On my federal ballot was a list of names and political parties, all irrelevant. The Liberals owned this riding by such a crushing margin that the opposition was purely symbolic. (The local ndp candidate, like me, lived in a university residence.)
As with every ballot filled out that day, what mattered most was where it was cast: depending on where you lived, you had one, two, or, in a few rare cases, three meaningful choices. Like about half of Canada’s voters, I wasted my vote, casting it for a losing candidate who wouldn’t represent me in Parliament. Countless others voted against what they feared, not for what they supported.
But all this could change. This October, Ontarians have a chance to pick a new, proportional system, in which the parties’ share of seats would actually match their share of the popular vote. If Ontario’s voters opt for change, Canada could follow. Imagine Ottawa’s metamorphosis: a small but strong Green Party; the Bloc Québécois cut almost in half; Liberals and New Democrats from Alberta, Tories from the big cities; a new party or two; many more female and minority members; a bump in voter turnout; the pmo reined in by Parliament; stable coalition governments. For much of the old guard, this would be a nightmare.
Back when I was still trembling from my first, traumatic experience, though, I never dreamed we could do things differently. I saw electoral politics as a thin wafer, while I hungered for a massive whole-grain loaf.
I looked at bread differently after spending a year studying in Paris. It was across the ocean, nostalgically reading online news from the homeland, that I was jolted by an article about the world’s first citizens’ assembly on electoral reform. British Columbia’s Liberal government had asked 160 randomly selected people to determine whether BC needed a new electoral system, and if so to design one. After eleven months of deliberation, they proposed something called bc-stv, a fairly proportional system that would have put an end to false majorities. Premier Gordon Campbell set the threshold for referendum passage at an unprecedented 60 percent and spent little on public education.
On May 17, 2005, the day of the provincial elections, 58 percent of voters said yes to the new system, not enough to pass. Campbell’s Liberals got 46 percent of the vote and 58 percent of the seats — more representative than most elections, but still a false majority. Thanks to public pressure, the government will hold another referendum on bc-stv in 2009.
Since BC’s false start, government-appointed commissions in New Brunswick and Quebec have recommended similar alternatives, but politicians have declined to implement them. In November 2005, a proposed proportional system lost a referendum in pei.
Hope for change now rests with Ontario, where another citizens’ assembly, mandated by Liberal premier Dalton McGuinty and modelled on BC’s example, has proposed Mixed Member Proportional (mmp), a system used around the world. New Zealand switched to mmp in 1993, and on provincial election day, October 10, Ontario’s voters could do the same. But they’ll need a supermajority to do so — McGuinty, like Campbell, set a 60-percent threshold.
Comments (16 comments)
Steve Withers: Great article! Having lived in New Zealand for 11 years under a very similar MMP system to that recommended for Ontario, I can't recommend it highly enough. You get a vote that actually counts! That is just the beginning. In my riding of Otaki, we have at least 3 active MPs (1 local and 2 list) ,from 3 different parties, actively representing us. Darren Hughes of the Labour Party (local MP), Nathan Guy of the National Party (list MP) and Sue Kedgley of the Green Party (list MP). Nathan Guy has his riding offices not far from Darren's.
So we are much better represented now than we were under the old system. September 15, 2007 09:53 EST
Rich Gelder: I beg to differ.
http://gelderindundas.blogspot.com/2007/08/why-i-cant-support-citizens-assembly-on_18.html September 18, 2007 06:21 EST
Richard Lung: Unfortunately, MMP is still mainly FPTP with its safe seats and wasted votes, endured by the author. The second vote, for a party, abandons even FPTP's minimal representation, by offering no individual choice.
MMP is a novice system based on false doctrines: Proportional representation need not just be proportiuonal partisanship, but the parties want a proportional count that is not for individual candidates but a count for a privileged group (themselves). And single member constituencies' safe seats are the negation of an election. What's the point of an election if you can reject scarcely any candidates from either their single party member monopolies or their party lists?
That is why the Richard Commission wanted to remove MMP from the Welsh Assembly and replace it with STV. September 19, 2007 13:29 EST
Dyno: There are arguments for FPTP (unelected positions = cronism, partisan hacks) and there are arguments for MMP (which you presented very well.) In the end I'll vote for MMP because, as you said, it has been the same for a very long time. "Change is good" and further I think you've proven that change in this case will not be all bad.
Great article, I hope you don't mind me linking to it in my blog so that my friends can read it.
