The Big Choice? - Referendum on Electoral Reforms in Ontario

October 1 2007 by The Systemic Analyst.

On October 10th, 2007, Ontarians heading to the polls will face two big questions: who would they like to put in power now and how would they like to elect governments in the future?

The first question, regarding who will be put in power, doesn’t differ greatly from elections past. As a result, the outcome is relatively predictable. Undoubtedly, the next premier of Ontario will be the leader of one of the three major political parties: Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic. In fact, despite a smattering of independent candidates, it is likely that nearly all of the newly elected representatives in Ontario will be members of some existing party due to their established track record and functioning campaigning machine.

The second question surrounding electoral reforms is, perhaps, not so simple. Ontarians are being asked to choose between the existing electoral system and a new one.

A group called the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform has recommended the new electoral option. The group’s 104 members were not elected by constituents but were “selected at random from the permanent Register of Electors to represent each electoral district in Ontario.” Members of the group are purported to have not necessarily been familiar with electoral systems or the long-term impact of such systems on democracy before being selected by the government to participate.

The first option, our current form, is referred to as First-Past-The-Post. In this electoral system, each voter in the 107 electoral districts receives “one vote to choose which candidate they feel should win a seat in the provincial legislature.” Voters base their decisions on both, a candidate’s personal record and his/her party affiliation. Those candidates receiving the most votes in a riding win. The party that wins the most overall seats forms a government – making the electoral system more a party-based one than one of direct representation.

The second option, called Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), is a little more complicated.

Under a MMP electoral system, Ontarians would be given “two votes in future elections: one for a ‘Local Member’ and one for a political party.” The first vote allows citizens to elect a ‘Local Member’ as is done currently under a First-Past-The-Post system. Only 90 provincial legislature seats would be filled in this manner.

With their second vote, Ontarians would be asked to opt between political parties. (This is not to be confused with other systems that ask voters to choose between leaders directly.) Based on the number of votes received, parties will decide who will fill an additional 38 provincial legislature seats from “List Members.” Only those parties that receive 3% or more of the vote will be allowed to choose from its roster of “List Members”.

As with the current system, the political party that wins the most legislature seats will be asked to form a government under a MMP electoral system.

Both systems reinforce the importance of political parties in electing a government. Mixed Member Proportional, however, reinforces a party-based system considerably more than First-Past-The-Post.

Parties remain the most accepted channel for citizens and groups to advance a particular agenda. Normally, three factors influence a party’s chances of being successful in an election:

• A solid political platform that caters to the electorate,

• A robust campaigning machine with sufficient financial support; and

• The minimum threshold percentage set to mark the passing point (3% under the proposed MMP formula).

While the first two factors are familiar to all, the third requires more examination, especially under the suggested MMP system. One of the arguments used to advocate for the new system is that MMP offers “good proportionality and strong encouragement for representation of social diversity.” Indeed, under the proposed system, smaller parties will have a greater chance of being elected, as the 3% threshold is quite low (compared to 5% in Germany, for example where a similar systems has been used since 1949). As long as these small parties can create a functioning structure, develop an attractive agenda and secure funding their chances of being elected will be quite good.

In fact, should the new system be adopted, Ontario may see its political landscape gradually transformed. As opposed to our current system, dominated by three major parties, smaller interest-based groups might find greater voice in parliamentary debate. In exchange for the best incentives, these smaller interest-based groups could align with whichever of the larger three groups accordingly to help advance a common agenda.

While a low threshold increases diversity, it also increases the likelihood that narrow-based interest groups formed around religious, ethnic, economic or political extremist lines will determine the outcome of political stalemates. For example, a similar electoral system in Israel, which sets the threshold at 2%, does allow for greater representation of different groups. In exchange for financial support smaller religious-based parties form governing coalitions with bigger groups. Such alignment enables the smaller parties to have far more impact on the wider political landscape than would the number of votes given such groups suggest. Indeed, in Germany the threshold as been purposely kept at 5% to prevent the extreme right or neo-Nazi parties from entering into mainstream politics.

In both Israel and Germany, history and existing political culture determine public preferences for and ultimately the success of an electoral system. In Canada, in this case Ontario specifically, rapidly changing demographics and socio-economics should be carefully considered. In the absence of a clearly defined Canadian identity with obvious symbols of nationalism or unifying causes, the outcome might be more chaotic than in either Israel or Germany. The political landscape might become more akin to a crowded bazaar where everyone is concerned with satisfying immediate, personal interests forgetting about the common good of the wider Ontarian/Canadian community.

There are many angles from which the electoral alternatives must be considered – all of which should include the long-term impact the proposed electoral system might have on the political landscape. Despite efforts by the Ontario government to raise awareness of the referendum, focus has remained on the debates surrounding funding faith-based education. It is a shame more attention is not being given to electoral reforms, after all, the outcome of this referendum will certainly have lasting effects should the current system be altered.

Have your say, click here to take our survey on Electoral Reforms in Ontario.

Posted in North America | No Comments »