Electoral reform in Ontario, Canada

[SCRawl]

I had a look, and couldn't find another topic referring to this, but in the upcoming Ontario provincial election there's going to be a referendum. The results of this referendum will dictate whether we stay with our current electoral system -- first past the post -- or a proportional representation system.

You can see the choices here. But, in a nutshell:

Current system: Ontario is divided into 107 ridings, and on election day each voter votes for one of the candidates in that riding. The one that has the most votes is declared the winner, and the party with the most winning candidates -- members of provincial parliament (MPPs) -- (usually) forms the government.

Proposed system: Ontario would be divided into 90 ridings, whose candidates would be determined by the same first past the post system. On each ballot, however, there would be two choices: one for the candidate, and one for the party. There would be another 39 MPPs called "List members" who would gain their seats due to the proportionality of the province-wide popular vote. (They are called "List members" because they are on a list which is provided by each party, who would have to make their lists available for public scrutiny a certain amount of time before the election. Each of their potential list members are ranked from 1 to 39, and if, say, the Liberals were to gain 5 list members, those who were ranked 1 through 5 on their list would become MPPs.) Only parties which attain at least 3% of the popular party vote would be eligible to gain seats from the list.

The link I provided gives a better explanation of the proposed system. The idea is to give marginalized parties which still get a sizeable proportion of the popular vote, but never enough to win a seat under the current system -- like the Green Party, for example -- a chance to have representation in the Legislature.

Personally, I'm leaning towards the current system. The proposal has the benefit of seeming to be more fair, but I just don't like the idea of elected representatives who are beholden to no one.

Any thoughts?

[brianeyci]

People keep saying the first past the post system is unfair. I don't see why it's unfair, or why we need electoral reform at all. I do not want our government to be made of a dozen or two dozen or fifty smaller parties, all fractured with no vision and no clear leadership. If it means you need to get a very large percentage of the vote to "break through" then so be it. The whining of the Green Party, that the CBC and so on don't cover them so they don't get elected, is tiresome. If the Green Party or Marijuna Party or other special interest groups want to form a government, then they should concentrate on more than one issue. If the NDP can go from near nil media coverage and near death to double digit popularity due to one man, then any party can. You just need a photogenic leader. It sucks, but that's politics: you need energetic, media friendly candidates who attract attention. Sorry, but that's life, need to be charismatic to be a politician.

There's problems with proportional representation too. When you say 3% of the vote will net the NDP a seat, what does that really mean? That means that every political party will have a "seniority" list which will guarantee party elite a seat. Straight party-line voting will swing votes more about party politics and less about local riding politics. If the green party wants to form a government, maybe they should make themselves a grassroots organization rather than a wannabe Federal party. The greens sound like Eurotrash to me, an idea and party imported from overseas which does not meet the goals or desires of Canadians. I like my Canadian history and a sad moment was when the PC party died off, though it continues to exist in a way in the Conservative Party.

I see no advantage to making the legislature full of dozens of insignificant, special interest parties who can blackmail the government into pursing their agenda.

[aerius]

On one hand, it would be nice to have a government that's so fractured that they can't fuck things up. On the other hand, sometimes things need to get done. I lean towards the current system, I'm not sure what problem the proposed system is meant to fix and I can think of several issues with it. Like how the fuck am I supposed to vote out one of the "listed members"?

[SCRawl]

I lean towards the current system, I'm not sure what problem the proposed system is meant to fix and I can think of several issues with it. Like how the fuck am I supposed to vote out one of the "listed members"?

See, that's my big problem with it. The "List Members" don't have to campaign, they have no constituency, no real accountability. All they really have to do is try to represent their party well and stay in their good books. Some will say that the individual member is, for many purposes, irrelevant, since voting tends to go along party lines. If that's the case, then why have these positions filled with people at all, if they belong to one of the parties who already have members elected in their own ridings?

