Help ensure a fair referendum in Ontario

[MightyAC]

Currently in Ontario there is a citizens committee studying our electoral system. Their job is to determine if it needs to be changed and if so propose a new voting system. Their proposal will appear as a referendum at our provincial election in October 2007.

It’s very exciting that the government will give us little people a chance to decide on the fate of our own electoral system. This process has already been tried in BC and PEI, however some very undemocratic conditions were applied to the referendum. A 60% threshold was required for the changes to pass.

In the BC example 58% of the people voted in favour of a new proportional rep system and were denied. Meanwhile only 46% of people voted for Gordon Campbell and he won a majority. I can't believe such undemocratic processes occur in a first world country like Canada. Democracy is about majority rule not 42% minority rule.

Dalton McGuinty has actually kept his word on allowing electoral reform to be voted on. However, he has not yet set a threshold on this vote. Please help to make sure that Dalton and the Grits do not attempt to apply the same ridiculous threshold that was used in BC and PEI. Please help ensure that the government applies the same democratic standards to this referendum as it does to its own affairs. If more than 50% vote for reform, then reform must be implemented. Likewise if more than 50% vote for the status quo then the status quo must be maintained.

I urge everyone to contact their MP and ask for democracy. For more information on this issue please see this fact sheet: http://fairvotecanada.org/files/FVO%20fact...un%206%2006.pdf

[MightyAC]

Like Bob once said ‘the times they are a changing’. BC and PEI have had referendums, Ontario will have one in October 2007 and now Bernhard Lord in New Brunswick has announced there will be one in 2008.

The ball is rolling it should be just a matter of time until every vote counts in Canada. I can't wait for real democracy. I wonder if the federal Conservatives will consider the same thing. My guess is not before they have at least attempted to win a false majority.

The chair of the committee in charge of electoral reform is Cambridge, Ontario MP Gary Goodyear. I have sent him a couple emails on the subject but he will not give a direct answer. Typical politician I guess.

Link to the New Brunswick announcement

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...eg-changes.html

[Wilber]

The 60% threshold in BC may be a little undemocratic depending on your point of view, however the government realizes that 58% was very close to the required threshold and an overwhelming number of regions voted in favor of the proposal. The result is, the government has said there will be another vote and that a lot more effort will go into informing people about the proposed changes. Running up to the previous vote, the government just let the opposing positions go at it and did not get involved. Maybe democracy is not quite so dead in BC.

[Michael Hardner]

I think that this reform issue is a fad. In order to pass, I would think that a 2/3 majority should be demanded.

Our system may have flaws, but major changes such as some of the ones proposed can be difficult to roll back so we need to be sure what we're doing is supported. The other thing to take into account is the rate of turnout. A 50% pass rate would mean that a small minority of Ontarians came out to the polls in favour of the proposed change.

2/3 - 66.67 % - should be the threshold.

[Leafless]

[quote name='Michael Hardner' date='Jun 28 2006, 07:55 AM' post='119652'

2/3 - 66.67 % - should be the threshold.

LOL, to bad the same can't be said concerning federal elections.

66.67%-Is totally unrealistic.

Democracy is a system of government by the WHOLE population.

Since we will never be able to achieve 100% in favour or against, it would not be unreasonable to suggest 50% to be the deciding factor concerning any issue (outside of the separation issue since the whole population of the country is not involved).

In fact this would not be a bad idea with the Quebec separation issue and that is for the ROC to hold it's own vote (separate from the Quebec one) to establish whether or not Canada should or should not politically co-operate any further to retain Quebec as part of confederation.

[Michael Hardner]

Leafless,

It sounds like you're ready to welcome enough Green Party MPPs to keep the Liberals and NDP in power forever...

[Charles Anthony]

Please help ensure that the government applies the same democratic standards to this referendum as it does to its own affairs. If more than 50% vote for reform, then reform must be implemented. Likewise if more than 50% vote for the status quo then the status quo must be maintained.

Here is a question for you to ponder:

What do you want if the results are even split?

exactly 50% for and 50% against

I realize that it is a ridiculous statistical improbability but please ponder the question. It forces you to go straight to the heart of understanding the validity and righteousness of democracy.

[MightyAC]

Please help ensure that the government applies the same democratic standards to this referendum as it does to its own affairs. If more than 50% vote for reform, then reform must be implemented. Likewise if more than 50% vote for the status quo then the status quo must be maintained.

