One shot at democracy in Ontario?

[Canapathy]

An entry from the Progressive Right blog titled MMP: Only Kick at the Can suggests that we will only have one shot at implementing a proportional voting system in Ontario.

The author states that:

Some people who do not support mixed member proportional but who ostensibly support electoral reform, are going to vote "no" in the referendum thinking that in a few years down the road, there will be another opportunity for electoral reform. Maybe to institute single transferable voting or something else.

and that:

The short story is, if we do not achieve those votes to ensure that mixed-member proportional is recommended, there will be no other opportunity for electoral reform in Ontario. Future governments, including the election this fall of a new Progressive Conservative government and way off future Liberal governments alike, will claim the results of this referendum reflect the will of the people, and it likely won't.

I tend to agree. Both the Ontario PC and Liberal parties do not want any form of proportional representation. It may be more democratic, represent far more people, waste far fewer votes and help increase voter turnout but they don't care. The boys in blue and red love the way our first past the post system greatly distorts the will of the people and makes false majorites a possibility....and really who would turn down a shot at undeserved power?

I think the only way we have a shot at a second referendum, if this one fails, is if (like in BC) a clear majority of voters supports the new system only to be denied by the laughable 60% threshold. So if say 58% of the people vote in favour of real democracy but are denied, politicians will give it another shot as it will be too popular to ignore.

Any thoughts?

[capricorn]

I am opposed to mixed member proportional representation, or whatever the proper designation, for a couple of reasons. One, the number of ridings would be reduced. Two, unelected MPPs would be selected by the parties.

What is democratic about unelected MPPs speaking on behalf of Ontarians? What is to stop a party from appointing someone from an interest group just to garner votes? It would open the door to fringe groups to gain power, a move we could fast regret.

By reducing the number of ridings, what is to be gained by increasing the number of constituents that an MPP has to work on behalf of? The work of an MPP is hard enough as is. And why make it harder for constituents to get their MPP's time and attention when it is needed?

I will vote "no".

[Leafless]

The boys in blue and red love the way our first past the post system greatly distorts the will of the people and makes false majorites a possibility....and really who would turn down a shot at undeserved power?

You have just described how corrupt Canada's political system is and how stupid Canadians are not to recognize it.

And not to forget the many dork Canadians married to a system that caters to communist aspirations.

I think the only way we have a shot at a second referendum, if this one fails, is if (like in BC) a clear majority of voters supports the new system only to be denied by the laughable 60% threshold. So if say 58% of the people vote in favour of real democracy but are denied, politicians will give it another shot as it will be too popular to ignore.

Forget it.

There are to many dork Canadians married to the current system that caters to communist aspirations that forces all Canadians to open their wallets to support the socialist aspirations of Canada's controlling, undemocratic politicians.

[August1991]

Any thoughts?

Changing the voting system won't change the fundamental problem of public choice: how to make one person's opinion count accurately. Markets are a serious attempt to solve that problem. Voting is a simplistic solution.

IOW Canapathy, you are dealing with a far more challenging question than you probably imagine.

BTW, other jurisdictions have opted for a variety of voting schemes and their voter participation rates usually return within an election or two to the rates prior to the change.

Moreover, if the NDP thinks a proportional scheme will get them more seats, the NDP's probably wrong. Voters will just adjust their voting choices.

[M.Dancer]

I will not support proportional representation for a couple of reasons.

1) I vote for my local rep, not the party

2) I do not want to see the fringe wingnut parties in the legislature because they managed to get an arbitrary percentage of votes.

[Canapathy]

Changing the voting system won't change the fundamental problem of public choice: how to make one person's opinion count accurately. Markets are a serious attempt to solve that problem. Voting is a simplistic solution.

Representative democracy and voting are not going away so why would we keep a system that does not even come close to accurately reflecting the votes cast? If we are going to use representative democracy why wouldn't we choose a system that best represents the way people vote and our sparsely populated regionally diverse country/province? IMO that system is MMP.

Moreover, if the NDP thinks a proportional scheme will get them more seats, the NDP's probably wrong. Voters will just adjust their voting choices.

Maybe. Being more of a centrist myself I really don't care how a voting system affects the NDP, or any party for that matter. In my opinion an electoral system should deliver the parliament that Ontarians/Canadians vote for and currently, that's not the case.

