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.

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.

All candidates will be democratically selected - even Tory admits it

Good news for Ontario democracy this morning. Because John Tory has now basically admitted that should MMP come into effect, his party will democratically select their province wide members.

In a recent interview with the National Post, Tory admitted the PCs will likely find a democratic way to develop its list of candidates." Quoting him directly:

“The history of our party is that the party insists on choosing its candidates democratically. Even the notion that the leader would appoint candidates is something that has been not well received when it’s come up.”

Also, in the news today, the Green Party of Ontario outlined its plans for selecting its provincial candidates. Quoting Frank DeJong:

"Under MMP, voters will expect each party to select its list candidates in an open and democratic fashion. We are committed to using a transparent and equitable process to produce a slate of qualified Green candidates who accurately reflect Ontario's diverse population."

Since Howard Hampton has already committed the NDP to a democratic candidate selection process, that just leaves Premier McGuinty to clarify how he thinsk his party should select its province-wide candidates.

McGuinty deserves credit for starting the Citizens' Assembly process, but I must admit I find myself agreeing with Tory when he says:

“He started this process. I would have thought that by starting it, he obviously was recognizing some need for change — why else did he start it?” Mr. Tory asked, adding that Mr. McGuinty want to “have it all ways.”

“For him to start the process and then express no opinion at all is another abdication of leadership….He’d like to have everybody think he’s on their side, because that’s politics as usual for Dalton McGuinty.”

We don't even need to hear your opinion on MMP itself Dalton, just do like the other leaders and commit to democratic candidate selection - that would take a big (and false) weapon out of the arsenal of the opponents of democracy.

Vote for MMP calls out Tory on his misinformation

It's great to see the Vote for MMP campaign hitting back at PC leader John Tory - the most prominent politician working to defeat democratic progress in the October 10 MMP referendum.

First, on Monday, the group called for Tory to ask for his name to be removed from list of opponents of democracy on the main pro-status quo website. Even more importantly, they called for him to assure voters that he would respect the results of the referendum should MMP prevail:

"It is regrettable that Mr. Tory's name is being used to sway voters one way or another in this important referendum," said Mr. Anderson. "When this process commenced, the Legislature was very wise to have placed redesign of Ontario's antiquated electoral system beyond the self-interest gamesmanship of competitive partisan politics. It would be a shame if today partisan politics are allowed to lower the level of thinking on this important matter in the way they unfortunately do on so many issues."

"We encourage Mr. Tory to have his name withdrawn from the anti-MMP website, and to state clearly to voters that their decision will be respected.

On Wednesday, Vote for MMP challenged Tory to commit to democratic nominations for PC list candidates should MMP come into effect next election, after Tory again intimated (erroneously) that list candidates would be appointed under MMP by telling Canadian Press that "I think the whole notion of having
appointed people may be heading in the opposite direction that we should".

Vote for MMP campaign chair Rick Anderson challenged Tory to commit to democratically selecting PC list candidates:

"We certainly agree with Mr. Tory that appointed candidates have no place in the province's legislature," said Rick Anderson, chair of the VoteForMMP Campaign. "No one is proposing that there be appointed candidates under MMP - unless Mr. Tory is intending that Conservative party province-wide list candidates would be selected in this undemocratic manner."

Most advanced democracies have moved toward some kind of more
proportional system, as the Ontario Citizens' Assembly has recommended
Ontarians adopt.

"In all countries where MMP is used, parties use democratic processes to nominate their list candidates - just as in Canada today the parties use democratic processes to nominate riding candidates," said Anderson.

"Mr. Tory's remark stands to confuse and mislead voters on the matter of whether candidates will be democratically nominated. Is he saying that the Conservative Party will not select candidates democratically? Is he accusing the other parties of this? Is he advocating that Ontario's Elections Act specify how parties select candidates, a matter heretofore left to parties in the expectation they will proceed democratically?"

It's a shame that the media hasn't pressed Tory to clarify these obvious questions when he trots out that lame talking point about appointed MPPs. Hopefully, now they will.

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."

More on MMP and truthiness

Before I start my blog series discussing the problems with the debate over the upcoming referendum, I thought it might be good to give a little background on why I became so interested in the issue of electoral reform.

