DOWNLOAD PDF	15 FEB 2007
	LIB	PC	NDP	GRN	OTH
% SUPPORT	38.7%	34.5%	18.2%	5.0%	1.3%
TOTAL SEATS	53	42	12	0	0
2003 ELECTION	72	24	7	0	0

With party nomination races starting to kick into gear, the Liberals hold a slight edge over the PCs, according to the latest DemocraticSPACE projections (important note: projections are not predictions; the only DemocraticSPACE prediction will be the last projection, on the eve of the October 10 election, so stay tuned to DemocraticSPACE for updates. The current projection reflects where things stand today and today only). Based on a rolling weighted average of the last 5 polls (from Nov 26 to Feb 15), the Liberals are projected at 38.7% support, the PCs have 34.5%, the NDP has 18.2%, the Greens have 5.0% and all others have 1.3%. This translates into 53 seats for the Liberals (1 short of a majority), 42 for the PCs and 12 for the NDP.

Of Ontario’s 107 ridings, 29 (27%) are currently in our “too close too call” category (5% or less margin of victory) and 14 (13%) are in our “tight race” category (5-10% margin), making 43 ridings (40%) of the ridings competitive. The remaining 60% are currently considered safe seats. Some regions are more competitive than others — for example nearly three-quarters (16 of 22) in our Peel-Halton and York-Durham ridings are within 10%, setting up the 905 as the key battleground. By contrast, 9 of 11 Northern seats are currently safe (Nipissing and Algoma-Manitoulin are the two competitive ridings). Likewise 7 of 9 Central Ontario seats are currently safe (Peterborough and Northumberland are the two competitive ridings).

Stay tuned to DemocraticSPACE for the latest updates as new polls are released. If you would like to report confirmed nominated candidates, please email us or leave a comment in the appropriate riding page, which are available from the drop-down menu from the Ontario 2007 Homepage)

Note: as this early stage, our projections do not account for individual candidates. The model will be adjusted once all candidates are known. Also, since we are well in advance of the campaign, polling data is still spread out over a long period of time; as we near the campaign, these polls will increase in frequency, and the reliability of the projections will increase accordingly.

TÉLÉCHARGER / DOWNLOAD PDF	24 FEV 2007
	PLQ	PQ	ADQ	PVQ	QS	AUT
%	37,1%	29,8%	21.4%	5,7%	4,8%	1,2%
SIÈGES / SEATS	56	51	18	0	0	0
2003 ELECTION	76	45	4	0	-	0

Le Parti libéral du Québec détient maintenant la pole position dans cette course électorale prévue pour le 26 mars prochain. Selon la dernière projection de DemocraticSPACE, le Parti libéral obtiendrait 56 sièges à l’Assemblée nationale, contre 51 pour le Parti québécois et 18 pour l’Action démocratique (N.B.: Les projections ne sont pas des prédictions. La seule prédiction par DemocraticSPACE sera la dernière prévision, à la veille du 26 mars, alors restez branché sur DemocraticSPACE pour nos prochaines mises à jour. La présente projection reflète la situation telle qu’elle se présente maintenant). En nous basant sur une moyenne pondérée des cinq derniers sondages (5003 personnes sondées par CROP-La Presse et Léger, du 28 janvier au 24 février), nous projetons une avance de 7,3 % en faveur du PLQ, devant le PQ (37,1 % contre 29,8 %). L’ADQ prend aussi du poil de la bête et nous prévoyons que le parti dirigé par Mario Dumont obtienne 21,4 % des appuis. Cependant, l’appui adéquiste se concentre essentiellement dans les régions de la Capitale nationale et de Chaudière-Appalaches, où les adéquistes obtiennent un appui d’environ 30 %.

Nous projetons 5,7 % des votes au Parti vert (PVQ) et 4,8 % pour Québec Solidaire (QS). Selon nos projections –et surtout en raison de notre système électoral uninominal à un tour qui exige un appui concentré dans une seule circonscription (normalement, 30 % est le seuil minimal pour espérer remporter un siège)- aucun de ces deux partis n’obtiendra un siège à l’Assemblée nationale.

Malgré une avance très nette, le PLQ n’obtient présentement qu’une maigre avance de 5 sièges, principalement en raison de la distribution régionale des appuis et des effets du système électoral québécois

Cependant, Le PQ détient une avance de moins de 5 % dans 12 des 51 comtés que l’actuel projection leur accorde. Cela démontre que si la tendance se maintient, le PLQ pourrait accroître davantage son avance sur le PQ. Il est important de réaliser que l’électorat est extrêmement volatile, alors que le gagnant dans 26 des 125 circonscriptions dans cette projection est déterminé par une marge inférieure à 5 %.

