Ontario Provincial Referendum

Remove all ads!

There's a Provincial election coming up in Ontario. But this time in addition to the usual dog and pony show put on by the candidates, there's a referendum question involved.

The questions asks if voters want to keep the staus quo or whether they want to make a change to the system.

Currently, we have a number of ridings (electoral districts) and in each area, they vote, and the candidate with the most votes gets the seat in parliament. The proposed change would reduce the number of ridings to 90, and ask the voters to not only to select a local candidate, but which party they want to see with the balance of power. There will be 39 seats divided up by percentave of votes on the second part of the ballot. Therefore, if the Green party gets 5 percent of the popular vote, they would get 2 of these seats, even though they may not be elected in any particular riding...

The result would mean that there would be less chance for a majority government, as the popular vote is seldom as one sided as the number of local politicians elected from any given party. Secondly, some parties that normally only get a few (or no) seats would be better represented. In most ridings, the NDP takes third place, despite taking nearly 20 to 25% of the votes. In this system, they'd get an extra 8 to 10 seats in Provincial parliament.

I believe this would more accurately represent the desires of the population. In addition, it allows for people to support a local candidate they like even though they hate the party he represents.

 

Proportional Representation

Can't say I've studied political systems much, but from memory it caused quite a few problems with corruption in Italy in the 80's. The major issues appear to be:

 

Personally I don't like it. First, minority or slim majority governments have real problems getting anything done.

To make it worse it would give seats to fringe parties who otherwise wouldn't have a hope of getting seats. I really don't want to see the Green Party, or the Rhino Party, or whomever getting a handful of seats when those votes could be the deciding ones to break a deadlock.

 

But in my book, deadlock is the perfect recipe for political success! That way, only truly important issues that have a GENUINE popular mandate behind them can garner sufficient momentum to break through the partisan stalemate. Don't blame me, Thomas Paine is the one known for saying, "That government is best which governs least." This is nothing more than the 21st century spin on that principle.

Fringe parties need those seats. They obviously represent the views of a segment of the community that isn't comfortable with the major parties (or willing to hold their nose and accept what those parties offer). Should those people be disenfranchised? What happens when the farthest-out fringes are eliminated is that you have a new group of "extremists," but these folks are closer to the center than the last batch. So what, they're still on the fringe and therefore shouldn't be able to disrupt the workings of government! Ok, so now the status quo works to eliminate this new "threat"... and so on and son on, until the center itself is under attack.

 

From what I've seen, that's not a bad thing. All three major parties have had majority governments in Ontario since 1990, and only one got re-elected, and by the end of their second term they were just as unpopular as the other two incumbents...

You mean they may actually do their job so as to look good in the next election? If they don't, then tnhey will likely b e replaced with someone who will...

Isn't that what the supporters of these parties want? While I don't think increaces funding to environmental causes would result from two Green Party candidates, it will make the voice for environmental issues in provincial parliament...

Backroom butt kissing is unavoidable...

Actually one of the best Prime Ministers in Canadian history, Lester B. Pearson, ruled with Minorty governments for most of his tenure. If the politicians put Canada first instead of themselves, then a Minority Government can be very effective...

That's exactly why I support this initiative. I'm sick of the big three and their agendas. Sure they all have good things they want to do, but they have so many things that I don't like. Yes, they should have voice in parliament, but I can't endorse any of them...

Again, when the big parties control the agenda, then it becomes more about party agenda and less about the people...

 

In New Zealand we had a very similar change back in 1996 - from a typical Westminster First-Past the Post system (FPP), to a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system based closely off the German one. It sounds almost exactly like what you described (just with different numbers in the different places). It was certainly a huge shift.

Personally, I think the move has it's ups and downs.

Just to address a few of the bigger changes: Pre-'96 we saw a maximum of three parties ever in Parliament, with one of the major parties getting a majority each term. The third party (usually Social Credits, I believe they were called) very rarely got more than 1 or 2 seats. Parliament today consists of 9 different parties, ranging right across the political spectrum, from Greens to a Maori Party. So in that sense, it has certainly created a broader, more representative, range of voices in parliament.

