On Ontario 10, 2007, Ontario voters will not only be able to cast a vote for the next provincial government in Ontario, but they will also have the opportunity to vote to select a new method for electing Provincial Members of Parliament.

The Referendum asks voters to vote on a recommendation made by a Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. The Assembly worked between September of 2006 and April of 2007 independently of government and the political parties to develop some alternative ways by which we might improve the political democratic process for Ontario.

The Assembly was made up of 103 voters randomly selected from across the province and it was chaired by George Thompson. Mr. Thompson was appointed by the government. George Thompson is a friend of mine, and if anyone could lead a process on electoral reform, it is George Thompson. In his past, he has been not only a lawyer and the head of the Bar Admission Course Program in Ontario, but also a Provicincial Court judge and a Deputy Attorney General for Canada under Attorney General and Minister of Justice Allan Rock. George Thompson knows his way around the justices system and the political process.

Before I share my views on a Mixed Member Proportional system, let’s consider what that is.

For more information than I am able to provide in this blog, I recommend that you visit www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca. My information about this proposed system comes from the actual report published by the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. This report is called “One Ballot, Two Votes - A New Way to Vote in Ontario.” It is dated May 15, 2007 and sets out, in a very understandable way the proposed system, and even sets out an example of what a ballot would look like in an election. 

The idea behind Mixed Member Proportional Representation is one of providing greater choice to voters. A voter would be able to vote, first for the person they wish to elect locally, their MPP, and they could cast a ballot for a party that they wish to support in the electoral process. So, for example, locally you could vote for Ms. Brown of the Liberal Party (let’s call that person “directly elected”), but you could also then cast a vote for the Green Party (let’s call that a general vote. After the election, the results would be tallied and a process would begin to ensure that each party’s share of the seats roughly equals each party’s share of the votes cast. If a party receives 25% of the votes, it will win about 25% of the seats in the Legislature. There would continue to be 90 local MPPs (directly elected), so the candidate who gets the most votes in a particular riding will still be elected. However, 39 additional MPPs would be elected, not based on votes that they received in a particular constituency, but rather because their names would be selected from lists provided by parties (the general vote). Imagine, if you will, that a party received 25% of the votes cast but the ballots cast only elected directly enough MPPs to account for 20%. The additional 5% entitlement to seats would be made up by selecting names from a list that that party had submitted in advance.

Directly elected MPPs and those individuals selected from the list would together make up 120 seats in the Legislature. This will be an increase of 22 seats from the current situation.

The individuals selected from the general party lists would be identified and selected by each party in advance through (what the Citizens’ Assembly hoped would be) a transparent process.

If anyone is concerned about a tiny number of voters creating political parties, there would be a threshold of 3% of total votes cast required to be considered as having anything close to clear support in the province. Under 3% means you are not a party to be considered for seats.

So, in a nutshell, there we have it. The province would expand the number of politicians. Many of them would be directly elected in individual ridings as we currently elect them, but an additional number of MPPs would be placed in the Ontario Legislature to account for a party’s share of the popular vote in Ontario. Theoretically, a party could have no members directly elected but still have a proportion of the seats in the Legislature.

Here is what I think:

(1) While I commend the Citizens’ Assembly for their work, I would have liked to have seen some recommendations from them to improve the existing electoral system, which has served us quite well for a considerable period of time. Canada, and in particular Ontario, is a model worldwide for a stable democracy. Granted, voters have become increasingly disillusioned with the political process and this has diminished the turnout in elections. However, for me, this does not lead us obviously to a dramatic reform of our electoral process. If the problem is voter disinterest in politics, why would a change in the electoral process make them more interested? I spoke with one young woman who is well-educated and tries to be politically active. She stated that most people do not understand the current system and changes to it might only further distance the average voter from the political process. I think there is a lot of merit in that observation. I would rather spend time trying to increase voter participation in the existing electoral system.

How could something like that be achieved? Well, for starters, I would be in favour of lowering the voting age in Ontario. I think our young people are pretty savvy and I think they should be allowed to express their views at the ballot box. Secondly, I think that we can make it a lot easier to vote. Personally, I find it exciting to go to the local church or school gym and physically cast a ballot. It is a chance to mingle with neigbours and pick up election buzz, but not everybody can do that easily. Why haven’t we developed a method of voting online? I can make investments, move money in my bank accounts and buy products online. Why can’t I vote online? I imagine that someday citizens will be able to vote from their cell phone or BlackBerry.

(2) One of the things that has been missing from our political process over the last 30 years is accountability. There was a great deal of hullabaloo when former Ontario Premier Mike Harris “did what he said he was going to do.” Isn’t that a badge of honour when a politician can ask to be re-elected simply because he did what he said he was going to do? Currently, there is a great deal of skepticism about politicians keeping promises. I think that voters want accountability, and electoral democratic reform in Ontario should include some new creative methods for holding politicians accountable for their promises. Some people have tried to sue politicians (see my book Strictly Legal: Things You Absolutely Need to Know About Canadian Law, Chapter 10, which deals with this issue), but surely there are better ways of holding politicians accountable for the flagrant breaches of their word. Instead of wholesale electoral reform to increase the number of parties and the number of politicians, would like to see more thinking on alternative accountability mechanisms.

(3) Related to this idea of accountability is the proposed idea of individuals arriving in the Ontario Legislature without anyone ever having voted for them directly. This method of election, if implemented, would further distance a politician from accountability at exactly the moment we are looking for more accountability. I am not the first one to speculate on who will appear on the lists set forth by each party. Yes, the Citizens’ Assembly asks that each party’s process be transparent, but anyone even remotely familiar with party politics will tell you exactly who will show up on those lists – individuals who do not want to stand for election and face voters directly. It is one of our society’s highest honours, to have citizens vote for an individual directly and place them in the Legislature. Names plucked from lists, to me, just doesn’t cut it.

Those are my overview thoughts on the proposed Mixed Member Proportional System. The Ontario Government probably hasn’t done enough to explain the process to voters but, at this stage, I think it is too late. The hurdle is quite high for this referendum to pass. Some 60% of Ontario voters will need to support this change.

Before concluding this blog, I do want to commend the members of the Citizens’ Assembly for their hard work. Even if the Mixed Member Proportional System is not accepted, their work will not be wasted, as I think it is going to trigger a larger discussion of electoral reform. I think people in Ontario and across Canada are looking for more from their politicians and more from the democratic process. I just don’t think that MMP is the answer they are looking for.

If you do one thing on October 10th, make sure you vote, make sure your children vote, make sure your parents vote and make sure your neighbours vote. Do what you can to encourage participation in the very good system that we already have.

Michael G. Cochrane, B.A., LL.B.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pm.
It is categorized under Miscellaneous, Uncategorized.
You can follow responses through the RSS 2.0 feed.