Ainsi, à ce stade, 20 % des circonscriptions sont cataloguées dans la catégorie « trop serrée pour prédire » (identifiées en couleur orange dans le dernier tableau comté par comté). 25 comtés sont inscrits dans la catégorie « course serrée », où le gagnant projeté détient une avance entre 5 et 10 % (identifiés en couleur rouge dans le dernier tableau comté par comté).

Grosso modo, 40 % des circonscriptions sont jugés comme étant compétitives; les résultats dans ces 51 comtés vont déterminer quelle formation politique formera le prochain gouvernement. Étant le nombre élevé de comtés où la course est serrée, il est trop tôt pour prédire la suite des événements. La tendance, cependant, est claire : l’appui en faveur du PLQ et de l’ADQ est à la hausse, alors que celui du PQ périclite. L’appui de QS et du PVQ demeure stable. Étant donné la probabilité du vote stratégique, il est possible que l’appui à ces deux tiers partis chute au fur et à mesure qu’avance la campagne électorale.

Fait intéressant, avec la montée en popularité de l’ADQ et des petits partis comme QC et le PVQ, la distorsion électorale entre l’appui populaire et la répartition des sièges s’amplifie. Par exemple, si les partis remportaient des sièges proportionnellement au pourcentage obtenu dans le vote populaire, le PLQ obtiendrait 46 sièges (10 de moins que dans le système actuel), le PQ 38 sièges (13 de moins), l’ADQ 27 sièges (9 de plus), PVQ 7 sièges (7 de plus) et QS 6 sièges (6 de plus).

Ci-bas, un tableau des comtés qui ont changé de camp depuis la 8e mise à jour :

GROULX
MIRABEL
LA PRAIRIE
SAINT-JEAN
SAINT-MAURICE
BERTHIER
ROUYN-NORANDA-TÉMISCAMINGUE

NB : Notre projection ne prend pas en compte les candidatures sur une base régionale, alors que certains partis sont en train de finaliser les nominations. Par exemple, l’ADQ avait des candidats vedettes dans les circonscriptions de Mirabel et Rouyn-Noranda-Témiscamingue en 2003. Alors, les projections actuelles dans ces comtés sont surévaluées pour l’instant. Lors de la prochain mise à jour, il est possible que ces comtés reviennent dans le giron péquiste.

TÉLÉCHARGER / DOWNLOAD PDF	24 FEV 2007
	PLQ	PQ	ADQ	PVQ	QS	AUT
%	37,1%	29,8%	21.4%	5,7%	4,8%	1,2%
SIÈGES / SEATS	56	51	18	0	0	0
2003 ELECTION	76	45	4	0	-	0

(français bientôt disponible)

The PLQ has moved into the lead in the Quebec election, according to the latest DemocraticSPACE projections, with the PLQ projected at 56 seats, the PQ at 51 seats and the ADQ at 18 seats (important note: projections are not predictions; the only DemocraticSPACE prediction will be the last projection, on the eve of the March 26 election, so stay tuned to DemocraticSPACE for updates. The current projection reflects where things stand today and today only). Based on a weighted rolling average of the last 5 polls (5003 surveys conducted by CROP-La Presse and Leger from 28 Jan to 24 Feb), we project the PLQ now holds a 7.3% lead over the PQ (37.1% to 29.8%). The ADQ is also gaining strength and we currently project them at 21.4% support, but heavily concentrated in the Capitale-Nationale and Chaudières-Appalaches regions, where support is around 30%. Green Party (PVQ) support is currently projected at 5.7% and Quebec Solidaire (QS) support is projected at 4.8%, and all other parties and independents project at 1.2%, none of which are currently projected to win seats, since our current winner-takes-all system requires enough support to be concentrated into one riding (typically 30% in one riding is the minimum need to win a seat).