Continuing on this line, pre-96 we often saw cases were a party (usually National - centre-right party with a rural backing) would win a majority of seats while losing the popular vote. The extreme case of disproportional seats was the Social Credit party, who at various elections would win up to 30% of the popular vote yet only manage to capture a couple of seats.

As such, however, it's seen an end to majority governments. With the introduction of MMP in '96, we saw the two major parties (Labour and National) splinter into many smaller groups, which these parties have had to rely on to hold government. In 1996, for example, it allowed a smaller party (who held 14% of the seats) to more or less take a role as 'Kingmaker', as they were needed to make up the majority government. To a smaller extent, this has occured in nearly every election since then. However, this seems to have lessened with the passing of time - but then saing that we've only had 4 general elections under this system so it's too early to really make any generalizations.

As such, though, it has created much more national accountability. Pre-96 we had a long series of governments who drifts well away from what they had promised during elections. The biggest was perhaps a Labour (centre-left) government carrying out massive market reforms, followed by a National (centre-right) government who got in promising to end the reforms yet continued them through.

I really do think this system does work well, when people are willing to work together and compromise. Especially the two main parties. One of the finer moments we've seen recently was in regards to (what was labelled by the critics of the bill) an "anit-smacking" Bill. The two major parties, instead of just taking opposite sides just for the sake of it, got together and managed to reach a compromise, putting out a well thought out law.

Anyway, good on Ontario for considering the shift. If only the US would think about it as well


[Edit to address one more point]

IMO, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. It allows 'intellectuals' to get in, as well as politicians. I am sure most people wouldn't disagree with me when I say it is nice to have some people sitting in parliament who actually know what they are talking about.

 

One of the main advantages of the proportional (PR) system in my view is that it allows much more room for new parties to emerge and to grow. It's incredibly difficult for a new party to emerge under a first past the post system. Even if it does manage to beat the existing large parties in some constituencies it's unlikely to have any effect as the system gives the "winning" party a disproportionately high share of the vote and a majority. The Liberal Democrats in Britain are a good example of a party that is very unlikely to ever be in power to put in place its policies. A PR system also facilitates the gradual reduction of a party that is deemed to perform poorly.

I'm not sure if the absence of a majority necessarily entails a weak goverment. Most politicians are perfectly happy to pander to the crowd under any system. Here in Ireland coalition governenments have become the norm. This frequently results in the minor party serving to give the flavour to the government. The Progressive Democrats emerged during the depression of the 80's to promote free market economics and saw many of their policies implemented throughout the 90's, principally a slashing in tax rates from penal levels in order to encourage work and investment. With their work largely done, they have fallen drastically in number. The Greens are now the principle partner to the large party and there is much greater emphasis on sustainable development and energy generation. The larger party serves to represent the mainstream in all cases, protecting vested interests from competition during the PD period and not allowing the Greens to introduce any measures that would scare businesses.

I don't know if the list system proposed would result in many fringe parties emerging. They would still need enough widespread support throughout the province to get seats. Even then they would only have any clout if their few seats held the balance of power after the election. This could be an issue if several fringes emerge and banded together.

PR also serves to make every vote important. Even in a constituency stronghold where a party is guaranteed to win a seat the parties will still have to fight over votes for the list. From my impressions of US presidential elections I get the impression that states that are known to vote Republican or Democrat are largely ignored in favour of the swing states for campaigning.

The list system does feel inherently undemocratic though. I don't like the idea of party headquarters deciding who should represent me. It also allows cronies to be protected even if the electorate shows them the door. I prefer the Irish system of multi-seat constituencies. Constituencies are between three and five seats and as many candidates can run as they want, including more than one from each party. You vote by ranking them in order (this gives a full explanation of the complicated counting system just in case anyone is interested). This allows for a PR selection by the people themselves. It does, however, excessively promote local issues over national ones and allow fringe candidates to be selected more easily. There are many examples of independents holding the balance of power and bargaining their support for massive cash injections into their locality. So the list system probably does provide more effective governments even if it doesn't feel as democratic.

