“The
one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the
majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority,
that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
—Lord Acton
On
October 10th, 2007,
the day of the Ontario Provincial Election, a Referendum question
was on the ballot: Whether to adopt a new system for
electing our government representatives in the Ontario
Legislature. The new proposed system is the Mixed Member
Proportional. Electors
will be asked to consider the following:
| |
Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members
to the provincial legislature?/Quel
système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour
élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée
législative?
|
|
The
details of the MMP system are explained in the Citizens'
Assembly May 15 report: "One ballot, Two Votes"
(.PDF file).
MISINFORMATION
The
"Against change" side relied on people's mental
inertia for defending the status quo, but some people are
also used misinformation and fear as weapons
in their arsenal.
The
"For change" side criticized the FPTP system based
on facts. This is because people are familiar with the
current system and would immediately spot misinformation.
The people who want change had the burden of proof and also
had to overcome a two-folded supermajority to effect change.
It
is in everybody's interest to keep the discussion civil,
free from personal accusations and based on facts. The
following answers do not debate the merit of the system, but
only respond to misinformation.
Common
answers to misinformation and scare tactics:
-
"The new system will reduce influence from rural
voters"
Answer:
The number of people in each riding, rural or not, is
maintained approximately the same, as in the current system.
-
"The party list candidates will come from the
city"
Answer:
There is no such requirements. For example, all of the
people in the FCP Executive come from outside Toronto.
It is the interest of each party to use people of talent
wherever they are.
-
"The new system will increase government by
23%."
Answer:
An increase in government by 23% would cost about $20
Billion! 22 more seats in the legislature would cost (with
current salaries and office expenses) about $5 Million
(4,000 times less).
The size of the bureaucracy, the number of Ministries and
the cost of programs and services are factors independent
from the number of MPP's.
If people are really concerned about the MPPs' salaries, the
FCP has proposed to tie their salaries to exactly twice the
average wage of Ontario workers. This would be a 35% REDUCTION
in salary and thus would cover the cost of 22 more seats.
If only one MPP would object to an unnecessary government
mega-project, it could save Ontarians more than the cost of
the salaries for the entire Legislative Assembly!
-
"The new system will impose an equal number of men
and women in the party list."
Answer:
There is no such requirement.
-
"The new system will impose conditions for
selection on the party list, based on sex, ethnicity, race
and sexual orientation."
Answer:
There are no such requirements.
The rules for selection of the party list have to be
published by each party before the election, as well as the
candidate names in the list.
The voters have the last say and will judge, with their vote
at election time, whether the rules as published by the
political parties are acceptable to them.
-
"The un-elected party list candidates... are
unaccountable to the voters"
Answer:
Party list candidates are elected and accountable.
At election time voters will have one ballot, but two votes:
One for the local candidate (which can be appointed,
nominated by a local association or replaced by the party
leader, as in the current system) and one for the party, the
party list and the party policy, as a
"package".
Voters will have more party "packages" to choose
from and these will be open to scrutiny.
Thus voters elect both types of candidates: local candidates
individually and party list candidates as a group.
All candidates are accountable to the voters: Local
candidates to the people in their riding and party
list candidates to all of the people in Ontario.
-
"The MMP system is used in Italy and they are
thinking of going back to FPTP"
Answer:
This is a strange factual error that circulates on the net.
Italy had a PR system for almost 40 years. Then they tried a
form of MMP (closer to our system), but in 2006 they
returned to pure proportional (PR). They actually voted to
go back to the opposite of FPTP.
-
"The MMP system in Italy is causing the
government to collapse very often."
Answer:
The system used in Italy is pure proportional (not MMP). The
government direction is stable for the longer term, and a
Christian Democratic coalition has been in power for more
than thirty years after the war. However they often have
"government shuffles" without elections, in
addition to normal elections.
-
"The MMP system will produce governments that are
less accountable to the public."
Answer:
Accountability of elected representatives means that the
voters can choose them and remove them from office. You
cannot argue that the MMP creates more elections (more
recalls) and at the same time creates less accountability.
More elections would mean more accountability, not less.
-
"The MMP system has created problems and chaos
where it has been tried."
Answer:
More
than 80 countries use proportional voting systems, with some
for more than a century.
The countries used as examples of political instability are
Italy and Israel (which incidentally use PR). To discredit
the MMP system using examples of countries not using MMP is
fear mongering.
In addition, how can the causes of instability be attributed
to the system?
In addition to Canada, the US, England and Wales, the FPTP
system is used in 42 third world countries. Could you claim
that our current system is responsible for African
dictatorships and political problems in these countries?
When South Korea recently switched to MMP, the Heritage
Foundation reported that those where the cleanest elections
ever in a usually turbulent country.
You
can check the Citizens' Assembly web site at:
http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca
You can also
check out their
"animated" presentation by clicking on
"The
Billy Ballot animation".
If
you have High Speed Internet access, a 33MB video message
from the Assembly of Ontarians is also available, : Democracy
at Work: The Assembly’s Decision “In Their Own Words”
.
REPORTS
ON THE MMP SYSTEM
The
following report focuses on the question:
"Is the
Party List undemocratic?"
Although the answer may surprise you, it contains a
"devastating" comparison table between the two
systems at the end.
-
One
Question on the Big Question
The
following report presents the goals of an Electoral system
and examines the existing and the proposed systems
according to the best criteria.
-
Ontario, Why Change? MMP - A synopsis
GREAT
QUESTIONS
Are
the NDP and the left going to profit from this change?
ARTICLES
-
Why conservatives
should support proportional representation
(Article by Andrew Coyne, National Post)
-
Understanding the Electoral System
(Theoretical background on Electoral systems)
-
Towards
Electoral Reform
(A general introduction to the proposed MMP)
-
How
MMP will affect leadership
-
False promises at
election time
-
How
MMP will encourage long-term vision
-
How MMP will encourage respect
-
A clearer indication of
support
-
How
MMP will affect the pro-life, pro-family cause
(July 2007 Interim)
WHAT'S
WRONG WITH OUR SYSTEM?
-
Read excepts from the: Dubious
democracy report
-
A primitive system
COMMON
OBJECTIONS
-
Objections
1: The
new MMP system creates “career politicians” and
“cushy jobs”
-
Objection 2: With the new MMP system, there will be too
many political parties
-
Objection 3: With the new MMP system, governments will be
unstable
-
Objection 4: The current system works and it is fair. Why
change?
-
Objection 5: The new
system will limit our ability to lobby the "party
List" candidates. These are chosen by the party
without any election and are not accountable to the
people.