I don't think MMP is perfect but I think it is far superior to the winner take all system we have now, plus I believe that the balance between local representation and PR that MMP delivers makes it the best match for Ontario and the country as a whole.

[Canapathy]

I will not support proportional representation for a couple of reasons.

1) I vote for my local rep, not the party

2) I do not want to see the fringe wingnut parties in the legislature because they managed to get an arbitrary percentage of votes.

1) Under the proposed MMP system you have two votes. One for you local rep and a second for the governing party. This gives you greater choice as a voter. For example let's say the local candidate you believe is the hardest working, best spoken, most intelligent and dedicated to your community is a member of a party whose platform you despise. Under MMP you can still vote for that local MP locally while choosing a more palatable party platform with your second vote. That second vote is what is used to determine the percentage of seats won by each party.

2) I find it odd that people would prefer a system that does not reflect the way people actually vote because it would prevent a small party from winning one or two seats. A party with so few seats has no real impact in parliament anyway. Plus to gain any representation at all party still has to receive a sizable chunk of votes.

Right now our system distorts the results so badly we have parties winning majority governments (and 100% of the power) after receiving only 40% of the vote. Is it fair to reward the big 2 parties with unearned seats while ignoring almost half the votes cast?

[Mad_Michael]

Any thoughts?

Yeah.

The ONLY thing uglier and worse than the present system we use in Ontario is the bastard-system proposed to replace it.

Proportional representation will give us institutionalised coalition governments that don't actually govern, and a complete inability to cut any program - ever. Indeed, we can have non-functional governments just like the Dutch, the Belgians, the Germans and the Italians.

That is not my idea of an improvement. Safer jobs for political party elits is not my idea of an improvement.

If you think you like this 'multimember' crap, just take a close look at Italian and Israeli (or Dutch or German) politics and then tell me that you think that works well.

[Mad_Michael]

1) Under the proposed MMP system you have two votes. One for you local rep and a second for the governing party. This gives you greater choice as a voter.

No it doesn't give you greater choice as a voter.

It gives greater security of office to party elites who can retain their seats through 'party votes' when the constituents boot their asses out of office. This system can be used to frustrate the will of the voters. There is a big reason that politicans themselves love this system.

And anything that deviates from the principle of one citizen equals one vote is anti-democratic.

Right now our system distorts the results so badly we have parties winning majority governments (and 100% of the power) after receiving only 40% of the vote. Is it fair to reward the big 2 parties with unearned seats while ignoring almost half the votes cast?

You prefer a system where the smallest party with 5% support of the vote is able to determine all public policy?

Indeed, rule by 40% of the voters and calling it a majority is a bit specious. But letting Parliament be ruled by a party with 5% is a far greater travesty. Such is the character of coalition governments - a process the becomes permanent and institutionalised (with backroom deals no less) under proportional rep systems.

[Mad_Michael]

An entry from the Progressive Right blog titled MMP: Only Kick at the Can suggests that we will only have one shot at implementing a proportional voting system in Ontario.

We could only be so lucky.

And when was the last time bureaucrats and political elites came up with an idea that was rejected by the voters - and that ended the process?

If the bureaucrats and political elites want something, we will NEVER hear the end of it, even with 99% votes against, the process will not be killed. They will try again - or try to introduce it quietly, or under a different name, or though back-channels. That's how our political elites do things, voters be damned.

[Mad_Michael]

Indeed, if people were truly concerned about democracy, I'd like to see a law that says every federal riding in the country is the same population.

We already use this game to weight rural votes more weight than urban ones, and Atlantic Canada's votes are worth more than Ontario's (for example). This is anti-democratic.

One citizen = one vote. Very simple. We ought to try it.

[August1991]

Representative democracy and voting are not going away so why would we keep a system that does not even come close to accurately reflecting the votes cast?

I agree that voting and representative democracy are not going away.

But my single ballot changes absolutley nothing in the current system, or the system you propose.

In every election that I have voted, the same candidate would have won whether I had voted or not. Under your proposed scheme, that's still true. One single ballot changes nothing.