Here is a question for you to ponder:

What do you want if the results are even split?

exactly 50% for and 50% against

I realize that it is a ridiculous statistical improbability but please ponder the question. It forces you to go straight to the heart of understanding the validity and righteousness of democracy.

Exactly 50 - 50 would mean the status quo would stand. Like all government votes 50% + 1 is required to pass.

A question to those that seem to agree with a 60% or higher threshold. Democracy is about majority rule. Why then would you give more power to a no vote than a yes vote? In the BC example 58% voted in favour of change and 42% voted against it. Why should the no vote have so much more power, shouldn't every single vote be equal? In this example every no vote was worth 1.4 times that of a yes…

Also why is it ok for House of Commons votes to be majority rule but actual peon Canadians like us, need a massive majority?

[Charles Anthony]

A question to those that seem to agree with a 60% or higher threshold. Democracy is about majority rule. Why then would you give more power to a no vote than a yes vote?

I do not agree with the 60%threshold crowd but I will answer your question:

You could give more power to a no vote because it COSTS a lot to change whatever issue is in question.

Exactly 50 - 50 would mean the status quo would stand.

But does it mean that the status quo is right?

[MightyAC]

I do not agree with the 60%threshold crowd but I will answer your question:

You could give more power to a no vote because it COSTS a lot to change whatever issue is in question.

I"m guessing that Gordon Campbell in BC did not want to change the system as his government benefitted from a false majority created by our current flawed electoral system. Part of his campaign pledge was to allow a referendum on electoral reform, but when in power changing the system is no longer a benefit to him so he added the undemocract threshold of 60%. It must have scared the crap out of him when it still almost passed.

But does it mean that the status quo is right?

Not necessarily. However, if a referendum is issued and we, the people get to vote, right or wrong our decision must stand.

The only exception I have are human rights issues as they should never be part of a popularity contest. However, human rights issues should never be part of a referendum in the first place so it should not be an issue.

[Charles Anthony]

The only exception I have are human rights issues as they should never be part of a popularity contest.

I agree.

Now, taking it a step further....

However, human rights issues should never be part of a referendum in the first place so it should not be an issue.

...what makes human rights issues different? so special?

Where I am going with this should be obvious but that belongs to a different thread......

[Michael Hardner]

A question to those that seem to agree with a 60% or higher threshold. Democracy is about majority rule. Why then would you give more power to a no vote than a yes vote? In the BC example 58% voted in favour of change and 42% voted against it. Why should the no vote have so much more power, shouldn't every single vote be equal? In this example every no vote was worth 1.4 times that of a yes…

Also why is it ok for House of Commons votes to be majority rule but actual peon Canadians like us, need a massive majority?

Because this change could be huge and almost irreversable, and the public is likely more susceptible to fads than the entire governing party.

[Charles Anthony]

Because this change could be huge and almost irreversable, and the public is likely more susceptible to fads than the entire governing party.

But why 60%? why not 59% or 61% or 66.666666666666666666%?

Why an arbitrary number? is the reason equally arbitrary?

[Michael Hardner]

66% is 2/3. Sure, it's arbitratory but so is 60%. I think 60% is too low.

[MightyAC]

Because this change could be huge and almost irreversable, and the public is likely more susceptible to fads than the entire governing party.

Should our current system be irreversible? Should we be stuck with an old, flawed, electoral system that wastes nearly half the votes cast, creates false majorities and ensures that every citizen’s vote is not equal simply because that's what we've always had? A 60% or higher threshold is basically making it irreversible. Anything above 50% is also minority rule instead of the majority.

Also, you seem to be saying that Canadians cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. Considering we allow the public to choose the people that will run the country on our behalf shouldn't we be able to choose the way our votes will be counted?

Canada became a country on a simple majority vote; Newfoundland joined Canada on a simple majority vote. We give our governments 100%, almost dictatorial, majority power on less than majority votes but you believe we need two thirds support to choose how our votes are counted?!?! Unbelievable

[MightyAC]

The only exception I have are human rights issues as they should never be part of a popularity contest.

I agree.

Now, taking it a step further....

However, human rights issues should never be part of a referendum in the first place so it should not be an issue.

...what makes human rights issues different? so special?

Where I am going with this should be obvious but that belongs to a different thread......

It's a popular topic these days and since it shows up in the majority of threads eventually, let's do our best to keep it out of this one.

