Ontario Electoral Reform

Tendronai · 04-16-2007, 07:11 PM

The official website.

So, the Citizen's Assembly, after months of debate, has chosen to put forward that the First Past the Post system for one of mixed member proportional.

This is actually really important, since it benefits every voting citizen of Ontario. First Past the Post is an antiquated system, which is only still used in three countries - The US, Canada, and the UK. The problem with it is as follows :

Candidate's A, B, and C are running for a seat. Candidate A gets 12 votes, B gets 10, and C gets 3. First of all, A wins outright. Never mind the fact that the other two outweigh him, A had the most of anyone, so A gets the seat. Next, all A really needed was that 11th vote. The twelfth voter for A, as well as all the voters for B and C, were unneeded, so there becomes a problem of wasted votes. B and C go completely unrepresented in this riding, and get no real say in what goes on - this is largely due to the degree of party dominance over its members, though. The party gets the seat, so the party elected gets to make the decisions, and the candidate is more of an honourary placeholder.

With Mixed Member Proportionality, though, there becomes a new list of seats, which are awarded based on how well a party did across the province. As such, in the above example, A would get 48% of the seats, B would get 40%, and C would get 12%. This is in addition to the original number of ridings, so no areas are overlooked (like, say, Northern Ontario being forced into doing whatever the Greater Toronto Area wants.

This is an important step, since it could allow for further electoral reform across the country. As most political scientists will tell you, First Past the Post is a terrible system. If Ontario passes the change, then other provinces could follow suit, and alleviate the lowering voter turnout problems.

I think that this is a great idea and a good step forward, personally. The only real arguments that I've been able to find for keeping First Past the Post come from the Liberal and Conservative Parties (and of course the Bloc Quebecois) who wish to keep it in place so that they do not have to appeal to differing regions, but rather keep their influence on separate provinces. The Bloc, for example, got the same amount of votes as the Green Party (roughly) nationwide, but because the Bloc is so focused in Quebec they were able to get 40-50 seats whereas the Green Party still has none.

Even though the current provincial government has been terrible at keeping its promised tuition freeze, I still respect the fact that they went forward with a process that could reduce the likelihood of reelection solely for the purpose of making the system more democratic. I know that while I may not vote for the Liberals, I will be voting for this.

So anyway... anyone else? Thoughts? Opinions?

Professor Smarmiarty · 04-16-2007, 07:42 PM

Well in New Zealand we have MMP as our parliamentary voting system. With two major parties that are always pretty easy the little parties tend to become kingmakers. We have had some minority governments cobbled together out of multiple parties. It's better than FPP but still not great. We're currentely looking at a preferential voting system like in some places of Australia where you get multiple votes, placed in order of preference and if your first vote becomes irrelevant (the party gets very few) your 2nd preference vote comes into play for a smaller amount or something. I haven't worked out the details yet but it seems useful. It still in discussion here though. Ask a crazy Australian about that one.

Fifthfiend · 04-16-2007, 08:49 PM

Quote:

The party gets the seat, so the party elected gets to make the decisions, and the candidate is more of an honourary placeholder.

Can't really say how it works in Canada but at least as far as things work in the US this couldn't be further from the truth. What we actually have is a frightfully weak party system, which dilutes the efficiency of either party in acting as a guarantor of a candidate's fealty to the party's constituents and gives extraparty organizations much more of a hand than one would like in dictating policy.

Tendronai · 04-16-2007, 11:14 PM

As far as the political system goes, Canada and the US differentiates drastically. For starters, the Senate is a joke, with no real power. Most people want it abolished.

The electoral system reform is a much bigger deal for us, since the members of parliament are pretty much pawns for the leaders. For the major parties, the only ones who actually get to have decision making power are the leaders and a few in the cabinet. Even then, the leader gets the final say on pretty much anything. If you dissent, it's pretty much a guarantee that you'll not only lose your seat, but that you won't get another chance to be elected. Unless you run as an independent, but very few of them get elected because they don't have the influence of a party.

It all ties in, since that means that people are more likely to have the party they want representing them to have some say, rather than being drowned out in an election and having to spend the next few years sulking in a corner.

greed · 04-17-2007, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barrel-Hating Sycophant

Ask a crazy Australian about that one.

You called?

Basically you vote in numbered preference so if your first preference doesn't get enough to get the seat your vote goes to your second preference and so on. Let's say there are three candidates A, B and C. The votes are tallied in elimination rounds.

A = 2000 votes
B= 1800 votes
C= 1000 votes

If a candidate gets an absolute majority(>50%) on the first round they're elected. In the second round the candiddate with the lowest vote has their preferences spread. This continues til one candidate gets an absolute majority.

This means that the people who voted for C have their vote go to their second preference. So let's say 200 of the people who voted for C have A as their second preference, this mean that A now has 2200 votes. However the other 800 had B as their second preference so now B has 2600 votes. So B wins.

