Senate reform appears to be back on the table. Why do we need Senate reform? Apart from being unaccountable (since it is appointed), the regional representation bears no relation to population. So if you want an elected Senate (or technically, Senators appointed on the advice of the people), then you also need to bring representation more in line with population distribution. This will necessarily be imperfect, because it is believed that reforms must obtain the support of 7 of 10 provinces. Practically speaking that means that no more than 3 provinces can lose Senate seats.
First, I propose adopting the government’s former bill C-56, with one small change. This would grant Alberta 5 more MPs, BC 7 more MPs and Ontario 13 more MPs (the government’s bill adds 10). All other provinces/territories remain the same. The House of Commons would therefore have 333 MPs:
House of Commons
Ontario 119 (+13 from today)
Quebec 75 (0)
B.C. 43 (+7)
Alberta 33 (+5)
Manitoba 14 (0)
Saskatchewan 14 (0)
Nova Scotia 11 (0)
New Brunswick 10 (0)
Newfoundland & Labrador 7 (0)
P.E.I. 4 (0)
Northwest Territories 1 (0)
Yukon 1 (0)
Nunavut 1 (0) TOTAL = 333
The Senate would be comprised of 37 Senators from 3 regions (not unlike Canadian junior hockey!): East (Quebec eastward), West (Manitoba westward, including the North), Central (Ontario), for a total of 111, a ratio of exactly 3 MPs per Senator. Therefore, Senators would be elected in districts that are, on average, the size of 3 ridings (i.e. every 3 ridings would become a Senate district). In the case of the 4 biggest provinces, some urban Senate districts will be 4 ridings large and in the case of the smaller provinces, some Senate districts will the same size as ridings. The distribution would be as follows (* = provinces supporting the reform plan):
Senate East:
*Quebec 25 (+1 from today)
*P.E.I. 4 (0)
Nova Scotia 4 (-6)
New Brunswick 4 (-6)
Newfoundland & Labrador 4 (-2) TOTAL = 37
Central:
*Ontario 37 (+13) TOTAL = 37 SENATE TOTAL = 111
Obviously, 3 provinces lose out: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland & Labrador, since they are currently over-represented. This new alignment simply grants all provinces in Atlantic Canada 4 Senate seats. Ontario, B.C., Alberta, and Quebec all gain Senate seats, while the territories, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and P.E.I. all stay the same. This means that 7 of 10 provinces gain or stay the same, hopefully allowing the reforms to pass (with NS, NB and NL opposing).
So, what would these new 3-riding (on average) Senate districts look like? A few examples:
NORTHWEST ONTARIO (ON) DISTRICT, comprised of:
Kenora
Thunder Bay-Rainy River
Thunder Bay-Superior North
LONDON (ON) DISTRICT, comprised of:
London-Fanshawe
London North Centre
London West
CENTRAL TORONTO (ON) DISTRICT, comprised of:
St. Paul’s
Trinity-Spadina
Toronto Centre
VICTORIA (BC) DISTRICT, comprised of:
Victoria
Saanich-Gulf Islands
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
LAVAL (QC) DISTRICT, comprised of:
Alfred-Pellan
Laval
Laval-les-Iles
and so on…
Senators would serve 8 year terms (I have no problem with Senators being allowed to stand for re-election, but perhaps a 2- or 3-term limit would be wise). Senate elections would be staggered, with half being elected in each election cycle (i.e. every 4 years on fixed election dates). So, every other election (i.e. every 8 years on fixed election dates, House of Commons elections are every 4 years on fixed election dates), in addition to casting a ballot for your local MP, you also cast a ballot for your district Senator (with every 3 ridings, on average, comprising a Senate district).
We have a fundamental problem with the Ontario referendum: most people don’t know what the heck mixed-member proportional (MMP) is. If you don’t know, don’t vote for the status quo (first-past-the-post). DemocraticSPACE encourages you to simply leave it blank. How can you vote against something that you don’t know is better or worse?
