and compares them in multiple ways since the end of World War II. It's really an amazing book - all 310 pages of groundbreaking empirical research. He makes a convincing case that we can break parliamentary government into two broad families that share many characteristics due to the electoral system: majoritarian and consensus democracies.

I think we can all agree that by far the best way to compare outcomes of given political systems is to compare them in broad, extensive cross-national comparisons. Lijphart's book is undoubtedly one of the best and more extensive. The guy didn't get to be President of the American Political Science Association and a professor emeritus for nothing.

His conclusions on environmental policies? Consensus democracies have lower carbon dioxide emissions, fertilizer consumption, deforestation and higher energy efficiency.

Maybe on Mars our outdated voting system is good for the environment, but on Earth if looks like proportional systems like MMP are where it's at.

So if you want environmental policies that deliver results, the choice in the October 10 is clear, you need to vote for MMP.

Seems we can file this claim as another falsehood being propagated by NO MMP.

I look forward to addressing more of them as the campaign unfolds.

Source: Lijphart,Arend Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy, 1-8 and 295-7

Bloggers (of all stripes) 4 MMP

As readers of this blog will know, a favorite topic of mine is electoral and democratic reform, so I wanted to do up a brief post giving a shout out to some bloggers - from all sides of the political spectrum - who have come out to endorse the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform's recommendation of a mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting system for Ontario.

Erroneously, opponents of fair and advanced democracy often try to pretend proportional representation is about representing smaller parties. But really, it's about fairly distributing political power and ensuring that all citizens can make effective electoral choices. Supporters of all parties are affected by our antiquated voting system, particularly voters who live in "safe seats" like mine, where the election is often over once the dominant party's candidate is nominated.

MMP will provide voters all across Ontario with more choice, fairer results and stronger representation, but we will return to that over the summer.

It's great to see lots of Liberal bloggers starting to talk about how MMP will improve our democracy. Clear Grit has a long, but very good, discussion of why MMP will work in Ontario. ProgBlog leader Scott Tribe has long been a supporter. And mad props to Queer-Liberal who has a series of really super awesome posts on the issue. In particular, I like his latest post about why Liberals in Ontario would be smart to embrace MMP. After all, it was a fulfilled promise by the McGuinty government that brought us to this historic referendum.

There's even a Liberals4MMP blog that has started. I look forward to seeing the list of pro-MMP Liberal bloggers grow over the summer and into the Fall.

On the complete other end of the spectrum, we find prominent social conservative blogger Suzanne from the Big Blue Wave, who has been following the issue religiously. She has devoted numerous posts to the issue.

Hopefully, we'll see even more right-of-centre bloggers speak out for MMP as the campaign develops. We're still waiting for the first Tory MPP or candidate to come out for MMP, but I can't imagine it'll be too long before a Toronto Tory endorses it, after all, it's clearly in their self-interest.

Finally, to illustrate the broad multi-partisan support for MMP, maybe we should start building a list of bloggers that support MMP ... anyone more tech-saavy than I want to help with that?

PEI election wrapup/prediction

I last dropped in just before the PEI election, which is going on as I type.

Our of respect for my dear old Dad (whose campaign adventures are chronicled here), I've held my tongue so far, but now seeing as it's almost all over but the counting, I wanted to share some thoughts and some predictions. I've been devoting lots of mental energy to democracy in my home province, so I need to unburden myself.

First, the background. Premier Pat Binns is seeking a record fourth term as premier. If he wins, he would be the only Conservative in Canadian history to win four consecutive elections and would be the longest serving Island premier about 2 years into his new term, which by his demeanour of late, seems more and ore unlikely. Binns has staked his reelection chances on his personality and popularity among Islanders, adopting the slogan "Leadership That Works", after all Wikipedia calls him PEI's "affable and unassuming premier."

His challenger for the Premier's chair is the youthful Liberal leader of the Opposition, Robert Ghiz, 33 year-old son of former premier Joe Ghiz, which as he candidly acknowledges in this good CP piece has been both a blessing and a curse. As the Tory campaign has demonstrated, by its emphasis on the Premier, some Islanders feel the younger Ghiz is not as ready for the job as his Harvard-educated father was. However, if Robert can be as focused and on message for the next four years as he was for the last four weeks, he may go down in history as a two-term Premier as well.

