NationStates Jolt Archive

Interested in democratic reform?

On October 10th, as part of the Ontario provincial election, Ontarians will likely be faced with a referendum on passing a mixed-member proportional parliamentary system.

For folks who don’t follow Canadian or Ontarian politics at all, our federal and provincial governments follow the traditional British ‘first-past-the-post’ system of electing our members of parliament. In Ontario, we currently have a 103 member ‘citizen assembly’ debating on a possible alternative to that. They have bounced a few ideas back and forth, and it appears that they will be leaning towards recommending a mixed member proportional system, similar to Germany’s.

http://www.thestar.com/article/200185

On Sunday, the assembly of 103 randomly selected citizens said it thinks a German-style "mixed-member proportional" representation system is the best alternative to the current "first-past-the-post" way of electing MPPs.

A week tomorrow, the panel is expected to officially recommend that the new system be put to a referendum as part of the Oct. 10 provincial election. It would have to pass with a 60 per cent "super majority" to become law in time for the 2011 election. But in the event of a minority government this fall, it could even be adopted as early as next year.

Under the new system, voters would cast two ballots, the first for one of 90 local representatives, the other for the party of their choice. That second ballot would be used to allocate an additional 39 seats in the Legislature from party lists based on the popular vote tally.

Now personally, I think it’s about freaking time. Based on the many options, this system seems to be the best suited for our situation. If this is passed, finally someone wanting to vote for a party that is unlikely to win in their riding, will still end up with some form or representation in parliament.

My personal democratic reform axe is at the federal level, but if we can pass this in Ontario, it would be a good start. BC had a close chance at reform, although they were pushing for a Single Transferable Vote system. Many felt that the system was ‘too complex’, and it fell slightly short of what it needed to pass.

I think Ontarians would be willing to give this a go, unfortunately, I don’t think the major parties, NDP excepted, are really in favour of watering down their power (the NDP would likely gain).

I couldn’t help but laugh at the ‘Billy Ballot’ character the government concocted to explain different electoral systems, but it does explain things rather simply:

http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en-CA/The%20Classroom/Billy%20Ballot.aspx

At any rate, what do Canadians, particularly Ontarians think of this development? What about people in other nations using similar systems? Anyone?

I honestly don't know why legislatures using PR don't go with STV.

Sure, it maybe takes a bit longer to count, but from what I can see it's the best method to be proportionally representative.

I honestly don't know why legislatures using PR don't go with STV.

Sure, it maybe takes a bit longer to count, but from what I can see it's the best method to be proportionally representative.

I'm guessing that the main reason they aren't recommending it, is that it would be seen as a 'tough sell' in Ontario. They want a system that seems familiar enough, while still providing some sense of proportion.

I'm guessing that the main reason they aren't recommending it, is that it would be seen as a 'tough sell' in Ontario. They want a system that seems familiar enough, while still providing some sense of proportion.

I always put it like this: if most people in NI can work it out then anybody can.

This make up for unleashing Toronto on the world. Kudos to Ontario if this passes.

I always put it like this: if most people in NI can work it out then anybody can.

Oh, I'm sure people would be able to figure it out. It's that in order to pass the 60% on the referendum, you have to convince the public while the nay-sayers are trying to maintain the status quo. There are several legit arguments for the status quo, even if I generally don't like it.

Great! People like me can abuse the system~ 2 NDP votes from me! :D

Great! People like me can abuse the system~ 2 NDP votes from me! :D

There's definitely a reason Howard Hampton is pushing for it.

One might argue that bringing in mmp might take away some power from the NDP and go straight into the hands of some of the independants, but I think you would see the same thing happen to the disparate elements of the other political spectrum as well.

I'm thinking that the Liberals don't really want this. They may have pushed for it, thinking it wouldn't pass. The Toronto Star seems editorially against it, and the Star seems to always support the Liberals. The conservatives definitely don't want it.

The biggest set-back I think, will be explaining to the public that they will be adding something like 25 new members of parliament to the taxpayer's bill.

Oh, I'm sure people would be able to figure it out. It's that in order to pass the 60% on the referendum, you have to convince the public while the nay-sayers are trying to maintain the status quo. There are several legit arguments for the status quo, even if I generally don't like it.

Well, it's easy enough to vote, it gives accurate representation, and STV is also almost the name of Ford's performance devision.

What's not to like?

Well, it's easy enough to vote, it gives accurate representation, and STV is also almost the name of Ford's performance devision.

What's not to like?

Hey, I would go for STV, although I might prefer a 50-50 MMP. However, we've already seen a similar motion fail in BC.

Baby steps buddy. Baby steps.

Hey, I would go for STV, although I might prefer a 50-50 MMP. However, we've already seen a similar motion fail in BC.

Baby steps buddy. Baby steps.Well, they never really explained a few details. Like, one of the things the mentioned was that once a person gets enough votes, they stop counting votes for that person and will go to that ballot's second or third vote. So generally, you had a bunch of people who thought that they wasted their vote because their first vote was used to get a guy elected, but there second wasn't counted when there second choice just didn't make it.

Well, they never really explained a few details. Like, one of the things the mentioned was that once a person gets enough votes, they stop counting votes for that person and will go to that ballot's second or third vote. So generally, you had a bunch of people who thought that they wasted their vote because their first vote was used to get a guy elected, but there second wasn't counted when there second choice just didn't make it.

I'm confused even trying to decipher your post let alone the STV system (okay, not really.) But the simplicity of the status quo is apparently one of its selling points. The alternative should have a sense of simplicity as well. I'm thinking this proposed system is good.

I'm confused even trying to decipher your post let alone the STV system (okay, not really.) But the simplicity of the status quo is apparently one of its selling points. The alternative should have a sense of simplicity as well. I'm thinking this proposed system is good.
OK, basically what people thought was once a person had gotten to the number of votes needed to be elected, all the votes that had been counted were thrown in the garbage. People were worried that they, and other people voting the same way, would get there votes thrown out, resulting in a different result than if the votes were counted in a different order.

This would be...honestly...earth shattering (for us) if it passed.

If it could be worked out on a provincial level, it MIGHT be possible, down the line...ten, twenty years from now, as slow as the gears grind...to push for it at the federal level.

But let's not jump there yet. We might actually get out of our four party system (tories, grits, BQ, NDP)...it's beyond exciting!

This would be...honestly...earth shattering (for us) if it passed.

If it could be worked out on a provincial level, it MIGHT be possible, down the line...ten, twenty years from now, as slow as the gears grind...to push for it at the federal level.

But let's not jump there yet. We might actually get out of our four party system (tories, grits, BQ, NDP)...it's beyond exciting!

Yeah, that's my hope at any rate. It's more like we have a 1.5 party system at the federal level. It's the Liberals... or the protest vote of the decade. If this passes at a provincial level, I think it would open up the debate in provinces across Canada.

It would be interesting to finally see cabinets composed of members of more than one party. No more party whips determining our 'say'. (At least less so.)

My fear, is that the major media is going to dismiss it, claiming that it will disrupt the decision making process, increase the bureacracy, etc, etc. With Dalton McGuinty crying 'neutral', it's hard to really have any faith in the Liberals promoting change, even if they set up the citizens assembly to begin with.