If you like the idea of electoral reform, but don’t like this particular model, leave it blank. If you think we just need more time to decide, leave it blank. Everyday citizens like you recommended this change, but if you’re not sure about it, don’t endorse politics-as-usual (what the party bosses want you to do), just leave it blank. Every vote for first-post-the-post is a vote for politics-as-usual.
Voters today have the ultimate protest vote. A vote for MMP sends a clear signal that you are not happy with politics as usual. It’s hard to believe that people would not seize this opportunity, what with trust in politicians running at about 10%. So when you vote today, remember that a vote for mixed-member proportional (MMP) as recommended by your fellow citizens, is a vote against the establishment, against the backroom deal-makers, and against the kind of bickering politics that is only getting worse. A vote for MMP will send a clear signal to the politicians that that politics as usual is not good enough, that we can and we must do better.
Well, Ontarians head to the polls today after what can only be described as much ado about nothing. Truly, this has to be one of the most content-free campaigns ever conducted in Ontario. The entire campaign was dominated by an issue that wasn’t even an issue until John Tory raised it — public funding for private religious schools.
Issues that were on Ontarians minds were barely discussed — how to curb greenhouse gases, how to deal with traffic congestion in the GTA, how to get more family doctors, how to shift to a more sustainable energy production, how to fix the education funding formula, how to fix municipal downloading, how to address the growing problem of affordable housing and homeless, how to tackle our embarrassingly high incidence of child poverty, how to ensure all regions have jobs and opportunities, and so on.
The referendum? What referendum? Elections Ontario flubbed the public education campaign so badly that the majority of people voting today either have no idea there is a referendum or have no idea what the alternative is. That information void was filled by party backers who stood to lose under MMP, spreading blatant disinformation about MMP through email and their major media friends happy to assist. MMP never had a chance and so I suspect the party elites have dodged a bullet this time. Their power is safe for now.
It has been said that campaigns are not the right time to deal with serious issues. Hogwash. The proposed solutions should not be cooked up on the campaign bus, they should be studied and prepared in advance, but absolutely campaigns should be the time to debate different solutions to pressing problems. Unfortunately, this campaign wasn’t about that. It was, as is so often the case these days, a product of carefully scripted nothingness. Say nothing of substance, do nothing out of the ordinary. Just get by.
Consequently, the electorate is in a precarious position. People are not that excited by the incumbent Liberals (the usual partisan folks, of course, being of course an exception). But people also don’t particularly like the alternatives. John Tory hasn’t offered much that’s different from the Liberals — indeed his whole campaign was about him (”leadership matters”), which more or less imploded when he caved in under pressure about the religious schools issue (which of course was so badly out of step with the electorate it was doomed to fail). The NDP did its thing for “working families”, a tired euphemism for the working poor. It’s narrow focus (6 commitments, all sensible) were effectively the terms for a minority government, but if the Liberals win a majority (and we think they will), what then? Out of this ideas vacuum may emerge the Greens, who will surely gain in support. They have probably forwarded the most new ideas this campaign, even if most people didn’t pay attention, but unless Shane Jolley pulls off a miracle in Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, they will likely be shut out.
With such widespread apathy towards the parties, anything is possible, as either the NDP or the Greens could gain a healthy dose of protest votes. But we’re betting that the only thing people remember about this forgetful campaign is that the Tories want to fund religious schools and the Liberals don’t. So, we expect that by the end of the night, we’ll have a Liberal majority government, almost by default. Turnout will be at an all-time low, which is ironic and somewhat sad, since this is the one election, with a referendum on the system itself, that gave voters the ultimate protest vote. And even that, sadly, has been much ado about nothing. Just how the parties like it.
Why Should Liberals Vote for MMP (mixed-member proportional) in the referendum? Because it is in their long-term interest to do so. With the Conservatives circulating an email urging its supporters to reject MMP, Liberals should be asking themselves “if the Conservatives don’t like it because they stand to lose their inherent seat advantage in Ontario, shouldn’t we, as Liberals, be supporting MMP?” And if you look at Ontario’s election history, the answer is a clear and unequivocal “yes, MMP is good for the Ontario Liberal Party”. In fact, since 1975, the Liberals would have won more seats under MMP than under the current system in 7 of 9 elections (see analysis). That’s right, the Liberals would have gained under MMP almost 80% of the time. Likewise, the NDP would have won more seats under MMP the same 7 of 9 times. The Conservatives would have won fewer seats 6 of 9 times, so you can see why they are circulating an email urging its supporters to vote against (so much for the parties not trying to influence to outcome of the referendum). Indeed, at 37% each, the Conservatives would win 8 more seats than the Liberals. So what do you say, Liberals, do you want to eliminate the PC party’s inherent seat advantage under our current system? Then vote for MMP.
