Ontario's Referendum

[Topaz]

I read the pamphlet and I like alot of people I know say NO! I see nothng wrong with the "First -past the post" way we have been voting and I really don't think it will past. One thing, wouldn't it cost more to have these extra people to chose from??

[Michael Hardner]

I agree with you.

I think that MMP will slow down our political process from a crawl, to a slow crawl.

Andrew Coyne, though, expresses rare conservative support for the idea in today's National Post.

[jennie]

I agree with you.

I think that MMP will slow down our political process from a crawl, to a slow crawl.

Andrew Coyne, though, expresses rare conservative support for the idea in today's National Post.

So the case for electoral reform, it seems to me, is one that conservatives, if not Conservatives, should find appealing. It is

a cause that has tended, historically, to be identified with the left, not least in the current referendum debate; many conservatives have accordingly rejected it. Yet it is not the left that has suffered most under the current system. It's the right.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...90b8838&p=1

He is saying that under FPTP, the only party that wins is the party that stays in the 'mushy middle', and that FPTP plus MMP will allow for a broader range of views and that will benefit conservatives (and others) ... I think.

Interesting. It does seem like our elections have become a race to the mediocre middle. With MMP, extremists won't gain power, but a broader variety of views will be part of public debate.

I admit it bothers me how elections are 'rigged' ... I don't mean rigged really, but ...when 25% of the vote can take a riding, and the vote is 'nailed down' and 'gotten out' ... it is just strategy now, not people's votes or people's views that count.

I am just speculating here, but a broader range of views in the legislature might improve the quality of the debate.

I certainly hope so because it is so bad now that schoolkids are disgusted by the 'bullying'. (Wear pink!)

There might be more substantive discussions of content, rather than political preening and posturing and taunting and ... bullying.

I watch it and it's deteriorating rapidly.

I think it will be a breath of fresh air, a dose of public scrutiny for our politicians.

And who knows what interesting alliances might come about on various issues ... kinda like the way people are: I agree with some people on some things, other people on other things. I think it could lead to more goal directed debate on issues of substance instead of political posturing like now. It ticks me off to watch them in the House dismiss the question with a bit of fluff, and then spend the rest of their time primping for reelection: MY time that I am paying them for and it seems all they do in the legislature is CAMPAIGN. Ticks me off! They do not do justice to the issues, and they play politics on taxpayer time.

It seems a more intelligent system to air and consider all possible solutions to build the best ones together using everyone's knowledge and abilities,

rather than try to make everything fit into a three particular dogmatic views and come out looking different and demand that we make choices.

Human being have more similarities than differences.

Basic human needs, for example, which is what politics is really all about: providing for our basic human needs for now and the forseeable future. (Try acting human when you've got nowhere to cr*p. Seriously, think about your toilet not working. Then how much does it matter if your neighbour is a communist? Eat, pi**, sh*t, sleep, that is what humanity has in common. )

Collaboration toward shared public purposes is a much more efficient use of human resources than reinventing wheels in competition (which has its place in innovation and elsewhere).

The nice thing about it, and I think a major consideration, is that it is an addition to a familiar system, a tryout in my mind.

I would like to have some say in how the 'list' MPP's duties are defined ... or refined over time. I think they should have constituencies OR an overriding portfolio agreed upon by all of the people - eg Environment ... just rambling and speculating here ...

It's not like we can't make them take it back if we don't like it!! We ARE the people ... right?!?!

Edited September 22, 2007 by jennie

[kengs333]

I read the pamphlet and I like alot of people I know say NO! I see nothng wrong with the "First -past the post" way we have been voting and I really don't think it will past. One thing, wouldn't it cost more to have these extra people to chose from??

The added cost is such a lame excuse for not having electoral reform. Given the population of Ontario, the amount of representation that we have is too small as it is. This is a system that is used in a number of countries and it works, it is more represeantative. It shocks me that people are so content with an electoral system that negates the majority of votes, produces such disproportionate seating arrangements at Queen's Park.

[Michael Hardner]

The added cost is such a lame excuse for not having electoral reform. Given the population of Ontario, the amount of representation that we have is too small as it is. This is a system that is used in a number of countries and it works, it is more represeantative. It shocks me that people are so content with an electoral system that negates the majority of votes, produces such disproportionate seating arrangements at Queen's Park.

Kengs,

These types of arguments for MMP make no sense to me.

'It works in other countries.'