Canapathy, maybe your problem is with continuous as opposed to discrete variables. An election is a discrete variable - a candidate wins or loses. Well, as a single voter among thousands or even hundreds, my single ballot will not change this discrete choice. Your proposed voting scheme doesn't change that fact.

As a buyer in amarket however, my purchase of a kilo of coffee has a small effect on the continuous price of coffee.

IOW, devise a voting scheme where a single, individual vote actually makes a small but perceptible difference. Any scheme based on majority rule or choice of a representative will never achieve that.

If we're talking ballots, an individual is better to stay at home and watch TV. A single ballot will not be decisive, and if it's not decisive, it's a waste of time. It changes nothing.

This is the inexorable problem of any theory attempting to explain group behaviour based on individual behaviour.

[jbg]

What is democratic about unelected MPPs speaking on behalf of Ontarians? What is to stop a party from appointing someone from an interest group just to garner votes? It would open the door to fringe groups to gain power, a move we could fast regret.

There's nothing democratic about rep-by-prop. Governing parties point to their "coalition partners" as the reason they can't (don't want to) keep election promises. It's a step back from accountability.

[Canapathy]

Representative democracy and voting are not going away so why would we keep a system that does not even come close to accurately reflecting the votes cast?

I agree that voting and representative democracy are not going away.

But my single ballot changes absolutley nothing in the current system, or the system you propose.

In every election that I have voted, the same candidate would have won whether I had voted or not. Under your proposed scheme, that's still true. One single ballot changes nothing.

Canapathy, maybe your problem is with continuous as opposed to discrete variables. An election is a discrete variable - a candidate wins or loses. Well, as a single voter among thousands or even hundreds, my single ballot will not change this discrete choice. Your proposed voting scheme doesn't change that fact.

As a buyer in amarket however, my purchase of a kilo of coffee has a small effect on the continuous price of coffee.

IOW, devise a voting scheme where a single, individual vote actually makes a small but perceptible difference. Any scheme based on majority rule or choice of a representative will never achieve that.

If we're talking ballots, an individual is better to stay at home and watch TV. A single ballot will not be decisive, and if it's not decisive, it's a waste of time. It changes nothing.

This is the inexorable problem of any theory attempting to explain group behaviour based on individual behaviour.

I agree that under any winner take all system like ours that my ballot is almost always meaningless. However, that's not really the case in most PR systems.

Our current first past the post system ignores province or country wide support and only rewards concentrated local party support. A single vote in our current system, especially if cast for a non-favourite, really is a waste of time.

However, the proposed MMP system for Ontario gives us two votes. One for the local rep which is identical to our current system. The second vote however is used to gauge the province wide support of a party. That allows the ballot of every voter to actually be counted and totalled up. The number of MPs in the house are then adjusted based on province wide support. Thus, each vote does make a little difference..

[Canapathy]

Indeed, if people were truly concerned about democracy, I'd like to see a law that says every federal riding in the country is the same population.

We already use this game to weight rural votes more weight than urban ones, and Atlantic Canada's votes are worth more than Ontario's (for example). This is anti-democratic.

One citizen = one vote. Very simple. We ought to try it.

One citizen = one vote would be great if we actually counted them all. Even if every single riding had the identical population winner take all systems only count the votes cast for the winning candidate....which again leads to incredible distortion.

[Mad_Michael]

One citizen = one vote would be great if we actually counted them all. Even if every single riding had the identical population winner take all systems only count the votes cast for the winning candidate....which again leads to incredible distortion.

As I have pointed out above, the present system, while it may contain some distortions, contains far less distortion than the proposed 'multi-member-multi-vote-semi-proportional-rep' system which makes a mockery of any principle of parliamentary accountablility to the voter.

As far as I'm concerned, the only good use for voting is to 'throw the bums out'. Our present system is rather efficient and effective at doing so. The proposed 'multi-member-multi-vote-semi-proportional-rep' system is designed entirely to protect party elites from the indignity of being thrown out of Parliament and thus, is absolutely the worst possible choice.

Parliament ought to serve the will of the people, not the will of our political elites.

[August1991]

I agree that under any winner take all system like ours that my ballot is almost always meaningless. However, that's not really the case in most PR systems.