[Michael Hardner]

Should our current system be irreversible? Should we be stuck with an old, flawed, electoral system that wastes nearly half the votes cast, creates false majorities and ensures that every citizen’s vote is not equal simply because that's what we've always had?

Old -> not necessarily a bad thing - time tested, as democracy itself is 'old'

flawed -> because...

wastes half the votes cast -> any representative democracy will 'waste' votes for the loser, presumably what you mean

false majorities -> the majority is a majority in parliament only, and is a tool to ensure that a party with adequate support is given a chance to present their vision of how the country should be run

votes not equal -> this begs more explanation

A 60% or higher threshold is basically making it irreversible. Anything above 50% is also minority rule instead of the majority.

I agree. But if THIS ONE SOLUTION - that is presented as the golden salve that will cure democracy - is what we need, then people will understand that, and respond. I think it's typically short-sighted that PR type solutions are presented as the only solution, and that we're supposed to adopt them almost immediately, despite the fact that they will change our system.

Also, there's an aspect of gerrymandering to this that I don't like.

Also, you seem to be saying that Canadians cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. Considering we allow the public to choose the people that will run the country on our behalf shouldn't we be able to choose the way our votes will be counted?

But we don't put every issue directly to the public either. Complex issues that require more than an instant decision should be given to legislators and committees whose job it is to consider the ramifications.

Canada became a country on a simple majority vote; Newfoundland joined Canada on a simple majority vote. We give our governments 100%, almost dictatorial, majority power on less than majority votes but you believe we need two thirds support to choose how our votes are counted?!?! Unbelievable

What is unbelievable is that this solution has appeared out of nowhere and is being pushed with fervor as the only way to fix democracy. Our current system, which is usually bemoaned as 'old' as if that is a bad thing, has produced a government which has given our country an excellent balance of social programs with a competitive business environment, IMO.

Why we would want to toss that completely on a hunch is beyond me.

[Charles Anthony]

Our current system, which is usually bemoaned as 'old' as if that is a bad thing, has produced a government which has given our country an excellent balance of social programs with a competitive business environment, IMO.

Why we would want to toss that completely on a hunch is beyond me.

Some people think it could be even better.

The mechanics of what democratic power can do and its results are not being tossed. The proposed change aims only to balance the power more fairly. Some people think that anything EXCEPT 50% + 1 is unfair.

[Michael Hardner]

Some people think it could be even better.

The mechanics of what democratic power can do and its results are not being tossed. The proposed change aims only to balance the power more fairly. Some people think that anything EXCEPT 50% + 1 is unfair.

Of course they couch their argument in 'fairness' and so forth, because it convinces people. The fairness of any large democratic system is entirely subjective though. Again, I point to the balance that we've had in Canada and in the provinces, and the results.

PR would tilt that balance permanently in order to serve less than 10% of voters who are never represented by a party in parliament. That's called throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Charles Anthony]

The fairness of any large democratic system is entirely subjective though.

No. In the case of 50%+1 it is objective arithmetic because the definition of democracy requires a majority. Thus, the 50%+1 is arithmetic threshold at which a majority exists.

PR would tilt that balance permanently in order to serve less than 10% of voters who are never represented by a party in parliament. That's called throwing the baby out with the bath water.

There is an alternate way of looking at it.

I would say that it is a clear and loud message that the government in question is unfairly too big.

[Michael Hardner]

No. In the case of 50%+1 it is objective arithmetic because the definition of democracy requires a majority. Thus, the 50%+1 is arithmetic threshold at which a majority exists.

You're talking about the referrendum here. Ok. As I said, it's a major change so I want a higher threshold.

There is an alternate way of looking at it.

I would say that it is a clear and loud message that the government in question is unfairly too big.

What do you mean by 'too big' ? The Ontario Liberals are too big ?

[Charles Anthony]

You're talking about the referrendum here.

No. I am talking about all instances whereby we want to apply "democracy" be it referendum, municipal, provincial, federal, international, unions, Waterbuffalo meetings or lynch mobs.

If you want to use democracy because democracy is right, you must accept 50%+1 as the threshold to determine the winner because it is the lower limit of an arithmetic majority.

This is the salient point:

If you push the threshold higher, you are using democracy as a tool to gain power not because democracy is right.

I would say that it is a clear and loud message that the government in question is unfairly too big.

What do you mean by 'too big' ?