Our system has produced, in my opinion, a balanced system that provides the necessities of a social safety net while providing an excellent environment for business. So why do we want to abandon it, for a more mathematically symmetric system ? Our system works !

Countries like Italy have perpetual minority governments and constant deal-making between parties, but their system counts all the votes.

Why choose mathematics over practical matters ?

[jennie]

Kengs,

These types of arguments for MMP make no sense to me.

'It works in other countries.'

Our system has produced, in my opinion, a balanced system that provides the necessities of a social safety net while providing an excellent environment for business. So why do we want to abandon it, for a more mathematically symmetric system ? Our system works !

Countries like Italy have perpetual minority governments and constant deal-making between parties, but their system counts all the votes.

Why choose mathematics over practical matters ?

We are not abandoning the old system. MMP is just a simple add-on.

It will mean that the number of seats a party has in the house will reflect their percentage of the popular vote. It simply corrects one flaw in our current system, which is that we can end up with an all powerful government that has the support of only a minority of the people.

[Michael Hardner]

We are not abandoning the old system. MMP is just a simple add-on.

It will mean that the number of seats a party has in the house will reflect their percentage of the popular vote. It simply corrects one flaw in our current system, which is that we can end up with an all powerful government that has the support of only a minority of the people.

Jennie,

I haven't had anyone yet explain to me where the 'flaw' is, except that the current system isn't mathematically perfect. They say it 'wastes votes', which seems to mean that if I vote for a candidate who loses, she/he doesn't get to go to Queen's Park.

There are plenty of things about our system that are unfair. The entire house of commons sits under an unelected body that can reject all legislation submitted by the people. Cities are under represented in Toronto and Ottawa. The government of Canada effectively outlawed the Communist Party in the 1990s and seized its assets !

As such, I find a lot of the arguments in favour of PR to be strident. They seem to say that the system has this one 'flaw'. No system is perfect. The justice system is designed to let guilty people go in some cases, and there's nothing to be done about it. The measure of effectiveness of a democratic system is the overall result, and in Ontario the result of our democracy has been quite good.

If we want to ensure that the Green Party or whomever gets a seat in the legislature, we can do that but redesigning the whole system seems excessive.

[capricorn]

It seems to me that the whole question of MMP has come about because the criteria in our election laws make it far to easy to form a political party. Before we arrived at the point of having over a dozen registered political parties, the policies of the major parties were more discernible one from another. As a result, the major parties have responded by trying to be all things to all people. In a sense, the main parties have borrowed from the ideas of fringe parties in order to boost their own popularity with one-issue voters or interest groups.

In effect, the lines between the conservative and the liberal ideology have become so blurred that many Canadians don't see a difference between them. IMO this has led to much of the apathy toward politics and politicians we see today.

If the purpose of MMP is to fix our electoral process, IMO I don't think it will fix anything at all. In fact, I think it would make matters worse. It would actually encourage the formation of additional fringe parties which would in turn dilute the policies of every political party. MMP is a process that appears to have been developed without due consideration for what is wrong with our basic legislation on elections. I see MMP as a response to flawed legislation.

[kengs333]

Kengs,

These types of arguments for MMP make no sense to me.

'It works in other countries.'

Our system has produced, in my opinion, a balanced system that provides the necessities of a social safety net while providing an excellent environment for business. So why do we want to abandon it, for a more mathematically symmetric system ? Our system works !

Countries like Italy have perpetual minority governments and constant deal-making between parties, but their system counts all the votes.

Why choose mathematics over practical matters ?

Italy doesn't use MMP. Italy is always used by people who fear-monger about electoral reform. The sad fact of the matter is that countries like Canada and the US who proport to be the beacons of democracy in the world have electoral systems that are anything but democratic, while countries that were once ruled by autocratic monarchs and totalitarian regimes have now established working democracies that have some sort of PR electoral system. I'd say it's time for Canada to get with it, and we can start right here in Ontario.

[kuzadd]

Jennie: amen!

You have a good understanding of the referendum, and the proposals for it.

it certainly it not a complete re-do, more an enhancement.

I will be voting, Yes, to change!

[Bruce24]

One Question:

1. If a certain candidate wins the seat in a riding, is it possible with the proposed system that he/she doesn't get in, because he/she will be replaced by a list candidate? This seems to be implied by the fact that some elected candidates will need to be removed if their party is over-represented proportionally. Is this also possible if a candidate is an independent?

[M.Dancer]

Here's a certainty.

Any and all results in the upcoming referendum are worthless.

