FAMILY COALITION PARTY OF ONTARIO



 
 

A primitive system
 by Giuseppe Gori

 

It is often said that the current Single Member Plurality system (or "relative majority", or "winner takes all", or "First Past The Post", or "Majoritarian") is one of the simplest systems:

First you divide the country (or province, or region) into districts of approximately the same size in population. In Ontario this proved difficult to do, as northern districts are much bigger in extension  and much less populated. So a compromise is used. The district do not necessarily comprise as many voters (Alas, another "unfair" consequence, as each vote in northern Ontario counts "more" than a vote in other parts of the province).

The boundaries of such districts have to continuously be re-adjusted, as population density shifts. In recent years the boundaries changed for each Ontario Election.  When boundaries change, all the political parties' Constituency Associations have to be de-registered and re-registered, according to different boundaries. The monies they had in the bank have to go to the main party office and be re-distributed to the new associations proportionally to the new boundaries... (a bureaucratic nightmare).

Then each party holds a nomination election in each (of the 107) districts to nominate its candidate for the election. This is of course an excuse to advertise and spend money, drum up support and sell memberships.

Finally, at election time the "writ is dropped" (the start of the race). Each candidate may publish literature, erect signs, knock on doors, participate to all-candidate meetings, etc. in a "mad race" lasting about 28 days. During that period voters are supposed to make up their mind and find out what each candidate stands for, while candidates seize every opportunity to promise more than the other opponents, since only one of them will win.

At the same time voters are bombarded by media advertising and newscasts. The media, supposedly "fair" will invite SOME of the party leaders (those who "have a chance to win", but not all) on TV. 

Election day results are fairly simple to manage. The winner of each district will seat in the Ontario Legislature as an MPP (Member of Provincial Parliament).

Example: If Party A gets 30% of the votes and wins in every district by a few votes over party B, which gets 29%, then Party A gains 107 members in the legislature and Party B gains zero (Other parties, no matter what the percentage, also get no seats). Simple?

 

Now, let me describe the fully proportional system (or "Pure Proportional"), a system which we do not necessarily endorse, but which would be even simpler and better than what we have:

There is no need to divide the country into districts and maintain boundaries. 
There is no need of nomination meetings and riding associations.
Each political party publishes a candidate list of its best potential candidates in advance, so that voters know exactly who they are going to vote for. Each party will promise to do more than the other parties, but all of them will win seats. No party will be "desperate" to win, thus promises are  more accurate and attainable.

The advertising becomes heavier as the elections come closer. Each party explains its policy across the country. The media inform voters of what the parties stand for, and invites all party leaders and top candidates to explain their policies and ideas. National debates are arranged.

Election day results are fairly simple to manage as well. Votes are counted. Each party gains seats in the Legislature proportionally to the number of votes received.

Example: If Party A receives 30% of the votes it will gain 30% of the seats in the Legislature. If the number of seats in the Legislature are 100 (any arbitrary number will do), then 30 of the 100 seats will be occupied by the first 30 people in the candidate list of Party A. If Party B receives 29% of the votes, it gains 29 seats, which will be occupied by the first 29 people in its candidate list. The rest of the seats is also assigned to other parties according to the percentage of votes received.

It seems to me that the Pure Proportional system is simpler, but simplicity should not be the main criteria for choosing a system. The point is that the second  system, the fully proportional, is also intrinsically fair, while our single member plurality system is not.

 

Comparing the governments resulting from these simple systems

While in the first case party A would rule with a majority (107 to 0) and no opposition, even though 70% of the people voted against it, in the second case (pure proportional) the government would be formed by a coalition of either party in co-operation with smaller parties, reflecting the low level of confidence of the electorate in both main parties. 

While in the first case we would suffer for four years with a "stable" government that most people despise and which could introduce and repeal legislation at will, in the second case we would be governed by a coalition that would have to co-operate when introducing legislation.

If no cooperation were reached, then no legislation would be passed, making the government more cautious (you could say more conservative), and less likely to introduce sudden, unjustified changes of direction.

 

The proposed system 

The system proposed by the Citizens Assembly, which we will be voting for in the October 10th referendum (Mixed Member Proportional), contains both components, the local candidates and the party list candidates. It is thus a compromise between the two simple systems described above. One-party majority governments are still possible, but less likely. However, the composition of the Legislature will be closer to the wishes of the electorate.

I am not too worried about the result of the referendum, because of one reason: our system is so bad, that it will have to change (as it has changed in almost all other industrialized countries). 
I just hope it will happen in Ontario this October and federally soon after.

Other Canadian provinces have either already decided to use an MMP system (e.g.: Quebec) or are in the process of questioning their system (e.g.: British Columbia will have a second referendum in 2008, New Brunswick will have a referendum soon, PEI rejected the MPP system at its first referendum in 2005).

The system we currently use, the Single Member Plurality is NOT used in western industrialized democracies, apart from Canada and the US. 
The UK is gradually replacing it. 

However, plurality voting is used in 42 of the 191 countries in the United Nations for either local or national elections. Below is the list of these countries using "our" plurality voting system (FPTP). You can recognize that many were colonies of the UK: Apart from the countries mentioned above, this is the "who is who" of third world countries. Is it "racist" to call our electoral system "primitive"?

  • Antigua and Barbuda
  • Bahamas
  • Bangladesh
  • Barbados
  • Belize
  • Bhutan
  • Botswana
  • Canada
  • Dominica
  • Ethiopia
  • The Gambia
  • Ghana
  • Grenada
  • India (Proportional representation in upper house)
  • Jamaica
  • Kenya
  • Malawi
  • Malaysia
  • Federated States of Micronesia
  • Morocco
  • Nepal
  • Nigeria
  • Pakistan
  • Palau
  • Papua New Guinea
  • Saint Kitts and Nevis
  • Saint Lucia
  • Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  • Samoa
  • Singapore
  • Solomon Islands
  • Swaziland
  • Tanzania
  • Tonga
  • Trinidad and Tobago
  • Tuvalu
  • Uganda
  • United Kingdom (National parliamentary and local government elections in England and Wales only, not in elections for the EU Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies, and local elections in Scotland and Northern Ireland)
  • United States (except for Louisiana)
  • Yemen
  • Zambia
  • Zimbabwe

 

...Top