We also use Prop Rep in the Federal Senate and the Upper House in my state(not sure about the others), which is kinda like the one Tendronai was talking about I think, multiple seats per electorate and all that. Don't quote me on that though.

Professor Smarmiarty · 04-17-2007, 08:34 AM

Well the problems you describe, Terdronai, sound just like the problems NZ had under FPP, problems that have pretty much disappeared under MMP. We have a few new problems but they not nearly as big. Overall it's a vast improvement.
Though at first people got confused with the whole two votes things. It's not that difficult people! We needed ads with cultural icons explaining it to us.

04-16-2007, 07:11 PM	#1
Tendronai I will crush your economy. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Magical mystical land of Canada. Posts: 1,364	Ontario Electoral Reform The official website. So, the Citizen's Assembly, after months of debate, has chosen to put forward that the First Past the Post system for one of mixed member proportional. This is actually really important, since it benefits every voting citizen of Ontario. First Past the Post is an antiquated system, which is only still used in three countries - The US, Canada, and the UK. The problem with it is as follows : Candidate's A, B, and C are running for a seat. Candidate A gets 12 votes, B gets 10, and C gets 3. First of all, A wins outright. Never mind the fact that the other two outweigh him, A had the most of anyone, so A gets the seat. Next, all A really needed was that 11th vote. The twelfth voter for A, as well as all the voters for B and C, were unneeded, so there becomes a problem of wasted votes. B and C go completely unrepresented in this riding, and get no real say in what goes on - this is largely due to the degree of party dominance over its members, though. The party gets the seat, so the party elected gets to make the decisions, and the candidate is more of an honourary placeholder. With Mixed Member Proportionality, though, there becomes a new list of seats, which are awarded based on how well a party did across the province. As such, in the above example, A would get 48% of the seats, B would get 40%, and C would get 12%. This is in addition to the original number of ridings, so no areas are overlooked (like, say, Northern Ontario being forced into doing whatever the Greater Toronto Area wants. This is an important step, since it could allow for further electoral reform across the country. As most political scientists will tell you, First Past the Post is a terrible system. If Ontario passes the change, then other provinces could follow suit, and alleviate the lowering voter turnout problems. I think that this is a great idea and a good step forward, personally. The only real arguments that I've been able to find for keeping First Past the Post come from the Liberal and Conservative Parties (and of course the Bloc Quebecois) who wish to keep it in place so that they do not have to appeal to differing regions, but rather keep their influence on separate provinces. The Bloc, for example, got the same amount of votes as the Green Party (roughly) nationwide, but because the Bloc is so focused in Quebec they were able to get 40-50 seats whereas the Green Party still has none. Even though the current provincial government has been terrible at keeping its promised tuition freeze, I still respect the fact that they went forward with a process that could reduce the likelihood of reelection solely for the purpose of making the system more democratic. I know that while I may not vote for the Liberals, I will be voting for this. So anyway... anyone else? Thoughts? Opinions? __________________ Give me your wallet before I destroy you, mortal.

04-16-2007, 11:14 PM	#4
Tendronai I will crush your economy. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Magical mystical land of Canada. Posts: 1,364	As far as the political system goes, Canada and the US differentiates drastically. For starters, the Senate is a joke, with no real power. Most people want it abolished. The electoral system reform is a much bigger deal for us, since the members of parliament are pretty much pawns for the leaders. For the major parties, the only ones who actually get to have decision making power are the leaders and a few in the cabinet. Even then, the leader gets the final say on pretty much anything. If you dissent, it's pretty much a guarantee that you'll not only lose your seat, but that you won't get another chance to be elected. Unless you run as an independent, but very few of them get elected because they don't have the influence of a party. It all ties in, since that means that people are more likely to have the party they want representing them to have some say, rather than being drowned out in an election and having to spend the next few years sulking in a corner. __________________ Give me your wallet before I destroy you, mortal.

04-16-2007, 07:42 PM	#2
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Well in New Zealand we have MMP as our parliamentary voting system. With two major parties that are always pretty easy the little parties tend to become kingmakers. We have had some minority governments cobbled together out of multiple parties. It's better than FPP but still not great. We're currentely looking at a preferential voting system like in some places of Australia where you get multiple votes, placed in order of preference and if your first vote becomes irrelevant (the party gets very few) your 2nd preference vote comes into play for a smaller amount or something. I haven't worked out the details yet but it seems useful. It still in discussion here though. Ask a crazy Australian about that one.

04-17-2007, 08:34 AM	#6
Professor Smarmiarty Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: K-space Posts: 9,758	Well the problems you describe, Terdronai, sound just like the problems NZ had under FPP, problems that have pretty much disappeared under MMP. We have a few new problems but they not nearly as big. Overall it's a vast improvement. Though at first people got confused with the whole two votes things. It's not that difficult people! We needed ads with cultural icons explaining it to us.