Simply, the Tories have tried to make it about the choice of Premier, while the Liberals, with their (excellent) slogan "Islanders First for a Change" sought to be the beneficiaries of a change of government and frustration with years of Tory government.

The most significant event in the campaign so far was a May 19 poll in the Charlottetown Guardian newspaper which showed the Liberal party with a significant lead and a projected majority government. While still within the margin of error, this was likely the only time in Binns' career that he was 7 points behind the Opposition.

The Electoral Geography

Before getting on to a prediction, I'll review the electoral landscape on PEI (see here for a CBC piece on the swing seats. A cursory look at PEI electoral history shows us that few seats are truly safe. I'd classify the following seats as likely wins for Liberals - Districts 13 (Ghiz), 16, 17 and 18. All of these districts are currently represented by the Liberals and save a very unlikely swing back to the Tories from 2003 results, they will win these seats.

For the Tories, considering the results of the CRA poll, they likely only have about four seats truly safe for them - Districts 2, 4 (the Premier), 7 and 20. However, I'd say that there are another three seats the Tories will win even in a worst case scenario - Districts 5, 10 and 27.

However, based upon past results and the results of CRA poll, which showed a big Liberal lead in Queens County in particular, I'd say there are another 8 likely Liberal wins - Districts 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22 (Go Dad! this poor CBC reporter must've been spun right around by Tories at Bakin' Donuts), 24 and 25.

Now this leaves 8 seats as the battleground ridings - Districts 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 21, 23 and 26. If the Tories pull them all off they could still win a bare majority, but I wouldn't bet on it. They might be able to hold off Liberal gains in half of those ridings, but no more. I'll say the Tories could still take four of those seats due to their strength in rural PEI, let give Districts 1, 3, 9 and 26 to the Tories. That leaves these as my final predictions.

Predictions:

Liberals (16) - Districts 6, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25

PCs (11) - Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 20, 26 and 27.

NDP and Greens 0 - On these two parties, as much as I wish they'd be in Province House, frankly, they are marginal to this campaign. The bigger fight is for fair voting in PEI and thankfully, my predicted winner have promised a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform for PEI (although I can't find the promise on their website).

I'd predict both the minor parties get less than 3% of the vote, possibly even less than 2%. I'd say the odds are even on which one wins more votes, to bug my girlfriend, I'll pick the PEI NDP.

Most successful non-Lib/PC candidate - Larry McGuire in District #7, who I think can take second.

Most successful NDP/Green candidate - NDP Leader Dean Constable in District #12, who could top 10%. If he tops 20%, I'll be wrong with my prediction and this on could go PC. Although I could see Green Jamie Larkin doing well in District #19 and Ryan Pollard for the NDP in District #21.

Well the polls close soon, so I'll end this post. I'll be back later tonight with more thoughts. Interesting things to watch tonight:

- The "bandwagon" effect - will a perceived Liberal win swing lots of seats as undecided voters plump for a government MLA?
- The "leadership" effect - Will Islanders go for "leadership that works"? Do rural Islanders really have something against Robert Ghiz?
- The "change" effect - What percentage of voters vote for change (for parties other than the PCs)? Will the Liberal be able to get most of this vote?
- The map effect - How will the gerrymandered electoral map affect the results? Keep in mind the Tories drew the boundaries to suit their political purposes, so they could very well win a majority with less votes than the Liberals.

Provincial election in the garden province

Great CP article on the wires today about the likely upcoming election in my native province of PEI. I don't want to comment too much on the article because as a UPEI political science prof astutely notes in it, Island politics is "a personal and family activity".

As PEI politics has "a certain intimacy ... unmatched anywhere else in Canada, I will likely know most of the candidates, some better than others. I can't find a list of candidates online, but you'll note a family connection between myself and the Liberal candidate in my home district (#22). I know who's got my vote, but there will undoubtedly be candidates I like and respect in all four provincial political parties.

To ensure I have a free place to stay next time I'm back on PEI, I won't be blogging regularly on the day-to-day of the election, although as I will undoubtedly be carefully observing how the PEI electoral campaigns migrates from the coffee shops to cyberspace, I may add the occasional thought on that fascinating topic.