Despite a clear vote advantage, because of the regional distribution of support and the effects of winner-takes-all, the PLQ support advantage currently translates into only a 5-seat lead. However, 12 of the 51 seats currently projected for the PQ are within 5%, which suggests that if the trend continues, the PLQ could begin to widen the gap. It is important to note that the electorate is volatile, with 26 of 125 ridings in the current projection being decided by margins of 5% or less. Thus, at this point, 1 in 5 Quebec ridings fall into our “too close to call” category (coloured orange in the latest riding-by-riding breakdown). Another 25 ridings are also between 5% and 10% margin of victory (our “tight race” category, coloured red in the latest riding-by-riding breakdown). Overall, 40% of the ridings are competitive; the results in these 51 close ridings will determine who will form the next Quebec government. Given the high number of competitive ridings, it is too soon to predict how it will unfold. The trends, however, are clear: support for the PLQ and ADQ are on the rise, while support for the PQ is falling. Support for QS and the PVQ are steady, but given the likelihood of strategic voting, it’s possible their support will fall as we get closer to election day.

Interestingly, with the rise in popularity of the ADQ and smaller parties such as QS and the PVQ, the electoral distortion between each party’s vote and seat shares grows. For example, if parties won seats roughly proportional to their vote share, the PLQ would win 46 seats (10 less than under our current system), the PQ 37 seats (14 less), the ADQ 27 seats (9 more), PVQ 7 seats (7 more), and QS 6 seats (6 more).

Below are the riding changes from Update No. 8 (Note these are not predictions, only current projections):

GROULX
MIRABEL
LA PRAIRIE
SAINT-JEAN
SAINT-MAURICE
BERTHIER
ROUYN-NORANDA-TÉMISCAMINGUE

Note: Our projections do not yet account for individual candidates, as some parties are still nominating them. For example, the ADQ ran star candidates in Mirabel and Rouyn-Noranda-Témiscamingue in 2003. Thus, their current projected vote total in these ridings is very likely higher than it will be when we account for individual candidates, probably in Update No. 10 (in which case, it is possible that these ridings will shift back to the PQ).

It appears that our server is running rather slowly today. We’re working on getting it back up to normal speed. Our apologies for the inconvenience in the meantime.

The politics of fear is a powerful thing. George W. Bush used fear that the Democrats weren’t “tough on terror”, and were “anti-Christian” to mobilize everyday Americans to his re-election victory. Make no mistake — fear works. Canadians like to think they are smarter than to give in to fear. We shall soon see, because electoral reform is quickly shaping up to be a battle less and less about the details of how votes are counted, and more and more about the legitimacy of our very democracy — that is, whether we want to be governed by the people or by a privileged few.

Fresh on the heels of Ian Urquhart’s crusade to discredit the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform, the Toronto Star ran yet another editorial today that warns us to beware of electoral reform. It would be almost funny to watch the Star and its Bay St. backers scramble to protect their disproportionate power and influence, if it wasn’t so absolutely frightening that they indeed could very well fear Ontario into submission. I just hope that Ontarians aren’t bullied into believing that electoral reform is dangerous or radical just because a privileged few elites in Toronto fear losing their political stranglehold over the city (and some might say, the province).

I’d like to scrutinize one key claim the Star makes. They argue that our current winner-takes-all system “is a system that, while not perfect, has served us well.” Perhaps that’s a slip — surely they didn’t mean “us”, as in literally, the Toronto Star? or the Star’s Liberal backers? or maybe just Toronto as a whole? Surely not, but the question of who has and who hasn’t been well served by our current winner-takes-all system is an important one — and one that goes to the heart of why electoral reform is so important.

Given the rapidly increasing disparities between Ontario’s regions, it’s clear that our system has not served all Ontarians well. In fact, when you look at the realities on the ground (as opposed to the rhetoric we construct to make ourselves feel good), you see there are really two Ontarios — the GTA and everywhere else. The former is growing, the latter is in decline. While some are reaping the benefits of our system in the GTA (’though many are not), it is clear that those gains come at the expense of everywhere else in Ontario. Northern Ontario is in rapid decline, with cities such as Thunder Bay and Sudbury projected to lose literally half their populations by 2050. Rural Ontario is likewise in rapid decline, as people increasing leave, eroding its tax base and share of provincial health, education and infrastructure dollars, which only accelerates the decline. Ontario’s farmers are bankrupt. Good paying auto-sector jobs are being cut. The least advantaged among us are worse off today than ever before — the share of Ontarians living in poverty, including children living in poverty, is among the highest among developed nations (we’re so embarrassed by it that we refuse to say what our definition of poverty is). Our environment is degrading rapidly — Ontario has the honour of being home to two of the nation’s biggest sources of CO2 (the Nanticoke and Lambton coal-fired power plants). Farmland is being lost at alarming rates — 50% of Southern Ontario’s productive farmland has been lost in the last 50 years alone (according the University of Guelph’s farmland research project). Local municipalities don’t have money to fix roads or provide services, leading to increasing privatization and less accountability. Young people have seen tuition costs double and triple without a commensurate increase in starting salaries. Our First Nations communities continue to live in unacceptable conditions.