Taxation without representation. My definition of "representation" is very strict. Every voter deserves it.

[Michael Hardner]

No. I am talking about all instances whereby we want to apply "democracy" be it referendum, municipal, provincial, federal, international, unions, Waterbuffalo meetings or lynch mobs.

If you want to use democracy because democracy is right, you must accept 50%+1 as the threshold to determine the winner because it is the lower limit of an arithmetic majority.

I respect your drive for democratic purity in politics. You realize, though, that the machine of democracy doesn't work that way every time.

For example, support for capital punishment has been over 50% yet this has never been brought for a vote.

This is the salient point:

If you push the threshold higher, you are using democracy as a tool to gain power not because democracy is right.

What if there are three or four or five choices ? Does the threshold go to 34%, 25% and 20% ?

Taxation without representation. My definition of "representation" is very strict. Every voter deserves it.

Every voter is represented by an MP or an MPP in their region. It's not practical to assign an individual representative to every fringe voter out there.

[MightyAC]

Old -> not necessarily a bad thing - time tested, as democracy itself is 'old'

flawed -> because...

wastes half the votes cast -> any representative democracy will 'waste' votes for the loser, presumably what you mean

We have a Winner Take All system which means that only one political viewpoint or party can be represented in each riding. All other voters, supposedly equal, get no parliamentary representation whatsoever. In the last federal election the winning MP in my riding received 40% of the total votes cast, which means that 60% of my riding has no representation for their views. 60% of the votes cast in my riding were wasted. On average our system wastes 50% of all votes cast. Proportional systems waste far fewer votes. New Zealand and Germany both use Mixed Member Proportional systems which basically use our first past the post system and then adjust parliamentary levels for the popular vote. Both nations had election in 2005, in Germany 4% of the votes were wasted and in New Zealand only 1% were wasted. I'd say that's a big improvement.

false majorities -> the majority is a majority in parliament only, and is a tool to ensure that a party with adequate support is given a chance to present their vision of how the country should be run

If a party has more than 50% of the seats in parliament they in effect have 100% of the power. Provided MPs vote along party lines any bill they present cannot be defeated. Why do you agree with a system that gives a party 100% of the power with far less than 50% of the vote. Chrétien won 3 consecutive majority governments without ever receiving more than 42% of the vote. Shouldn’t a party only receive 42% of the available seats if the win 42% of the vote?

votes not equal -> this begs more explanation

In the 2004 federal election the Bloc received 1 seat for every 32,000 Bloc votes cast. The Liberals received 1 seat for every 37,000 Liberal votes cast. The Conservatives received 1 seat for every 40,000 Conservative votes cast. It took 111,000 NDP votes for each seat won by the NDP and nearly 500,000 Green votes elected nobody. That's what I mean by not equal.

I agree. But if THIS ONE SOLUTION - that is presented as the golden salve that will cure democracy - is what we need, then people will understand that, and respond. I think it's typically short-sighted that PR type solutions are presented as the only solution, and that we're supposed to adopt them almost immediately, despite the fact that they will change our system.

This process has not been almost immediate or appeared out of the blue. Plus PR systems are not being touted as the only solution. A citizens committee is currently dealing with the issue. First they will decide if we need change. If so they will research various systems and recommend one for Ontario and that choice will appear on the ballot in October 2007. In the year ahead the public will be educated about the potential new system. Then hopefully a simple 50% + 1 majority will be allowed to decide if it passes or not.

I recommend reading about proportional systems; my favourite is the Mixed Member Proportional system. It basically combines our current First Past the Post system with a correction for the popular vote. Considering your love for the current system you may actually like. Here is the wikipedia page for MMR. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional

[Charles Anthony]

I respect your drive for democratic purity in politics. You realize, though, that the machine of democracy doesn't work that way every time.

I understand.

For example, support for capital punishment has been over 50% yet this has never been brought for a vote.

I understand.

What if there are three or four or five choices ?

That is the logical next question. Strategically, there is no objective solution. It becomes a power game: might is right. "We" construct "rules" to get around it.

Does the threshold go to 34%, 25% and 20% ?

No. It stays at 50%+1. The only way to achieve 50%+1 is for the people involved to fraction: they should not be under the same rule. That is where I make the statement that the government is too big.

It's not practical to assign an individual representative to every fringe voter out there.

I agree. Practicality comes at the expense of freedom.