It's also true in PR systems. In a typical PR system, there's a set number of ballots required to determine how many deputies are elected for a particular party. One ballot plus or minus will change nothing. IOW, a voter's single ballot will change the overall popular vote total (as a percentage) measured at the 5th or 6th decimal place. Even in PR, a single ballot changes nothing.

Chretien's party financing bill does change things. When you cast your ballot now, you give the party of your choice $1.75 every year until the next election.

[jbg]

As far as I'm concerned, the only good use for voting is to 'throw the bums out'. Our present system is rather efficient and effective at doing so. The proposed 'multi-member-multi-vote-semi-proportional-rep' system is designed entirely to protect party elites from the indignity of being thrown out of Parliament and thus, is absolutely the worst possible choice.

Parliament ought to serve the will of the people, not the will of our political elites.

Mad_Michael,you and I rarely agree, but this post is perfect. I live in a country without even a possibility of rep-by-prop or any parliamentary system ever happening. Hoever, we have our share of ossified, fossilized politicians.

[M.Dancer]

One citizen = one vote would be great if we actually counted them all. Even if every single riding had the identical population winner take all systems only count the votes cast for the winning candidate....which again leads to incredible distortion.

So if they don't count the votes for the losing candidates, how do they know who won?

Edited July 10, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Canapathy]

It's also true in PR systems. In a typical PR system, there's a set number of ballots required to determine how many deputies are elected for a particular party. One ballot plus or minus will change nothing. IOW, a voter's single ballot will change the overall popular vote total (as a percentage) measured at the 5th or 6th decimal place.

Right, just like purchasing 1kg of coffee on the open market, a single vote under a PR system makes a very, very small but measurable difference. However, that is infinitely more impact than 60% of the votes cast under our current system have.

Currently, only votes cast for a winning MP are counted and the average MP receives 40% of the vote. Thus at every election 60% of Canadians would be better off staying home and sending a $10 cheque to the party of their choice…at least they’d get a small tax receipt for their trouble.

Under an MMP system around 95% of voters help create representation...which IMO is much better than the current 40%. Not only does every vote count but every vote is equal, which again is a far cry from what we have now.

The fact that every vote counts and those votes are tabulated across the entire province or country rather than just one riding is a massive change. It will actually allow Canadians to vote for the party they support rather than casting a strategic ballot in hopes of helping to make a difference.

If we are going to have representative democracy why not choose a system that actually counts every ballot and treats each ballot equally? Sure each ballot only makes a tiny difference but isn't that better than 60% of all ballots make no difference at all?

Note: You're right that each vote, on a percentage basis may only measured at the 5th decimal place...but let's apply that to a fairly realistic example. Let's say 10 million votes were cast during the 2006 federal election. 500,000 of those ballots were cast for a Green candidate. Each individual vote makes only a tiny difference but combined they should have won (5% of 308) 15 seats...instead they received 0.

[Mad_Michael]

You can quibble all you want about about the 'incremental value' of one vote all day long.

But the question is, when it comes to proportional representation, how do you address the institutionalisation of backroom coalition deals where the smallest parties hold the power? As I noted above, rule by 40% may be a travesty, but rule by 5% is definitely worse.

And what about the process by which coalition governments are essentially incapable of cutting anything?

And how do you reconcile the fact that proportional rep systems protect the jobs of politicians the electorate tries hard to vote out of office?

I want responsibility in Parliament. I cherish the ability to vote them out of office. Proportional rep systems prevent this and give job security to politicans.

Edited July 10, 2007 by Mad_Michael

[Canapathy]

But the question is, when it comes to proportional representation, how do you address the institutionalisation of backroom coalition deals where the smallest parties hold the power? As I noted above, rule by 40% may be a travesty, but rule by 5% is definitely worse.

I don't understand your opposition to coalitions. I also don't understand how you think a party can rule with 5%.

Let's say the governing party is elected with 35% of the vote. When trying to pass bills they obviously have to receive support from 1 or more opposition parties. Popular bills pass easily, less popular bills take compromise or do not pass....a lot like our what occurs in a minority government situation.

And what about the process by which coalition governments are essentially incapable of cutting anything?

All votes are public and politicians must still face the electorate every 4 years. The opposition will hang itself if it refuses to pass popular bills.