Even the “other Ontario” — the GTA — isn’t being well served. We haven’t met the infrastructure demand (schools, sewers, water treatment, public spaces, etc) commensurate with its rapid growth. Gridlock is out of control. Smog is even worse. Homelessness is on the rise. Affordable housing is nowhere to be seen, forcing people to seek cheaper land on the periphery, again fueling the problems of gridlock and smog and destroying more farmland. Toronto’s waterfront remains a 30-year political football, as the different levels of government fight over who should have more say. Our urban transit networks (GO, TTC) haven’t seen significant expansion for years, despite a rapidly growing population.

From just this small sample of issues, I hope it’s clear that the Toronto Star’s assessment that “our system has served us well” cannot go unquestioned. Indeed, who benefits and who loses is precisely at issue. And a system where power is disproportionately held by a privileged few elites in Toronto is not a system where all Ontarians share our prosperity. We have two choices: give in to the unsubstantiated fear-mongering, or resist. For electoral reform is at heart not a referendum on the details of how votes are translated into seats. It is a referendum of whether Ontario is governed by the people or by the privileged few.

TÉLÉCHARGER / DOWNLOAD PDF	20 FEV 2007
	PQ	PLQ	ADQ	QS	PVQ
%	33,0%	35,1%	19.3%	5,0%	7,5%
SIÈGES / SEATS	61	51	13	0	0
2003 ELECTION	45	76	4	-	0

Malgré une avance de 2,1 % en faveur du PLQ, le PQ maintient une avance de 10 sièges dans la dernière projection de DemocraticSPACE, laquelle inclut le sondage effectué par CROP-LaPresse (15-20 février). Cependant, la tendance favorise clairement les libéraux alors que ces derniers se rapprochent de plus en plus des péquistes. Le changement de sièges depuis la septième mise à jour va comme suit:

LAVAL-DES-RAPIDES
JONQUIÈRE

Il est à noter que nous avons effectué une correction au modèle dans les circonscriptions où des élections partielles se sont tenues depuis 2003. Cette modification change la donne dans deux circonscriptions, Laurier-Dorion et Vanier. Selon la modification apportée, Laurier-Dorion resterait au PQ alors que l’ADQ conserverait le comté de Vanier.

La prochaine mise à jour sera déterminante, puisqu’elle viendra éliminer du calcul les sondages effectués en décembre dernier (les projections du modèle de DemocraticSPACE prennent en considération une moyenne pondérée des 5 derniers sondages. Ainsi, au fur et à mesure qu’avancera la campagne, la fiabilité du modèle de projection sera renforcée, étant donné que plusieurs sondages seront publiés dans une courte période de temps.) En raison des sondages plus anciens (ceux de décembre) dans l’actuel modèle de cinq sondages qui indique une égalité entre le PLQ et el PQ, on peut prévoir que le PLQ va accroître son nombre projeté de sièges dans la prochaine mise à jour.

N.B.: La présente projection ne prend pas en compte les candidatures sur une base locale, puisque certains candidats n’ont pas été choisis par leur formation politique. Lorsque tous les candidats auront été nommés, probablement au courant de la semaine prochaine, nous allons nous ajuster afin que nos projections reflètent le plus fidèlement possible la réalité. Par exemple, dans la circonscription de Mario Dumont de Rivière-du-Loup, tout porte à croire que la candidature libérale de Jean D’Amour va modifier considérablement l’actuelle projection - la projection ne reflète pas la popularité possible du candidat libéral, mais sera prise en compte dans les prochaines mises à jour. Alors, revenez nous visiter!

TÉLÉCHARGER / DOWNLOAD PDF	20 FEV 2007
	PQ	PLQ	ADQ	QS	PVQ
%	33,0%	35,1%	19.3%	5,0%	7,5%
SIÈGES / SEATS	61	51	13	0	0
2003 ELECTION	45	76	4	-	0

Despite a 2.1% vote advantage for the PLQ, the PQ still has an 10-seat lead in DemocraticSPACE’s latest projections, which include CROP-La Presse’s Feb 15-20 poll. However, the trend is clearly with the Liberals as they continue to close the seat gap. The seat changes from Update No.7 are:

LAVAL-DES-RAPIDES
JONQUIÈRE

Note that we also made a correction to the model in ridings that had a by-election since 2003 — previous updates were calculated using the 2003 election baseline, rather than the latest by-election results; this changed the outcome in Laurier-Dorion, which shifted back to the incumbent PQ, and in Vanier, which shifted back to the incumbent ADQ.