[Mr. T]

One thing I like about the idea of "List Members" is that it would for one mean that the powerful party leader doesn't have to be beholden to a constituency. This is good as with the current system, with the party leader having to win a seat, it can lead to times when a person is a leader of the party and yet can't sit in the house of commons until another election cycle. More importantly though it means that the government leader doesn't end up funnelling a disproportionate amount of money to his constituency as Chretien did with Shawinigan.

I think the biggest plus though is that instead of just making do with whatever MP's happen to be elected to decide who will lead which aspect of government, a list system would mean that the party can select people that are actually qualified to perform a specific government function (i.e in the current system, their may not be a single MP elected that knows anything about the military, and yet one of them will have to be selected to become Defence minister and make important decisions about Canadian defence. With a list however the government could guarantee that their is a qualified person to fill the role.

[SCRawl]

I think the biggest plus though is that instead of just making do with whatever MP's happen to be elected to decide who will lead which aspect of government, a list system would mean that the party can select people that are actually qualified to perform a specific government function (i.e in the current system, their may not be a single MP elected that knows anything about the military, and yet one of them will have to be selected to become Defence minister and make important decisions about Canadian defence. With a list however the government could guarantee that their is a qualified person to fill the role.

The flip side to that argument is that those on that party's list needn't ever be called upon. The government might not win any additional seats, or not very many. The party would have to think very carefully about whom they put up for local elections and whom they put on their lists.

[Ma Deuce]

People keep saying the first past the post system is unfair. I don't see why it's unfair, or why we need electoral reform at all. I do not want our government to be made of a dozen or two dozen or fifty smaller parties, all fractured with no vision and no clear leadership.

You could prevent that by imposing a "hurdle" whereby a party must get a certain percentage of the popular vote (say, 5-10%) to be represented at all in the legislature. I think this is how they do it in Germany where they use a mixed-member proportional electoral system, and they only have 5 parties represented currently (the two largest of which combined control over 70% of the seats).

[White Cat]

I can't stand the idea of "list" MPs. We already have enough problems with members who act like trained seals for their leader; a list MP really would be just a mindless voting machine. (Break with the party line? Sorry, you're off the list, and have no chance of winning back your seat, because you don't have a riding.) At least riding MPs who are kicked out can sit and run as independents.

I might be willing to consider MMP if instead of a list, if the extra MPs were chosen from, say, the losing candidates who came the closest. (So if you lost your riding's election by one vote, you'd be at the top of your party's list for their extra seats.) But I won't support any system where the number of unaccountable party hacks is greater than zero. (See also: Senators)

[General Trelane (Retired)]

Current system: Ontario is divided into 107 ridings, and on election day each voter votes for one of the candidates in that riding. The one that has the most votes is declared the winner, and the party with the most winning candidates -- members of provincial parliament (MPPs) -- (usually) forms the government.

At the risk of sounding nit-picky, the provincial goverments are called Legislative Assemblies (not provincial parliaments), so a member of that body is an MLA. Except for Quebec with their National Assembly.

As for the electoral issue, I see pros and cons to both sides, so I'll sit back and observe for now.

[SCRawl]

Current system: Ontario is divided into 107 ridings, and on election day each voter votes for one of the candidates in that riding. The one that has the most votes is declared the winner, and the party with the most winning candidates -- members of provincial parliament (MPPs) -- (usually) forms the government.

At the risk of sounding nit-picky, the provincial goverments are called Legislative Assemblies (not provincial parliaments), so a member of that body is an MLA. Except for Quebec with their National Assembly.

As for the electoral issue, I see pros and cons to both sides, so I'll sit back and observe for now.

In Ontario, we call them MPPs. Always have, as far back as I can remember.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

In Ontario, we call them MPPs. Always have, as far back as I can remember.

Ah, so you do! My bad.

As for the OP, I can empathize with the proposal for the Mixed-Member Proportional system, but as others have articulated, I don't like the idea of indirectly voting for someone. There are times that I wish there were NO political parties and that we would simply vote for individuals, but I know that simply wouldn't work either (nothing would ever get done then). Based on the two proposals (the current First-Past-the-Post and MMP systems), I would stay with the current one, I think.