TORONTO — Nearly half of Ontarians say they know nothing about a proposal to change the way the province elects its politicians, but those who do know about it are likely to support it, according to a new poll.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ection2007/home

[kengs333]

One Question:

1. If a certain candidate wins the seat in a riding, is it possible with the proposed system that he/she doesn't get in, because he/she will be replaced by a list candidate? This seems to be implied by the fact that some elected candidates will need to be removed if their party is over-represented proportionally. Is this also possible if a candidate is an independent?

Riding candidates and the list candidates are two seperate things. The riding candidates are elected using the current method of "first past the post" and what happens in the PR side of the vote has no bearing on the riding candidates.

[Michael Hardner]

The sad fact of the matter is that countries like Canada and the US who proport to be the beacons of democracy in the world have electoral systems that are anything but democratic, while countries that were once ruled by autocratic monarchs and totalitarian regimes have now established working democracies that have some sort of PR electoral system.

Again, Kengs... aside from the 'wasted votes' issue, and other matters mathematical, what are we missing here ?

If one wants to go through every electoral system with a microscope, you'll be left only with direct democracy as the 'pure' system. If you're not for direct democracy, then your system can only be slightly less flawed than mine.

[Michael Hardner]

QUOTE

TORONTO — Nearly half of Ontarians say they know nothing about a proposal to change the way the province elects its politicians, but those who do know about it are likely to support it, according to a new poll.

Morris,

That means that political wonk heads like MapleLeafWebbers are all excited, but the general unwashed populace will still be unmoved.

Wasn't the purpose of this thing to get people all excited about voting again ? Looks like MMP fails in that department as well.

Let's see...

CONS

- Untouchable appointed MPPs, not democratically elected

- Perpetual minority governments, and the attendant politics that such arrangements bring

- More representatives, more complication for a population that doesn't even understand the existing system

- A louder voice for fringe parties that we don't need to near from

- Small parties that do need a voice - i.e. The Greens - will have a seat in the legislature, but will still not be guaranteed to be included in debates, or press coverage

- Existing problems with our democratic system will remain unaffected by this silly fix

- Centre-left dominance of politics forever will lead to a right wing backlash

PROS

- Mathematical perfection, I.E. no 'wasted votes', which seems to mean that whoever loses the election gets to send MPPs anyway.

[kengs333]

Again, complete misrepresentations of what MMP has to offer. There are other countries where the proposed system is used, perhaps you can proved some proof to back up your assumptions, and then we can enter into a really debate on the pros and cons of MMP.

Candidates elected through the party votes would not be appointed by the party, but likely elected by party members in a process no different than the election of the party leader. How exactly were John Tory and Dalton McGuinty made party leader? Most people who voted Liberal in the last election had no say in the matter. Any party that "appoints" candidates on the party list that are not acceptable will likely not be voted for, and if those that do get elected don't conduct themselves in a manner that is accountable to the public, during the next election, that party will probably receive less votes.

Minority government can often run smoothly and provide better results because the parties are forced to compromise. Sure beats having a majority government elected with 40% of the vote ramming things down our throat like the Harris Tories did.

If enough people out there feel that a "fringe party" best reflects their views, then those views should be represented in the legislature.

CONS

- Untouchable appointed MPPs, not democratically elected

- Perpetual minority governments, and the attendant politics that such arrangements bring

- More representatives, more complication for a population that doesn't even understand the existing system

- A louder voice for fringe parties that we don't need to near from

- Small parties that do need a voice - i.e. The Greens - will have a seat in the legislature, but will still not be guaranteed to be included in debates, or press coverage

- Existing problems with our democratic system will remain unaffected by this silly fix

- Centre-left dominance of politics forever will lead to a right wing backlash

PROS

- Mathematical perfection, I.E. no 'wasted votes', which seems to mean that whoever loses the election gets to send MPPs anyway.

[Michael Hardner]

Kengs,

Again, complete misrepresentations of what MMP has to offer. There are other countries where the proposed system is used, perhaps you can proved some proof to back up your assumptions, and then we can enter into a really debate on the pros and cons of MMP.

You can't "prove" what will happen, it's pure conjecture.

I maintain that my predictions, though, are more accurate than your predictions that Ontario will transform into Belgium.

Candidates elected through the party votes would not be appointed by the party, but likely elected by party members in a process no different than the election of the party leader.

But not elected by voters.... sounds pretty undemocratic to me...

How exactly were John Tory and Dalton McGuinty made party leader? Most people who voted Liberal in the last election had no say in the matter.