Stay tuned to DemocraticSPACE for Update No. 9, which will be significant because it will roll out the last of the December 2006 polls and will include only polls conducted in the last month (note: DemocraticSPACE projections are based on an average of the last 5 polls. Thus, as the campaign gets underway, the reliability of the projections increases, because the polls are conducted very close together). Given the oldest poll in the current 5-poll average shows a virtual tie between the PLQ and PQ, we can expect the PLQ to increase their projected seat total in the next update.

Note: the current projections do not yet account for individual candidates, as parties are still nominating them. When we know the full candidates, probably some time next week, we will make those adjustments to the model, which will improve the accuracy of the projections. For example, in Mario Dumont’s riding of Rivière-du-Loup, we can expect that the PLQ nomination of Jean D’Amour will significantly change the projection — this is not yet reflected in the projections, but will be soon. So stay tuned…

As I reported yesterday, the Toronto Star’s Queen’s Park correspondent, Ian Urquhart, has indeed come out swinging in an attempt to discredit the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. As I said yesterday, this is no surprise. And that Urquhart is leading the charge is equally unsurprising, given his well-known stated opposition to electoral reform. (As a product of one of Toronto’s most elitist institutions, Upper Canada College, Urquhart is a poster-child for Toronto’s Liberal elite anxiety over any change to the status quo). This is the same man who denigrated those Ontarians who have volunteered their weekends for the last many months by characterizing them as “mostly retirees, students, part-time workers, homemakers and computer-nerds looking for some excitement in their humdrum lives.” [See Ian Urquhart, “Beware citizens’ assemblies on electoral reform,” Toronto Star, 9 Sept 2006] Regardless of whether or not you support electoral reform, Urquhart’s contempt for his fellow citizens reflects more on his character than that of Citizens Assembly members.

The Citizens’ Assembly, comprised of 103 everyday Ontarians, after learning of various electoral systems, and fanning out across the province to hear what Ontarians wanted, voted to pursue a mixed-member (MMP) system as an alternative (once they design the system, it will be compared against our current system to determine whether or not change is desirable; recommendations will be delivered on May 15 and Ontarians will vote in a referendum on election day October 10, 2007).

And while Urquhart has tried his hardest to characterize a mixed-member system as “radical”, it is anything but. MMP system is remarkably simple — we keep our current local MPPs, who are elected exactly as today, and we restore the seats that Mike Harris cut (against the wishes of most Ontarians) in 1999, bringing the legislature back to the size it was pre-Harris. These restored seats would be regional MPPs. Just like local MPPs, regional MPPs are accountable to a given territory, and, just like local MPPs are elected by voters by placing an X next to their preferred candidate (Urquhart claims that regional members are filled by “lists” but this isn’t true — look at my proposed MMP system which was given Fair Vote Ontario’s top ranking. Here, regional candidates are nominated by parties just like today, but voters, just like today, choose who they like best — there are no ordered lists whatsoever). Finally, regional problems such as traffic congestion, smog, regional health networks, growth management, regional economic development, among many others would have a voice in Queen’s Park. The number of regional seats each party is entitled to is determined by how many total votes their candidates receive in a region. Thus, the parliament as a whole closely reflects how Ontarians voted, which is after all, what we expect in a democracy. So with remarkably little change to our political institutions, we ensure that all votes go towards electing an MPP, all MPPs are accountable to a locality or region, we ensure that all regions have a voice in both government and opposition, and that every Ontarian is represented by an MPP from the party of their choice. It’s a system used in Scotland, Wales and New Zealand — all of which previously used our winner-takes-all system.

You see, Urquhart’s ilk are worried that their long-running and undemocratic stranglehold over Toronto would be mitigated under a fair voting system. Ironically, however, it is Liberals outside of Toronto that stand to gain the most from any change in the electoral system. Why? While Toronto Liberals regularly receive a disproportionate number of Toronto seats (in 2003 they won 90% of Toronto’s seats despite half of Torontonians voting for someone else), their Liberal colleagues outside of Toronto are often highly under-represented. A mixed-member system would ensure the Liberals gain their fair share of rural and suburban seats. So, you might say that this is once again another chapter in the on-going 416 vs 905 political battles in Ontario (or more broadly, Toronto vs everyone else).

