New York—Whoever wins tomorrow’s Ontario provincial election, it’s going to be remembered as a test case for the maxim that in politics, big ideas don’t sell. John Tory, as I wrote a few weeks ago, will probably become code for what happens when politicians forget the maxim. From now on, party leaders are going to think even harder before going to the electorate with a sweeping proposal for change.

Tomorrow’s referendum on proportional representation looks likely to reinforce that conclusion. Whatever the wisdom of a mixed-member proportional system, there’s no justification for putting it to a vote when 3 million Ontarians can’t tell you what it means. If John Tory is guilty of introducing a big idea for the wrong reasons, Dalton McGuinty is guilty of introducing a big idea for the right reasons — and then abandoning it. Regardless, the cause of reform is not being served.

If the referendum is defeated, the cause of PR will be pushed back, to the understandable frustration of its proponents. And if it somehow passes, there will be very fair questions about the legitimacy of a reform that nobody understands. Neither situation is a win for McGuinty. So either way, the next candidate who wants to propose something amazing in this country is going to have to ask him or herself whether it’s really worth the trouble.

However. The referendum’s going ahead, and it leaves us to ask whether mixed-member proportional representation is a good idea for Ontario. Those opposed will point out that PR systems tend to produce less stable governments, and to make those governments more susceptible to small parties far outside the mainstream of public opinion. Those arguments are fair in the abstract, though minority governments seem to be the trend in Ottawa and the sky hasn’t fallen; likewise, radical fringe parties in Canada seem to lean more toward the silly than the dangerous.

Supporters of PR have equally valid arguments, mostly centering around the inherent unfairness of awarding majority governments to parties that win less — often far less — than a majority of the vote. This system takes a diversity of views and funnels them into a small number of established parties, leaving the truly different to assimilate or just stay home. The first-past-the-post system also means that a Tory supporter in a Liberal riding, or vice versa, doesn’t have a terribly good reason to bother casting a vote. Under proportional representation, every vote counts.

How you vote in the referendum probably has something to do with how you see democracy itself. If you see democracy as a constant, you’ll probably vote no. After all, first-past-the-post has worked well enough for us so far; why risk a good thing? If, on the other hand, you see democracy as a construct, as a work in progress, something that can either improve or decline, you might see this referendum differently.

There’s no guarantee that PR will work any better than what we’ve got now, that its benefits will outweigh its shortcomings. It’s a risk we take. But the other risk, the risk of the status quo, is complacency and disinterest. I’m genuinely uncertain which is worse. I suppose it comes down to how much faith we have in ourselves — to try something new and to get it right.