But they *were* elected by their local constituents.

Any party that "appoints" candidates on the party list that are not acceptable will likely not be voted for, and if those that do get elected don't conduct themselves in a manner that is accountable to the public, during the next election, that party will probably receive less votes.

I could easily see all major parties doing this. Then what ?

Minority government can often run smoothly and provide better results because the parties are forced to compromise. Sure beats having a majority government elected with 40% of the vote ramming things down our throat like the Harris Tories did.

Say what you like about Mike Harris, but he made a mark upon the province, and he was re-elected. I voted against him, and I even marched in protest against him several times however I think that the mechanics of democracy in this country demand that someone with a vision of how things should be done gets a turn at the helm.

You will never again have a Harris, or a Trudeau, if you force every leader to play cards with the other party leaders all of the time.

If enough people out there feel that a "fringe party" best reflects their views, then those views should be represented in the legislature.

You are paving the way for the Ontario Nazi party, or its equivalent, to gain a platform.

[kengs333]

Kengs,

You can't "prove" what will happen, it's pure conjecture.

I maintain that my predictions, though, are more accurate than your predictions that Ontario will transform into Belgium.

But not elected by voters.... sounds pretty undemocratic to me...

But they *were* elected by their local constituents.

I could easily see all major parties doing this. Then what ?

Say what you like about Mike Harris, but he made a mark upon the province, and he was re-elected. I voted against him, and I even marched in protest against him several times however I think that the mechanics of democracy in this country demand that someone with a vision of how things should be done gets a turn at the helm.

You will never again have a Harris, or a Trudeau, if you force every leader to play cards with the other party leaders all of the time.

You are paving the way for the Ontario Nazi party, or its equivalent, to gain a platform.

An "Ontario Nazi Party, or its equivalent" would not exist in the first place. If all you care to do is make nonsensical remarks such as these, then don't waste my time.

[Michael Hardner]

How so ? The 'White Heritage Party', say, could frame its policies around promoting the 'white race'. There would be nothing to stop it, legally speaking.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Countries like Italy have perpetual minority governments and constant deal-making between parties, but their system counts all the votes.

Why should a party with a majority of seats have a dictatorship over the State's affair for 4 years? Do we merely pretend to live in a democracy?

I would think that most people believe the only fair system is one which allows everyone at once to hold power. The State’s socio-political apparatus is not something outside of us. We have to stop seeing it as something which occasionally one of us gets to use to impose ourselves.

You will never again have a Harris, or a Trudeau, if you force every leader to play cards with the other party leaders all of the time.

I though that was a good thing.

Edited September 25, 2007 by lost&outofcontrol

[M.Dancer]

Why should a party with a majority of seats have a dictatorship over the State's affair for 4 years? Do we merely pretend to live in a democracy?

Aside from your false premise that a majority is a dictatorship, because they also have the largest block of support. Why should a fractured plurality of opposition parties thwart the will of a majority?

[jennie]

How so ? The 'White Heritage Party', say, could frame its policies around promoting the 'white race'. There would be nothing to stop it, legally speaking.

Actually they would not go so far as to promote the 'white' race. All they would do is promote their platform of no immigration, no special rights for anyone (including freedom of religion apparently), no burkas, no turbans, no headscarves, etc etc etc.

That kind of approach seems somewhat popular ... at least on this board it certainly is ... and you can get by without talking about the 'white superiority' issue that does turn people off.

Why not? It will expose the white supremacists who like to pretend they are not. They hide behind "there's something wrong with them' instead of looking at what is perhaps wrong with their own perceptions.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Aside from your false premise that a majority is a dictatorship, because they also have the largest block of support.

You do not think that the majority has an absolute hold of power for the duration of their term?

Why should a fractured plurality of opposition parties thwart the will of a majority?

So the "will of a majority" can impose itself upon the minority? If the "will of a majority" is always the happy consciousness in this farce you call a political system then what is it if not a dictatorship?

[M.Dancer]

You do not think that the majority has an absolute hold of power for the duration of their term?

No they do not have absolute power. Do i really need to be so pedantic as to explain this simple fact?

So the "will of a majority" can impose itself upon the minority? If the "will of a majority" is always the happy consciousness in this farce you call a political system then what is it if not a dictatorship?

A constitutional democracy. But it was plain from your first false assumption that your don't quite understand that.

[lost&outofcontrol]

You did not answer my question. Can the "will of a majority" impose itself upon the minority?