Dyno
http://mytime-dyno.blogspot.com/ September 20, 2007 08:33 EST
Arthur Hammond: Unlike Daniel Aldana Cohen I am long past my first time. But for most of my life as a voter I have lived in constituencies where, like the majority of my fellow electors, I did not support the candidate who eventually won the election, usually with less than 40% of the vote, not to mention that I and the majority of other voters were opposed to the party that then came to power, always with less than 50% and sometimes less than 40% of the vote. Are Mr. Cohen and I and our fellow losers second-class citizens? Should we simply stop voting out of disillusionment with the system, as more and more people have done? Should we shrug and say, Oh well, that’s the way it has always been (at least since the 19th century, when opposing voters also use to beat each other with clubs at the polls) and we just have to accept it? Or should we expect that our votes should count for something, and that the system should be changed to make that possible, as it has been in most modern democracies? Under the system proposed by the Citizens Assembly – which took eight months to study and think about it – I would at least have the satisfaction of knowing that my second, party vote would help produce a legislature that reflected the wishes of the electorate.
In my view, those who support the present electoral system are in fact saying that they do not believe that all votes should have equal value, that the votes of most electors should count for nothing, and that parties opposed by the majority of the electorate should be able to form majority governments, with total legislative power for four years, with some of the regrettable results that we have seen in Ontario.
September 21, 2007 12:44 EST
Mark Henschel: I too attended practically every public meeting of the Assembly as well as four "presentation" nights and while I couldn't vouch for Daniel's presence I did indeed see Ian Urquhart and other journalists attend. Not often, but they were there.
It doesn't surprise me, then, that Daniel failed to observe the failings of MMP as well.
Richard Lung makes a good start in arguing that MMP is a non-starter. The rationale for MMP only makes some small bit of sense if one considers one candidate to be as good as another. This flies in the face of the universally accepted principle: "if you want the best results, use good stuff". To achieve the best representation, voters should directly choose every representative. If we must have MMP, the lists should have been "open", not "closed".
However, the fact that the OCA's design includes such a high percentage of FPTP, and allowing that it is an "indefensible" system (in the view of many vocal MMP advocates) the only choice to be made on October 10th is "none of the above".
Happily, in Ontario we have that choice. We can decline our ballots. September 28, 2007 12:33 EST
M.: I'm not as factually savvy as some here, but I've voted in enough elections to have had that experience loose it's charm.
Our system needs an overhaul, better and more diverse representation no doubt, but having this system rushed through with not enough popular discussion strikes me as worrisome.
Why in the eight months of debate, where there not daily reports (Or weekly? Monthly?) so that a larger picture was presented. Was this so that voters would fear it and vote it down, or not think about it and have a sub-par voter system change that would only wind up benefiting those who have already figured out how to manipulate it to their advantage?
I would like to see this come to a second referendum in the next election (As is happening in BC). Change for the sake of it is out the pan in into the fire thinking to me, not all that constructive in the end, unless getting burned is your thing.
It would be even better if we had more than two options to choose from at first and to pare down from there.
This is not a do or die vote, one would hope; the question can be asked again. And if we can have a system that works as well as the one implemented in New Zealand then we would be well on our way to truly representative government.
A vote against this option is NOT a vote for the present one, it can mean the start of a valuable discussion leading to positive change.
Note to Mr. Henschel, the last time I worked an election, all refused ballots where not counted, but discarded as "ruined" ballots.
Still we do have choice, and even choices. Not everything has to be decided today...
October 02, 2007 08:06 EST
Mark Henschel: Note to M:
Then those ballots were counted contrary to the regulations and policies of Elections Ontario.
"Declined ballots" are counted distinctly from all other ballots, including refused or defaced ballots, so long as voters accept the ballot and hand it back clearly stating that they are declining them.
This is according to officials at Elections Ontario, not my wishful thinking.
As they are intended, declined ballots can be a fairly clear indication of "none of the above", even if Elections Ontario doesn't attribute any particular meaning to them.
A vote for MMP is a vote for MMP. There are good and convincing arguments that MMP is, in certain important ways, worse than FPTP.
I think a lot more people would vote for change (had the referendum framed the question properly) than would choose MMP. That vote would have better paved the way to further investigation, discussion and choice in the future. A significant "none of the above" vote via declined ballots would serve Ontarians very well in the current situation. October 02, 2007 09:02 EST
M.: I would adopt to decline my ballot if it meant anything as I do not see a change to MMP as a better option beyond the surface. With no meaning attributed, how is declining a ballot different from a garbage can of torn ones? What is the of the value of dissent without voice?
Our system needs change, why not one that is given the consideration to be truly for the better, for once? Why are we having that tired "choosing the best of the worst option?" Having that with our ethically flexible politicians and parties is bad enough.
If we choose a new system that, while better in its intent, is not much better in its effect; if we choose to change our electoral system without giving that option more debate and civic discussion we will then feel compelled to "give it a chance to work" and spend several election cycles attempting to defend it, convince constituents, or otherwise take time away from other important issues — the environment, health care, resources, social support, our lack of a strong manufacturing and our crumbling metropolitan infrastructures.
Making the choice and then having the discussion is backwards, and due to human nature voters are not very likely going to want to change again without the due fair chance on an inadequate alternative to what is so obviously no longer working.