They say apathy and loss of civic interest characterizes my generation, but I’ve always been interested in politics. I grew up in a political home in Prince Edward Island, the kind of place where issues of the day were (and still are whenever I’m back) invariably discussed at the kitchen table. This led to a life-long interest in political affairs, particularly elections. My parents are both educators – in my view, the noblest profession – and always promoted critical thinking and open discussion.

I had the distinct pleasure of serving as a legislative page in both the PEI Legislative Assembly and the House of Commons, so I’ve observed more than my share of parliamentary debates.

I observed grown men and women two or three times my age behave like children. Sadly, in a 21st Century Canadian legislature, “debate” appears to be far too often characterized by misleading, personal and unwarranted attacks on political opponents rather than a respectful discussion of policy alternatives. At its root, this must be a reflection of the inescapable fact that, due to our outdated first-past-the-post electoral systems, our legislatures reflect neither how we vote nor our diversity. Thanks to our pre-democratic voting system, we are facing the challenges of a new millennium with political institutions that under-represent minority viewpoints, inflame regional tensions and prevent new ideas and perspectives from entering the legislature.

By the end of my year in the House, I knew that we could ask for more from our politicians and our democratic institutions, I just didn’t know exactly how to remedy this problem. In my second year at university, I learned more about the diversity of voting systems used around the world. It was like a bolt of lightning – we could demand more from our politicians and proportional representation was the way to best hold them to account. I sent in my membership form to Fair Vote Canada shortly thereafter and have been involved with the organization for years now.

The summer after second-year university, as a part of co-operative work placement, I worked as a research assistant at the Public Policy Forum, an Ottawa-based think tank. The main project I worked on, and certainly the one I enjoyed most, was on youth voter turnout – which as I’m sure you are aware is steadily in decline. I studied a good portion of the academic literature on this subject and had come to the inescapable conclusion that talking about increasing voter participation without fixing our broken electoral system is ignoring the real reason behind the problem. And when you think about it, does it not make sense that young Canadians of my generation, who are accustomed to unbelievable choice in most areas of their lives – from beauty products to colas to television channels – are being turned off by a political system that reduces the effective choices they can make?

So when my home province was holding a plebiscite on a form of mixed-member proportional in the Fall of 2005, I had to go back to get involved with the campaign. Over the course of three months, I had the great pleasure of working with a great group of supporters and doing my best to educate Islanders about MMP.

At a public forum in PEI moths after the plebiscite was over, I gave a speech that I’ve posted on my blog before, and I think much of what I said is relevant to the ongoing campaign here in Ontario:

I’m still disappointed that I obviously didn’t educate enough Islanders. I think we can all agree most voters felt did not feel sufficiently informed on the issue, many clearly didn’t feel it was worth their time – or would make much difference to them …

Because as much as I wish I could say otherwise, November 28th was NOT a bright day for Island democracy. I believe the plebiscite results reflect:
- lack of knowledge about MMP among many voters
- increased cynicism among voters
- deepening cleavages between urban and rural Islanders, ones stoked by the failures of successive generations of MLAs to take leadership on modernizing our voting system
- low turnout (likely due to lack of polls/voter info cards/lineups). The turnout was much lower than indicated in a survey done before the plebiscite.
- finally, it is difficult to even gauge support for changing our voting system among Islanders, as it seems every second thing the No side was “we support electoral reform, just not this model”

I guess the primary lesson I learned from this Fall was that it’s easier to tear something down than to build something up

It is easier for opponents of fair voting systems to misinform the public than it is for proponents to educate them on the functioning of alternative electoral systems ...

Again as I’ve said to members of the group in private discussion, the No side’s work during the Fall can be fairly described as misleading, incorrect, and designed to play upon Islanders’ misconceptions rather than their hopes for a more democratic future.

My experience in PEI made me very skeptical about the motivations of those opposed to electoral reform. And I see many of the same misleading arguments being used here in Ontario. Although I must note that the movement for electoral reform in Ontario is MUCH broader and deeper than it was on PEI two years ago. We have hundreds of times more supporters and a much more broad-based support network, bringing in people from all political perspectives.

In short, we're much better prepared to win this vote on MMP. But we still need your help and support.

As I will argue in this blog series, those opposed to MMP are either willfully misleading Ontarians about how it will affect our political life or just ignorant of how proportional voting systems work. I’m very proud of how the Vote for MMP campaign is sticking factual and verifiable claims about how electoral change will affect government and democracy in this province.

