More great videos for MMP

Won't have the time for another blog post today and I want to try and put in less than 11 hours at the office, but I wanted to share some more of the great web videos that have been popping up about MMP.

This first one is a great video made by some members of the Students' Assembly on Electoral Reform, who also recommended MMP for Ontario.



The second is another longer form video prepared by the same group, that takes to the streets to talk about MMP:



Finally, this last video was prepared by the great group of pro-MMP activists at the U of T Scarborough campus:

Great MMP video - "The end of civilization as we know it!"

Here's the best video about MMP I've seen so far, starring our friend Don Ferguson from the Royal Canadian Air Farce.

Pass this along to friends, particularly those who might not know about the referendum.

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 At its root, this must be a reflection of the inescapable fact that, due to our outdated first-past-the-post electoral systems, our legislatures reflect neither how we vote nor our diversity.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.

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.

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?

MMP and Party Bosses

I'm promising to be more prolific at blogging for the rest of the referendum campaign, so I'll try and have daily posts, if not more often.

I saw a great blog by my friend Gary Shaul on the Vote for MMP site that I just had to plagarize here:

If MMP gives so much power to party bosses and backroom operators, why do they oppose it? Just wondering.

Seriously, I'd like some answers. Or can we just file this in the overflowing half-truths about MMP file?

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.

No MMP wants Ontario voters to be uninformed about the referendum

Let's file this under ridiculous press releases.

Apparently, No MMP, the backroom political operatives for the status quo, are upset that Vote for MMP has been distributing brochures produced by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

I'm not going to comment at length on this because my friend Matt Guerin, the Chair of Liberals for MMP says it so well in the comments on Cherniak's blog:

The people of Ontario funded the independent and fair process of deliberative democracy with the Citizens' Assembly. The Assembly was made up of ordinary Ontarians selected at random by Elections Ontario.

Their decision has been put to a vote for all Ontarians. To deny Ontario voters access to printed material on the Citizens' Assembly's deliberations and findings is unconscionable.

Furthermore, doing so would look like the government is unethically manipulating the referendum process in favour of the status quo.

Of course this would suit status quo lovers just fine. The more ignorant the populace is about the question, the less likely they'll vote for change.

The government promised an education campaign in advance of the October 10th referendum. Ontario voters have a right to information on the Citizens' Assembly's proposal and its deliberations. Not everyone has access to the internet, so printed material widely available is essential.

However, I will note the irony of the No MMP media contact, Joseph Angolano having once expressed support for the Ontario Citizens' Assembly process, giving it as a reason, in fact, for voting for McGuinty in the last election, as reported by Dr. Dawg, in a blog that for some reason is now offline?

Seems strange to cite the Assembly process as a reason to vote Liberal one year and then try and suppress public knowledge of their work in another. But such is the logically incoherent life of an MMP opponent.

Wake up and smell the kiwi

Just wanted to link to a great article, with an even greater title, on the Macleans web site today.

The author, Chris Selley gives a good background on how New Zealand came to change its voting system and the voter reaction to the change.

Selley correctly points out that MMP has made the New Zealand House of Representatives more diverse and reflective of the population, as claimed by MMP proponents in Ontario.

Also, he notes that MMP has not been unstable, as stable and working coalitions have become the norm in New Zealand.

Finally, I was most intrigued by a quote from Raymond Miller, chair of the political science department at the University of Auckland, the leading school in that country:

"I've got 300-plus students studying New Zealand politics, and I have to explain to them how the old system worked," he says. "I don't think they have any affection for it, and there's certainly no sense of nostalgia."

You heard that correctly, young Kiwis are very pleased with the decision their elders made over a decade ago. I only hope Ontario voters will be equally cognizant of how young Ontarians want a political system that makes every voices heard and better reflects our great province's diversity.

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

Fancy new Vote for MMP ads for your blog/website

Likely won't be back to blogging regularly until after Labour Day. I'm working on a series of blog pieces for the referendum campaign, so I'm planning to have some good discussion here and on the campaign site.

But in the meantime, I wanted to let people know that we've got some neat Vote for MMP banners up on the site. If you support MMP, we'd love you to put one on your blog or web site!

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.

Vote for Alex Campbell, Defeat Wacky Bennett!

I'm taking a second away from improving democracy to direct your attention to another important democratic matter - Calgary Grit's Canada's Best Premier contest.

The winner of the PEIs best premier contest that I hosted, Alex Campbell is facing off in the quarter-finals versus reactionary BC premier "Wacky Bennett".

While Campbell was a Liberal, he is undoubtedly the Garden Province's most lefty premier. He brought a traditionalist province (at times reluctantly) into the modern world. His accomplishments in changing PEI for the better are unrivalled.

If you've got 10 minutes to spare and want to know more about Campbell, check out this fascinating old CBC piece on the remarkably close election that put him in the Premier's chair.

And I'm sure there must be lots of progressive bloggers out there who don't want to see a premier who was taken to calling the NDP "socialist hordes" who "couldn't run a peanut stand" beat a progressive Premier. So vote here for Alex Campbell.

$10.10 for more democracy on 10/10

Inspired by the increasing chatter in the blogosphere about MMP, I felt I should chime in to remind people that democracy does come for free.

The Vote for MMP campaign is a grassroots, largely volunteer based campaign and is supported by small donations from supporters of democracy - like my readers.

If we are going to win the campaign for better democracy in Ontario, we're going to need the resources to counter the spin and misinformation and reach out to the 70% of Ontarians who don't know about the referendum.

That's why I'm calling on all my readers who are fed up with politics-as-usual to dig into their pockets and make a small donation to the Vote for MMP campaign. Like I just did, you can take a minute and donate online to the campaign right here.

I'd suggest $10.10 in recognition of the October 10 date where we will make history be being the first province in Canada to replace our 13th Century voting system with one that will better allow us to meet the challenges of the 21st Century.

But if you want to give more, I'm cool with that too!

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.