In summary, proprtional representation creates a lot more uncertainty, can cause massive headaches for politicians and so is much more fun. Go for it!

[ September 18, 2007, 02:48: Message edited by: Déise ]

 

The real problem with the Fringe parties in Canada is that they tend to be more of a joke than anything else. They rarely have anything remotely resembling a well thought out platform and I have to imagine that people vote for them for a laugh. Despite this they tend to get a couple percent of the popular vote.

The last thing we need is someone like the Rhino Party (platform = random silliness) or the Natural Law Party (platform = yogic flying) getting a seat with the potentially tie breaking vote under with a proportional vote system.

Edit: Oh, by the way, 14 years after closing up shop the Rhino Party is back. The NeoRhino Party has been registered for the next Federal election and has run candidates in this week's bi-elections.

[ September 18, 2007, 09:28: Message edited by: JSBB ]

 

It can be a problem - in Bulgaria our system is heavily proportional, and our current government is a bizarre three-party coalition. I think it's a political Frankenstein, but then again, it's not like you can't have a messed-up majority government. Anyway, minority/coalitional governments can work and work quite well if the politicians actually want to get the work done. If they don't, then proportionals tend to be slightly less effective because the favoritism is more decentralized.

However, on the upside, I consider the PR system a lot more democratic. A party having seats with 6% of the votes may seem laughable, but a party with 30% of the votes not getting any seats is imo just not right in a democratic society. Plus, sometimes it's a good thing that the largest party can't pass whatever it cooks up.

My personal choice would be a mostly proportional vote with some majoritarian elements, like being able to vote for a party and candidate MEP(candidates with, say, more than 5% of the party votes get promoted to an electable seat). It allows you to have a bit of both.

 

JSBB: I was thinking more about the Green Party and perhaps the Christian Heritage Party. Perhaps the Marxist Lenninists.

I always looked at Rhino party and Natural Law as protest votes anyway. And if they are getting seats, then look at what the mainstream parties have done to alienate these voters...

 

I think it is much less of alienation than it is of people who don't really care voting for the Rhinos so they can brag about it to their friends.

Just watch, the NeoRhinos will out perform the Maxist Lenninists in the next federal election.

The Green Party at least has an actually platform but quite frankly I don't think they would have a clue how to implement it and it would ruin the econcomy.

 

I would hazard a guess that if a more proportionate system was adopted you would see the support for the Rhinos disappear. Not knowing much about Canadian politics, but I would imagine that a high number of people voting for these Rhinos would be voting as protest votes, against the three (?) main parties.

Comparing it to New Zealand again: Back before we changed, we use to have the McGillicuddy Serious Party (their Party Manifesto is a great read, if anyone wants a little laugh). Pre-96 they would often appear in the top 7 or so parties. However, once more REAL choices became available, they've completely dropped off the radar and ended up disbanding in 2000, I think.

 

I wouldn't want to see a green party majority either, but a couple of them would at least make the government more aware of environmental concerns. I'm no tree hugger, but I don't want to breathe smog the rest of my life either...

 

Well, if there is a sizable green party, it is likely to eventually enter government as a part of a wider coalition. In a proportional system, having 5% more of the seats can be all it takes to form a government, and the large parties can give the smaller ones a lot of influence, especially in matters that aren't that important to them. Environment is, for most traditional parties, not such a big issue, so the greens can be a very welcome partner. I don't know about the Rhinos or the like... What is this, nickname for a far-right group or some such?

 

No the Rhino Party was created purely as a joke. You could call them the Very Silly Party or something like that. They basically just come out and promise the craziest things that they can think of. They have no real politcal agenda or ideology - they are just running because they find it amusing to do so.

The problem with the Green Party accomplishing anything in a coalition is that they completely disagree with all of the other parties positions on environmental issues.