So much for the anti-MMP crowd’s overblown rhetoric about how “list” candidates will be “appointed by party bosses”. As of today, the four largest parties in Ontario (Liberal, PC, NDP, Green) — accounting for 98.6% of the votes in 2003 — have all officially committed to holding democratic nominations for list candidates under the recommended mixed-member proportional (MMP) system. List candidates will have to do exactly what local candidates do now (and will continue to do under MMP) — rally support in their area, get their supporters to vote at the nomination meeting to secure the nomination, then face the general voters, who choose their preferences, rewarding effective individuals and parties, and punishing ineffective ones. So let’s cut the crap about appointed candidates, party hacks, etc — local candidates are accountable to their localities and list candidates are accountable to their regions. If your local MPP is a jerk, you now have the option of going to your regional list MPP for help. Competition: bad for politicians, good for voters and good for accountability. End of story.
The Toronto media refused to pick up this story put out by the Vote for MMP folks (who interviewed yours truly). Anyone want to venture a guess why not? What is the mainstream media trying to hide?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Two-tier democracy: Under FPTP, some 75,000 “super-voters” to decide Oct. 10 outcome
Millions of other Ontario votes relegated to secondary importance
TORONTO | September 26, 2007: Under Ontario’s outdated voting system, the outcome of next month’s election will once again be decided by about 75,000 “super-voters”, whose lucky location and vote-changeability mean their votes count for a whole lot more than the other millions of Ontario voters, says election expert Greg Morrow of democraticSPACE.
“One would think that in a democratic system, the votes of all Ontario voters should count equally,” says Morrow, who also works with Ipsos Reid on election seat projections. “But in reality, under Ontario’s unrepresentative first-past-the-post voting system, only a small fraction of votes end up deciding the outcome one way or another.”
Based on past elections, an estimated 4.7 million Ontarians will vote on Oct 10. In a recently-published online report, Morrow estimated that only about 1.5% of voters will determine the outcome of the election. Under today’s FPTP system, “since the government is decided by a series of one-on-one riding battles, it will be determined by 5% of voters in the closest 30% of the ridings.”
“The new MMP system recommended by Ontario’s Citizens Assembly reverses this profoundly undemocratic imbalance between a handful of ’super voters’ and all the rest of us,” said Rick Anderson, campaign chair of Vote For MMP (www.VoteForMMP.ca). “Instead of today’s FPTP system wherein provincial election outcomes come down to a handful of voters in a handful of ridings, MMP’s new two-vote ballot system would mean every single vote counts equally towards determining the crucial province-wide question of who forms government.”
Morrow’s analysis is another convincing illustration of how badly the current voting system warps the way we do politics. “Rather than court all voters in all parts of the province, the undemocratic first-past-the-post system encourages parties to focus on a tiny minority of strategically-targeted voters,” said Anderson. “A proportional voting system such as MMP gives equal weight to all voters, meaning that parties need to compete for votes in all parts of the province. Whether a vote is cast in Timmins or Toronto, for party A or party B, in a swing riding or a safe one - they will carry the same weight and value under MMP.”
“This deeply changes the way parties compete for votes - and how they govern when in power,” said Anderson. “Under first-past-the-post, parties know they can win overwhelming control of the legislature and governing agenda with as little as 40 per cent of the votes. When parties focus on swing ridings, other voters, other ridings, and entire regions become a less-than-equal part of the picture when the cold hard calculus of policy-making is applied.”
“It’s time to replace the two-tier democracy and ’super voters’ of our winner-take-all system, and modernize our democracy by adopting MMP on October 10.”