It’s unfortunate that Urquhart has such contempt for the most democratic process Ontario has ever known. Regardless of what the Citizens’ Assembly recommends — change to MMP or some other system, or retaining the status quo — we must respect their decision. As a body that is more representative of the province than the legislature (gender equal, diverse and with voices from all regions counting equally), their work represents the future of Ontario’s democracy, one in which on critical issues, everyday Ontarians have a voice at the table. History is replete with examples of the elite few trying to protect their privileged position by denying the democratic will of the people. Regardless of whether you support electoral reform or not, we should all rise to defend democratic principles. The more people like Urquhart attack the most democratic process we’ve ever seen, the more the fall’s referendum shifts from the specifics of electoral reform to a referendum on democracy itself.

I have it on good authority that the Toronto Star is planning to come out with an negative editorial tomorrow attacking the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. The Citizens Assembly is very likely the most democratic process Ontario has ever seen. It’s important to note that the Assembly is made up of 103 randomly selected citizens who expressed an interest in the process (plus a chair). It is equally men and women, mirroring the ethnic diversity of the province, and made up of young people, old people and everyone in between — students, lawyers, engineers, homemakers, retirees, you name it. Even the legislature can’t claim to be as representative of Ontario as the Citizens’ Assembly. These are not crazy proportional representation nuts; these are everyday people who have volunteered their time, traveling to Toronto nearly every weekend, learning about different electoral systems (including the pros and cons of our own), and fanning out across the province listening to their fellow citizens.

After all this hard work, this past weekend, the Citizens Assembly voted to look at a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system as an alternative. Despite what the Star might say, a mixed-member system is not very radical — it is substantially the same as out current system of local representatives plus the addition of some regional members who, like our local MPPs, are elected by the people; the only difference is that the number of regional seats each party receives is determined by their share of the votes). It’s what New Zealand, Scotland, Wales, Germany and host of other nations use. It was recommended by the Law Commission of Canada, and its what New Brunswick and Quebec are moving towards. Even the UK (upon which our system is based) is seriously considering it. But it’s important to note that once the Citizens’ Assembly designs their MMP system, it will be compared to our current system and only then will decided whether or not to recommend change in a report to be delivered by May 15.

So why is the Toronto Star attacking the most democratic process we’ve ever witnessed? It’s hard to see their motivation as anything but politically-driven. Why? Under any fair voting system, their power base (i.e. Toronto Liberals) will no longer receive an undemocratic share of Toronto’s seats (today, Toronto Liberals receive 90% of the seats despite half of Torontonians voting for someone else; in total, more than 1 in 3 Torontonians is entirely dis-enfranched — that is, has no representative of the party of their choice anywhere in Toronto). That’s not to say that the Liberal Party as a whole loses under a truly democratic voting system — they may not win all of Toronto’s seats, but they will gain more seats virtually everywhere else — in rural areas (where they are often shut out despite 30% of people voting Liberal), and in regions where they are under-represented — Simcoe, Kitchener-Waterloo, Dufferin, Durham, etc. But that doesn’t help the Toronto Star.

So what we are witnessing is the establishment defending a status quo that works to its benefit. The Citizens Assembly represents a departure from the top-down command-and-control form of government that has long dominated Ontario. It’s entirely a good thing to have a mechanism whereby citizens express their will to the government. Indeed, we need more Citizens’ Assemblies — on healthcare, education, the environment, etc. So why is the Toronto Star against the exercise of democratic rights? When they publish their attack on your fellow citizens tomorrow, I encourage you to write them and ask them yourself.

This weekend, the Ontario Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform held the first meeting of its deliberation phase. On Sunday, the members took an historic step and voted to look at mixed-member proportional as an alternative to our current first-past-the-post election system. So what does a 7-day search of the Toronto Star show?

That’s right. Not a single mention of the Citizens’ Assembly in Ontario’s (indeed Canada’s) largest newspaper.

And yet, there’s one article per day about Britney Spears — on everything from her shaving her head, to getting tattoos, to checking into rehab. Surely the Globe and Mail has better priorities, right? Nope. Same result. Yup, our media is really keeping us up-to-date on the important events in Ontario, isn’t it?