In Canada the two main parties are the Liberals who are supposedly Left Wing but are really pretty much dead center and the Conservatives who are supposedly Right Wing but are also pretty much dead center. What ever position one of them takes the other does a knee jerk reaction critisism but besides that there really isn't much to tell them apart. About the only issue where they have really taken a position that remotely resembles their names on lately has been same sex marriages of which the Liberals approved and the Conservatives condemn.

The third largest party is the NDP who are Left Wing but not very far Left. They generally don't agree with anyone else on any issue and will usually just critisize both of the main parties.

Given how the main thing that differentiates these parties is that they automatically disagree with whatever anyone else proposes it makes it so that minority governments are pretty much completely ineffectual.

Finally we have the Bloc Quebecois or its provincial counterparty the Parti Quebecois which were originally French seperatist parties but they seem to have mostly dropped that in favour of just trying to make life better for the people of Quebec. They are the only party that is really willing to play along with any of the others - provided that the Province of Quebec is well treated.

[ September 21, 2007, 03:08: Message edited by: JSBB ]

 

Given how the main thing that differentiates these parties is that they automatically disagree with whatever anyone else proposes it makes it so that minority governments are pretty much completely ineffectual.

It may seem that way, but it's because now it's easier to do that. If those minor parties were in the government, things might change. Or not, if the Rhinos do act like a bunch of clowns. However, I think some of their popularity is partly because everyone knows they can't get elected. I've heard that the UK has its share of weird parties as well. We've had a beer party, but it never managed to get anywhere... The threshold to enter parliament here is 4% of the national vote.

 

Well we have the Official Monster Raving Looney Party, but (and I can't find anything to substantiate this) I think they actually have the highest percentage of proposed bills being approved.

I beleive rear seat-belts in cars was also one of theirs.

 

Well the election and referendum are today. The people who want the reform are bitching and moaning because they found out that they need 60% instead of 50% support to get the change put through.

The anti-change people are saying it will be irrelevent as they are predicting a landslide vote against changing the system.

On the actual election side of things the messages that the four main parties have been putting out lately have been:

Conservative Party: The head of the Liberal Party is a real bad guy. You don't want him in office for another four years. All of these bad things have happened while he was in office. There is no mention of how they would have handled things differently or what they actually plan to do if they are elected.

NDP: Their ads and materials are pretty much exactly the same as the Conservative Party. In fact without checking the small print to see whose ad/brochure it is there isn't much to tell them apart.

Green Party: Pretty much the same as above but at least they manage to work some environmental mumbo jumbo into their ranting against the Liberals so you can actually tell their materials apart from the other parties.

Liberals: Apart from one brief platform outline that I received they have been virtually silent.

So the sum of it is that we have three parties saying that the incumbents are bad without giving any indication of what they would actually do themselves and the incumbents basically remaining silent. Early in the campaign the Conservatives actually suggested that they were going to do something radical and when it blew up in their faces all sides basically appear to have decided that suggesting that they would do anything other than the status quo is a bad idea.

Edit: As expected the mixed proportional system was shot down by a wide margin. The current figure is that 62% voted in favour of keeping the current system. What makes this even more interesting is that the Liberals have obtained another majority government despite a drop in their share of the popular vote. The conservatives have similarly lost popular vote with the votes going from the two main parties to the NDP and Green Party. The proportional vote system wouldn't have kicked in until next election but the situation that it was meant to address was definitely prevalent with the NDP and Green Parties getting a large chunk of the votes but relatively little (or nothing in the case of the Green Party) to show for it.

[ October 11, 2007, 04:40: Message edited by: JSBB ]

 

Here in Ontario, it's been suggested that John Tory's plans for funding faith based schools has derailed the debate, making the tories look like a lesser choice, and burying what Hampton's NDP wanted to talk about. This basically handed the Liberals another majority government.

I'm also dissappointed that the MMP was shot down. It basically means that any "anti-incumbent" campaigning will practically hand the incumbents another term in office...