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 Tory to have his name withdrawn from the anti-MMP website, and to state clearly to voters that their decision will be respected.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

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.