I could also ask the reverse question. Under our current system what prevents a government from ramming through very unpopular motions because it was granted a false majority government after receiving only 40% of the vote?

And how do you reconcile the fact that proportional rep systems protect the jobs of politicians the electorate tries hard to vote out of office?

I want responsibility in Parliament. I cherish the ability to vote them out of office. Proportional rep systems prevent this and give job security to politicans.

Please explain how MMP would give politicians job security.

[August1991]

Note: You're right that each vote, on a percentage basis may only measured at the 5th decimal place...but let's apply that to a fairly realistic example. Let's say 10 million votes were cast during the 2006 federal election. 500,000 of those ballots were cast for a Green candidate. Each individual vote makes only a tiny difference but combined they should have won (5% of 308) 15 seats...instead they received 0.

Combined? How?

Let's say we have PR. And let's say 518,322 Canadians vote for the Green Party. As a result, the Green Party gets (5% of 308) 15 seats. Should I have bothered to vote, for the Greens? If I did, the Greens would have received 518,323 votes and they would have had - surprise - 15 seats.

My single vote would have changed nothing. The Greens popular vote total would change from 518,322 to 518,323 and the Greens would still have 15 MPs. Whether I voted or not.

FPTP in individual ridings at least gives me the vague hope that my single ballot will change something, and the victory of my local MP. In a national popular vote, it's almost a certainty (or I'll have the perception) that my single ballot will change nothing.

IOW, PR does not change the fundamental fact that my single ballot has no effect on anything. I'm wasting my time. And make no mistake, every other individual voter will reason as I do. Every scheme to change voting rules to make them "more democratic" runs up against this problem. At issue in fact is how a collective makes a choice. The problem is far more complicated than PR.

----

I'll give Chretien credit for his law. It gives a reason for people to vote. A voter has some control over how a small amount of taxes are spent. When you vote Green, you know that $1.75 of your taxes each year are going to the Green Party.

If I were a Green Party activist, I'd drop the PR argument. Instead, I'd remind voters constantly that a vote for the Greens gives the party $1.75 every year to be active and defend the environment. I'd argue that the government should change the electoral law and raise the $1.75 to $3.50. And I'd also lobby the government to raise the threshold for receiving taxpayer's money. Only political parties receiving more than 500,000 votes should receive subsidies.

Edited July 11, 2007 by August1991

[jbg]

IOW, PR does not change the fundamental fact that my single ballot has no effect on anything. I'm wasting my time. And make no mistake, every other individual voter will reason as I do. Every scheme to change voting rules to make them "more democratic" runs up against this problem. At issue in fact is how a collective makes a choice. The problem is far more complicated than PR

I agree.

And PR adds the ill of encouraging formation of marginal parties, so that they canl,l with minimal support elbow their way to the table. Also, as was pointed out above, PR means that the politicians, not people at the local level, are choosing the riding candidates.

[Canapathy]

Let's say we have PR. And let's say 518,322 Canadians vote for the Green Party. As a result, the Green Party gets (5% of 308) 15 seats. Should I have bothered to vote, for the Greens? If I did, the Greens would have received 518,323 votes and they would have had - surprise - 15 seats.

My single vote would have changed nothing. The Greens popular vote total would change from 518,322 to 518,323 and the Greens would still have 15 MPs. Whether I voted or not.

FPTP in individual ridings at least gives me the vague hope that my single ballot will change something, and the victory of my local MP. In a national popular vote, it's almost a certainty (or I'll have the perception) that my single ballot will change nothing.

Your argument does not make any sense whatsoever. FPTP does not give you any greater chance for change than MMP, in fact it gives you less. Do you understand how MMP works?

Under FPTP you have one ballot, with one vote for a local canidate. That's it. If you did not cast a ballot for the winner your vote was meaningless and you have no representation in Ottawa or in this case Queen's Park.

Under MMP you have one ballot with two votes. The first is a vote for a local candidate identical to the one cast under the FPTP system. The second is for the party you find most palatable.

That second vote actually allows all supporters across the entire province to make a difference. It is true that each vote makes very little difference, but MMP actually gives voters the chance to be part of a collective that makes a difference whereas FPTP does not.

MMP provides more choice, fairer results and stronger representation than FPTP.

Edited July 11, 2007 by Canapathy