It’s undemocratic to have the same referendum twice in the hopes of reversing the first referendums outcome. If the “No” side wins it should be just as permanent as if it had been the “Yes” than won.

No, Kelly, it’s undemocratic to hold a referendum when nobody understands the options. That’s why B.C. is re-doing it.

It is also undemocratic to not recognize a CLEAR majority with anything over 50% being recognized. It takes Quebec 50% +1 to leave our country, and 50% +1 for NewFoundland to join our country… but 60% plus 64% of the ridings to vote in favour to select a new voting system? I just don’t get it.

John — yes, it is a bit bizarre. There are usually two standards: majority (50%+1) or super-majority (two-thirds). There is little precedent for a 60% threshold. If they merely wanted a “clear majority” then surely a 10-point spread (i.e. 55-45) would have been more than enough. By making it 60-40, you make a NO vote worth 1.5 times a YES vote. It’s even more bizarre since governments today can pass legislation unopposed with about 40% support (the Ontario Liberals have a “strong” majority with 46% support). So 40% is enough for governments but 60% is needed from the people in referendums? Bizarre.

Ontario certainly appears to be repeating B.C.’s actions. But were those actions mistakes? That depends. If you’re a governing party that needs to diffuse a legitimate impulse for reform, maybe not. Rolling the dice — provided those dice are loaded by the double-super majority and by at least partial control over voter education — might be an attractive option. Especially considering that campaigns for referenda on electoral reform cannot be expected to raise huge sums of money.

My guess is that the Campbell government in B.C. and McGuinty government in Ontario both know what they are doing. Either gamble could still be lost (I hope they are). But I can see how this might look like a winning bet to those who favor the status quo but are worried about how much longer it can be sustained.

@ john
This is my idea about how to handle referendum. I don’t believe 50%+1 is fair as that could just be a statistical error, but I also feel that 60% is not fair either as it imposes a super majority criteria.

http://swerdfeger.com/wordpress/2006/11/07/proposal-for-referendum/

@ democraticspace guy
There are three definitions of majority that I know about, Simple majority (50% of people who vote), absolute majority (50% of people who could vote), and super majority (anything bigger then 50%).

But yah historically most things have been simple majority based, with a few things being 66% or 7/10 provinces

Good summary, Greg. The other aspect which troubles me is that the government has appeared to be consultative by having the Citizens Assembly process, but then betrayed their disdain for reform by being “neutral” in terms of the communication of the referendum to voters. In other words, if the government was truly consulting the people, wouldn’t they get behind their own people and be recommending the result that was overwhelmingly supported by the 107 citizen panel? In this case, being neutral is really a partisan position, pushing against the recommendations of the people.

In my opinion, the government has failed in its responsibility to educate voters about the options. They have also failed to honour the recommendations of the committee by not being vocal about the huge support for MMP within the committee.

Forget the gov’t now. The assembly members need to get the story into the local papers, as ambassadors. All political parties need to be encouraged to do letterbox drops. Advocates need to get on the radio, get on the phone, not just writing comments in blogs. The main message has to be: the assembly deserves to be trusted in their recommendation because the process was excellent and they cared about the future of Ontario for all Ontarians. Another message has to be: you have a rare opportunity to really improve the system. Seize it.

I believe this was “planned”.No sitting Liberal or Conservative government will allow MPP.Thats why they impose 60% thresholds and don’t make much attempt to inform the citizenry.
And why would they,FP the post,serves the Libs and Cons very well indeed.
I won’t be holding my breath for MPP to be put into practice.Here in BC many many people were quit excited by the chance of electoral reform.But alas it all came to naught.I don’t expect any thing to be different in Ontario(my birth province).

Greg, It is the responsibility of the advocates to raise awareness and understanding of their initiatives. It’s one of those “don’t hate the player; hate the game” situations. If we start judging the validity of voters decisions based on what they do or do not know about their options, we would never have an acceptable outcome. What the average voter doesn’t know could fill a house and they are entitled to bring their ignorance into the voting booth.

The ballot portion of this MMP system looks interesting, allowing us to vote for a MPP and a different political party, but that’s where it ends. The 39 appointees will be accountable to their party leaders only, not a local riding and a party, as it is now. I don’t like the tyranny of a majority government being elected with 40% of the vote, but are we not just trading one tyranny for another? The MMP would reduce rural representation with larger ridings and an increased workload on the normal MPPs. All northern Ontario doesn’t need is one or two less MPPs. They already feel forsaken. Why weren’t there other options on the ballot like the French system with run off elections or none of the above? In my estimation MMP means Mickey Mouse Parliament.

Grant clearly hasn’t looked at how MMP works. He’s doing his duty to obey the elites and vote against MMP.

Is it Greg who responded? What is it that you think I don’t understand? I am striving to understand MMP, and have waited until now because I believe I do now understand it. Obeying an elite? What elite? I’m just Joe Citezen. Also, there is a good letter at the Toronto Star website–Friend hates MMP system in New Zealand–indicating that not everybody is happy with MMP down in New Zealand, as we have been led to believe.