I would compare the public debate on MMP to two other controversial debates of recent years – the debate leading up to the Iraq War and surrounding climate change. In all three cases, we can see certain political interests and actors willfully distorting the facts to serve political ends.

In my mind, talking about “appointed party hack MPPs” is no different than talking about “weapons of mass destruction”. Pretending that MMP won’t affect women’s representation at Queen’s Park is logically analogous to asserting that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with rising global temperatures. They ignore the best available evidence and research - why? Because the facts don't support those interests' pre-ordained positions - invading Iraq, protecting the oil industry and preserving the electoral status quo.

The Citizens’ Assembly process inaugurated by the current government could have been a shining example of deliberative democracy. But deliberative democracy necessitates informed and reasoned decision-making. We already know that most voters aren't aware of the referendum and even less feel informed. So unless the Ontarians can see through the spin and misinformation about MMP, it will be difficult to say that the October 10 referendum is a triumph for democracy - regardless of the results.

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.

Where would MMP list candidates come from?

I just wrote a long response to a friend on some questions about list candidates in MMP and I thought my readers might be interested in it.

It is tough to get good information on the referendum. You can take what I say for what it's worth, after all I do work for the pro-MMP campaign (if you support what we're doing, consider making a contribution - we could really use it). To be frank, I'm most frustrated by how those opposed to this are so willing to ignore/distort/disregard the evidence on how proportional voting systems work in the real world.

Certainly, the list members in Ontario would all have constituency offices, as they do in Germany, New Zealand, Scotland and Wales. They would function just like locally-elected MPPs in that regard. Evidence from those countries indicates that voters make no distinction between local and list members.

Because the list seat to local seat ratio is so low in the proposed Ontario MMP system, there are important incentives built into the system that encourage list MPPs to stay attuned to local concerns where they live. It is likely the first place party will win lots of local seats and therefore get less list seats. This means that a higher proportion of list seats will come from opposition parties. Obviously, all opposition parties hope to be in government someday, but if an opposition party become government, they'll no longer elect so many list candidates. This means that list MPPs can't rely on being on the list to get re-elected. Therefore, politicians being the rational, self-interested beings they are, I think MMP means more attention being paid to local concerns, not less.

There will be some ridings that will have two (possibly even more) MPPs who ran locally in that riding (I anticipate all parties will still run as many local candidates as they can). As my colleague Steve Withers, a Canadian who moved to NZ and loves MMP so much he came back for this campaign, likes to talk about, his riding in NZ (Otaki) has three members. First, the locally elected Labour MP, who won the riding by about 300 votes. Second, a National Party MP, who came second and got elected because he was near the top of the party list. Finally, one of the Green list MPs is from the area and has a office in his city.

So for voters under MMP, they have multiple elected representatives to go to for help. This system might not be to the delight of our current elected representatives, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me it isn't good for voters.

On the practical question of where exactly will list MPPs come from? I think my friends at Liberals for MMP propose a good example of how list candidates would be selected here.

If MMP passes, I think it's clear that the question of "who's on the list" will be a big focus of the media in the lead-up to an MMP election. This provides strong incentives for parties to create lists that are broadly representative of the province. In practice, I think this means that parties are likely to convene regional conventions to make regional lists of candidates which will then be folded into a provincial list - as they do in New Zealand. This will ensure good regional balance - a representative number of candidates from the North, Eastern Ontario, Southwestern Ontario, the GTA, etc. etc. Otherwise, parties risk being roasted in the regional media in areas that are under-represented on their lists.

Let's not forget that the logic of MMP is that every vote, in every part of the province counts towards electing members, so there's no incentive for parties to over-represent any part of the province. Unless they like bad press.

To go back to the example you gave of where would 10 hypothetical Liberal list MPPs come from, they would be the 10 highest ranked candidates on the list who didn't win a local seat. I think it's reasonable to assume that those 10 candidates would be broadly reflective of Ontario, with a slight bias to areas of the province where the Liberals don't do as well in local races and therefore didn't win seats there(such as rural and Eastern Ontario). So there's another wonderful aspect of MMP, it works to ensure more regionally balanced party caucuses!

By the same logic as for regional representation, I think MMP will mean a legislature with more women and visible minorities. The numbers of those groups on party lists will be publicized by the media and parties that fail to adequately represent those groups will risk the wrath of voters that care about those issues. Because if a party doesn't find good lists spots for those groups, you can bet the media will let voters who care about that know.

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?