Yes it will give us more diverse representation, this I cannot argue and would very much like to see — a political diversity reflective of our populace! But let's not pretend that the list of those who will sit for their party is not open to manipulation and potential puppetry in parliament — not saying that this isn't happening now; it is the nature of the game...
And while the need for diversity is paramount we have to balance that with the potential stagnancy of coalition governments which can, as in Italy (Lovely country and people, every one should go if they can.), create a bureaucracy whose wheels bung up the works in such a way that to choose again would become such a hunt for oil, it could wind down the option of further discussion or only keep our agenda clogged with protracted debate as noisy and indicative of ball bearings in a dying motor, making another choice in the future a mechanic's nightmare.
I would like us to make our political machine the envy of all the road hogs and to see the time given to create the right motor for our machine.
Thanks for the discussion Mark, October 03, 2007 12:22 EST
Mark Henschel: It was my hope, when I first sat and observed that first meeting of the OCA that we really could develope a system that was the envy of the world.
It is my intention by recommending that voters decline their referendum ballots for us to attach that meaning. I've been working through the summer to have the media and others think about our "none of the above" vote and that that will work to our advantage somehow.
As I said, the declined ballots are counted separately — what they mean is what we intend and what we say they mean. We just have to be vocal.
By the way, was that an Ontario election where you were tossing the declined ballots in with the rejects? Hope not. October 03, 2007 15:41 EST
jenna marie: wonderful read cohen, good to hear your voice again. October 04, 2007 12:37 EST
Anonymous: I admit "None of the above" would be my decision, if I were Ontarian.
The purpose of MMP is to give two dud votes instead of one good vote. The plurality vote and the party vote are the pot and the kettle calling each other black. Two wrongs dont make a right.
A nation has the right to decide its own destiny on the issues important to it. That takes a transferable vote for electing the most prefered candidates in proportion to the main bodies of opinion.
I have written pages on both the British Columbia and Ontario CAs, as well as studied voting methods and reports.
Richard Lung.
http://www.voting.ukscientists.com October 07, 2007 07:04 EST
joshua campbell: I believe in the new system I think that MMP is a good idea and will work well I am a highschool student who for the last two weeks I have been studying this topic and on the day of voting (wednesday) I will be voting Yes in the referendum question. Yes I am 18 and can finally say and act on my views October 09, 2007 07:37 EST
Mark Henschel: Joshua:
Just out of curiosity, what materials have you been studying?
What's your take on the topics of open vs. closed lists, the implementation of optional dual-candidacy and the implications of eliminating overhangs at the expense of proportionality?
Did the Assembly make the right decisions with these?
If you can answer these questions — or discuss them — and still "believe" then... good luck on Wednesday.
And do participate: voting is really important. October 09, 2007 09:52 EST
trineesh biswas: Although the MMP initiative deserves support, I will still be very anxious if it wins tomorrow.
I personally would have preferred the list candidates to have a lower proportion of seats than 39 out of 129, viewing them primarily as a tool to blunt the magnitude of what the author calls "false majorities."
As delighted as I will be to see Green MLAs in Ontario, I fear the rise of an Ontario Front National led by demagogues who will demonize immigrants from a handful of reliable seats at Queen's Park. This is not sufficient reason to oppose proportional representation, but it's worth thinking about.
With respect to Lijphart, it may have been the experience of fascism and World War II, and not just the simple existence of proportional representation and minority governments, that opened the eyes of continental European politicians to the value of consensus. Prior to the war, the Weimar republic's fractured parliament — hardly an exemplar of kind or gentle politics — was also elected by proportional representation.
To take more relevant examples, minority governments in a proportional representation system allowed ultra-Orthodox splinter group Shas to determine Israeli educational policy for years. Coalition politics in India's divided first-past-the-post parliament give the Communists a veto on economic reforms out of all proportion to their share in the popular vote.
Since Ontario has had the good fortune to make it this far without cognitive shocks comparable to those in Europe, I am concerned about politicians' ability to switch from the current adversarial style of opposition to something more cooperative. In light of the ill-mannered shouting that marks parliamentary debate these days, it might be expecting a lot.
October 09, 2007 11:48 EST
Anonymous: I agree with the "decline the ballot" method advocated by Mr. Henschel.
Essentially, section 53 of the Ontario Elections Act gives Ontarians a clear "choice" to NOT choose any nominated politician for a set in the legislature.
However, distinctly different from a spoiled ballot or a discarded, a "declined" is placed beside your name on the voter rolls. So IMHO, you DO have a voice.
IMHO you've essentially said to a politician who looks over the list in any degree of detail..."hey, these guys who 'declined' must be cheesed at the status quo and I'd better do something about it."
If enough people chose this "poorly advertised" right, we might actually get a real change to the antiquated Westminster form of parliament.
BR October 10, 2007 05:52 EST