About Vote for MMP: Vote for MMP is a multi-partisan citizens’ campaign supporting the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting system presented to Ontarians for adoption in the referendum on electoral reform referendum on October 10. MMP was proposed by the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, an independent body of 103 randomly chosen Ontario voters. Assembly members were asked by the Ontario Legislature to (a) determine whether Ontario needs a new voting system, and (b) if so to recommend an improved system. The Assembly studied proportional electoral systems used in 81 democracies around the world, and selected MMP as the approach best-suited for Ontario. Vote for MMP is funded by donations from citizens and organizations who agree with the Citizens’ Assembly recommendations, and believe it is time to strengthen democracy and modernize Ontario’s voting system that gives voters more choice, fairer results and stronger representation.
-30 -
Media contacts:
Steve Withers, Media Coordinator, Vote For MMP Campaign
Tel: (519) 282-1078
e-mail: steve.withers@VoteForMMP.ca
Rick Anderson, Chair, Vote For MMP Campaign
e-mail: rick@asci.ca
Some interesting pieces and news on the electoral front.
Andrew Coyne, Canada’s top political journalist (in my opinion) makes the case why conservatives should support MMP.
David Docherty, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and a professor of Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University argued in favour of MMP (you may need to be a subscriber for this).
The Globe and Mail’s Rick Salutin says that voting in favour of MMP is a no-brainer, joining media personalities Antonia Zerbisias (Toronto Star) and Linda McQuaig (Toronto Star) and the aforementioned Andrew Coyne (National Post) as MMP supporters.
Liberal MPP Ted McKeekin (representing the Hamilton-area riding of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamsborough-Westdale) has endorsed MMP, joining Health Minister and Deputy Premier George Smitherman, Attorney General Michael Bryant, Municipal Affairs Minister John Gerretsen, and Davenport MPP Tony Ruprecht as sitting Liberal MPPs who support electoral reform. I should also note that Bob Rae, federal Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre also endorses MMP, along with Liberal MP (St. Paul’s) Carolyn Bennett and former Liberal cabinet ministers Elinor Caplan and Monique Begin.
Two years ago, British Columbia considered electoral reform. A Citizens’ Assembly was formed and after consultations and study, it recommended an alternative — the single transferable vote or STV, a form of proportional representation (PR). There was a virtually non-existent public education campaign to inform voters about the alternative. Yet, despite most not knowing what they were voting for, 58% of British Columbians voted in favour of it, 42% against. But since the government imposed a 60% threshold, a 58-42 result was considered a “failure”, despite a clear majority support for the alternative. Recognizing that they didn’t properly inform the public about the alternative, B.C. is going to hold another referendum.
Ontario appears destined to repeat B.C.’s mistakes. The McGuinty government started the process quite late in its mandate — convening the Citizens’ Assembly only last fall. And after a mad dash to meet the May 15 deadline, the Assembly likewise recommended change — not STV (which was the second alternative considered), but mixed-member proportional or MMP, another variant of PR. The government likewise set a 60% threshold. And with 3 weeks left, the public education campaign has likewise been virtually non-existent. So it is not surprising that with 3 weeks left, half of Ontarians know nothing at all about the referendum (just 12% say they know a lot about it).
This lack of knowledge about the alternative suits the NO-MMP folks just fine. They would rather people be uninformed. Why? Because those who do know about it are likely to support it, according to polls. Remarkably, one government official claimed that: “It’s not our responsibility to educate people on this”. Actually, it is.
If a majority of Ontarians endorse change on October 10th (but less than the 60% threshold), Ontario will find itself in a similar conundrum as B.C., where a clear majority effectively voted non-confidence in the current system. It is likely that we will, like B.C., we forced to do it all over again, only this time with a real public education campaign, so voters actually know on what they are voting. If only we had learned from B.C.’s mistakes instead of repeating them…
We’re calling upon everyone to install Referendum Ontario’s Widget on their webpage. You can see it below. We’re installed it at the bottom of every page of our Ontario 2007 coverage. The legitimacy of the referendum depends upon people making informed choices. So spread the word.
You download and install the Referendum Ontario Widget from YOURBIGDECISION.CA.