Referendum campaign kicks off, Star misleads readers

Today marks the start of the Ontario election campaign. But more importantly, it also marks the start of a historic referendum campaign to modernize Ontario democracy.

So it was not particularly surprising to see that the Toronto Star put a story about the referendum on their cover this morning, with the oh-so-clever title of “Electoral reform on the ballot? Who knew?”.

As my good friends at Liberals for MMP already note in this post, there is a serious factual error in the Star's story:

reporter Kerry Gillespie makes the error in the piece that "39 [MPPs] would be appointed from party lists" under Mixed Member Proportional. This is factually incorrect as the 39 province-wide members will be elected by the public when they cast their ballots for political parties under the new system. The 39 province-wide nominees will be put before voters in a clear and transparent way ... To refer to them simply as "appointed" is simply wrong.

Consider the 2003 election. It took, on average, 21,993 votes to elect a local MPP. In 2003, 4,309,912 votes were cast -- which under MMP will all count toward electing representatives if cast for a party that got more than 3%. So if we divide that number by the 129 MPPs who will be elected under MMP, on average it will take 33,410 votes to elect a list MPP. Therefore, since it takes nearly 50% more votes to elect a list MPP, how can it be said they are not elected?

So if you're like me and shocked at the Star's error and that their reporter was out on the street telling voters that parties will “appoint” MPPs under the proposed system, send a note to the reporter or their ombudsperson urging them to stop misreporting details of the proposed new system are encouraged to do so.

Maybe then the Star will be make the appropriate correction in tomorrow’s issue and refrain in the future from misleading their readers about MMP.

Liberals for MMP show how MMP can improve party democracy

My friends at Liberals for MMP released their manifesto today. This group of grassroots Liberals don't agree with the spin that MMP will increase the power of central parties. Rather, they argue that MMP will provide a powerful impetus for party reform, as all parties discuss how to democratically select list candidates.

Liberals for MMP propose five principles for a list selection process:
1. That the party undertake the most democratic and transparent process possible to select its province-wide list, convening regional party conventions and/or primaries to choose nominees.
2. At least 20 out of 39 province-wide candidates should be women.
3. The list must have regional balance, alternating between Ontario's regions accordingly, starting with a nominee from Northern Ontario. The party must ensure that there is balance between rural and urban nominees on the list.
4. The party will ensure that Ontario's diversity be well-reflected, with members of minorities historically excluded from the Ontario legislature well-represented.
5. All Liberal list members will open local constituency offices in the regions they were elected to represent.

Liberals for MMP hope that their manifesto sparks debate within the Liberal party about democratic reform and shows their fellow party members that MMP can be the spark for a democratization of their party.

As Liberal for MMP spokeswoman and candidate for Trinity-Spadina Kate Holloway notes in the release:

"If MMP passes the referendum next month, Liberals For MMP will lobby strongly within the Ontario Liberal Party to ensure these proposals become party policy. This Manifesto is meant to continue a discussion inside and outside our party on the issue of electoral reform in advance of this October's referendum and beyond."

I want to congratulate Liberals for MMP on this document and their work on reaching out to Liberals about how reforming our voting system is essential to improving our democracy. I look forward to seeing many more Liberals joining them.

I hope this will silence some of the critics who are perpetuating the baseless claims that list candidates will be appointed. Grassroots Liberals won't stand for it and I don't think any other political party in Ontario will either.

MPP cares more about his vote than yours

Over the weekend, I read an article that I wanted to come back and blog about from the Owen-Sound Sun Times, on the local candidates’ positions on MMP.

The three challengers all came out strongly in favor of MMP and while PC incumbent Bill Murdoch “spoke critically” (in the words of the reporter) of the Citizens’ Assembly’s recommendation, he wouldn’t come out and say he’s voting against it (hopefully a sign that he detects an undercurrent of support for change in his riding).

But there’s one thing in particular that jumped out at me. Murdoch, like some others opposing MMP, argues that electoral reform might be a good idea, but that we should instead be concentrating on parliamentary reform, specifically loosening the party whip and allowing for more free votes.

“The parties take over and tell the members what to do,” said Murdoch. “I believe if they wanted it to be more democratic in Ontario, they should have changed the system at Queen’s Park first.”

On October 10, we’re not voting on whether we want parliamentary reform. In fact, I can’t even imagine ever having a referendum on that issue. Clearly, the issue of “free votes” is one that can be decided right now within the walls of Queen’s Park. MPPs don’t have to vote any particular way. Sure, if they vote against party leadership they might lose some perks, put themselves out of favour with the leadership, but surely representing their constituents is worth that.

If MPPs from any party wanted to rise up tomorrow and cast off the shackles of the party whip, they could do it, no need for any legislation, any regulations. Are their party leaders going kick them all out of caucus? I don’t think so.

Murdoch says the current system doesn’t let you represent your constituents because of the party whip system, so how could MMP be worse?

Oh yes, the dreaded list MPPs, according to Murdoch, they are “as undemocratic as you could get. You’re supposed to be elected to represent your people, not a party. The way it’s set up right now, those 39 are going to be beholden to the party because how did they get their name on the list?”

But wait I thought MPPs were already beholden to their parties and couldn't propoerly represent "their people" under the current system?

And is Murdoch saying that John Tory would just pick and choose list candidates among his favorite backroom cronies? I think if he were so foolish, he’d surely find himself on the opposition benches.

And would MPPs under MMP be less able to vote against the party line? There’s no reason why they still couldn’t. In particular, I think MPPs elected locally under a hypothetical MMP system would be more able to buck party discipline if the issue was sufficiently important to their local area. After all, if they were to get kicked out of their caucus, they would still be able to run as an independent in their seat. Their supporters could still vote for their local MPP who represents their interest AND for a different party. And to see how independent members can have success under MMP just look at the independent Welsh Assembly Members who were just elected after leaving the Labour Party over its controversial affirmative action policies for female candidates.

Considering Murdoch’s position, it seems to me that the clear conclusion is that he cares much more about his votes than ours. Or he’s just looking for a smelly red herring to distract voters from how MMP will improve our democracy.

All of this isn’t to say that I’m not amenable to parliamentary reform – and in my experience most supporters of electoral reform are – but, in my view, Murdoch’s arguments are no reason to pass up this historic opportunity to modernize our democratic institutions.

On the other hand, if we want to change our voting system, we may very well only have one chance – voting for MMP. It’s taken centuries for Ontario’s citizens to get the chance to pass judgment on how we vote, so should MMP fail, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for another chance to make our votes more effective in shaping our parliament.

Democracy's foes reveal themselves

Came to work at Democracy Central this afternoon to find that the group who will be campaigning against the multi-partisan, independent and representative Citizens' Assembly's recommendation for a mixed-member proportional voting system for Ontario have revealed themselves.

Not surprisingly, it was with a press release cross-posted to Jason Cherniak's blog (who I did get the pleasure to meet briefly this past weekend and seems like a nice guy).

My friend and leading pro-democracy blogger Scott Tribe responded with a blistering and accurate attack on the flimsy logic of the No MMP campaign.

The discussion in the comments on those blogs is interesting and should be reflective of how the campaign will develop should the No MMP forces continue to try and peddle misrepresentations and half-truths as their stock in trade.

I'm sure we'll be pointing out the glaring holes in the case against MMP in the weeks to come but I want to concentrate briefly on one point in the release to refute it.

No MMP warns the proposed voting system "will allow political leaders to stack their caucuses with blind loyalists who have no direct responsibility to the people." Let's consider this scenario of the 2011 election under MMP.

As proposed by the Citizens' Assembly, parties are required to publicly release their candidate lists - and how they were chosen - before the writ is dropped. Obviously, on the day list must be made public, the media will be ALL over that story. They'll talk about the list order, break down the regional and demographic representativeness of the list and let voters know how the list was chosen. Do you think a party would risk all the negative publicity that would come from having to admit that the list was selected by the leader in a smoky backroom? Not if they want to win the election. Because they know that the other parties would be criticizing them like crazy if they did that.

Also, the 3% threshold for winning seats under MMP provides a strong incentive for parties to be fair and transparent with their members when it comes to list selection. After all, if a party were to choose its candidates in an undemocratic way, it would be easy for an enterprising party activist to quickly start their own party, with fair and democratic candidate selection processes, and directly compete with their former party for votes based upon their more democratic nature. Heck, they might even be able to call it the Democratic Liberal/PC/NDP/Green party!

So as you're hopefully starting to see, all this talk about list MPPs is not based in reality but is just an attempt to scare voters away from a new and improved voting system.

And this isn't even starting to criticize the problems with undemocratic candidate selection under our current voting system, as this blogger points out.