Ontario Provincial Election

[For-Life]

We have it coming up on October 10 if I am correct. There are two questions:

1. What Party are you voting for?
2. Are you in favour of the proposed Mixed Proportional Representation system versus the First Past the Post?

For Party, this one is tough. I figure I will make my decision in the voting booth. On one hand, you have McGuinty who is just a poor leader, but I really like my Liberal MPP. Then you have the NDP who is pro-North, and we really need that in this region. On the other hand, it is the NDP. Finally, you have John Tory who I think could be a good leader, and I think is a centralist. On the other hand, what social cuts will he make?

As for the new system of voting, I am totally against it. It will remove representation. We will have members who have not been elected running Ontario.

[shanbaum]

We have it coming up on October 10 if I am correct. There are two questions:

1. What Party are you voting for?
2. Are you in favour of the proposed Mixed Proportional Representation system versus the First Past the Post?

For Party, this one is tough. I figure I will make my decision in the voting booth. On one hand, you have McGuinty who is just a poor leader, but I really like my Liberal MPP. Then you have the NDP who is pro-North, and we really need that in this region. On the other hand, it is the NDP. Finally, you have John Tory who I think could be a good leader, and I think is a centralist. On the other hand, what social cuts will he make?

As for the new system of voting, I am totally against it. It will remove representation. We will have members who have not been elected running Ontario.

I was in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, and while I was walking through the Busker Festival, someone thrust a pamphlet in my hands about Mixed Proportional Representation. I thought it looked like a pretty good idea - the composition of the assembly would more accurately reflect the collective intent of the voters. With first past the post, 49.999999% of the voters could end up with zero representation. With MRP, they'd get something a lot closer to 49.999999%. What's not to like? You'd still either get the guy you voted for or the other guy, but either way, your vote would be reflected in the ultimate composition of the legislature.

[For-Life]

In Canada our Parliaments are represented by Seats. When we have an election, I vote for my local candidate. The Party with the most candidates wins. The main idea here is that you have a representitive from your area. In the new system, that still happens, but extra candidates are added that have not been voted in. Essentially, those who lost in their area will be added. My concern is that these ones will come from larger municipalities and regions, where the littles ones will have a more diluted voice. Additionally, this also means that a lot of cabinent ministers will not be elected officials. Why? Well if a minister wants to round out his cabinent for the popular vote, he or she is going to pick friends.

[shanbaum]

Essentially, those who lost in their area will be added.

I don't think that's correct - the ones added in are taken from party lists to ensure that the composition of Parliament roughly conforms to the vote. There are quite a few effects that could have - for instance, if a party won a majority of seats by many large margins, its overall share of seats could increase; whereas, if it won by very small margins, its overall share could decrease.

It's true that the representatives added in aren't directly elected, but that may be a more accurate model of what happens in legislatures, that is, they tend to act not as collections of individuals, but as adversarial blocs - i.e., parties.

[Wayne Smith]

You said:

"There are two questions:
What Party are you voting for?
Are you in favour of the proposed Mixed Proportional Representation system versus the First Past the Post?"

Wrong. You don't get to vote for a party under the current system. You only get to vote for your local member. Most of us vote for people who don't get elected, so our votes don't make any difference to the outcome of the election. As a result, the results of the election are terribly skewed. Sometimes the party with the most votes loses the election. Usually one party gets all the power, even though most people voted against them.

Under MMP, every voter will have a party vote that actually helps elect somebody every time. Every party will have MPPs in every part of the province. Every voter will have access to MPPs from every party.

Besides having more choice and fairer results, every voter and every part of the province will have stronger representation.

I suggest everyone read the final report of the Citizens' Assembly at www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca and find out what is really being recommended, by whom, and why. Then vote for MMP on October 10.

The outcome of the referendum will be far more important than the outcome of the election. It could change the way we do politics in Ontario forever.

I am coordinating the provincial Speakers' Bureau for the Vote for MMP campaign, so if anyone has a group of any size that would entertain a speaker on this topic, please contact me.

Thank you!

Wayne Smith
416-407-7009
Speakers@VoteforMMP.ca

[For-Life]

With the MMP System the fill in of candidates is not from the region, but for whoever the party deems to fill in those extra spots with.

Yes, you vote for the person, because you want that person to represent you. For instance, if I vote for Michelle Gravelle, it is because I want him to represent my region. Right now, Northern Ontario has enough of a fight with only three MPPs. What this would do is further dilute that. The other Parties would fill in the vacant positions from high profile areas.

Yes, you gain more representation of the popular vote, but you get less representation for a region.

[For-Life]

I don't think that's correct - the ones added in are taken from party lists to ensure that the composition of Parliament roughly conforms to the vote. There are quite a few effects that could have - for instance, if a party won a majority of seats by many large margins, its overall share of seats could increase; whereas, if it won by very small margins, its overall share could decrease.

It's true that the representatives added in aren't directly elected, but that may be a more accurate model of what happens in legislatures, that is, they tend to act not as collections of individuals, but as adversarial blocs - i.e., parties.

Those who are filling in spots would probably have to be candidates. Now, since the elected candidates already have seats, only the losers in the election would fill in those positions.

If a region rejects one candidate then why would that person still gain a seat?

[For-Life]

A local university professor says an upcoming referendum question in the provincial election could have serious consequences for Northwestern Ontario.
Doug West, a political sciences professor at Lakehead Unversity says the question concerning voting systems could determine how strong a voice the Northwest has at Queen's Park.
The question centres around maintaining the first-past-the-post electoral system, which we currently use, or moving to a mixed-member-proportional system. Under the proposed new system, the two ridings in this region could be amalgamated into one, because of population numbers. West says, not only would it result in a weaker voice, but it could have consequences during the dispersal of provincial funds.
''There's some basic funds that need to be there for services that the province is committed to. In the delivery of those funds might be a little more problematic because you don't have as many people reminding the government to do that.''
Under the proposal, voters would get to select some MPPs from a provincial list of nominees. But West says, given our low population, it's unlikely we would gain any representatives through that vote.

http://www.tbtv.com/NWNews-Story.aspx?cid=99354

[shanbaum]

Those who are filling in spots would probably have to be candidates. Now, since the elected candidates already have seats, only the losers in the election would fill in those positions.

If a region rejects one candidate then why would that person still gain a seat?

It's not the person - it's the party. The whole point is to end up with a legislature that more accurate reflects the parties' relative shares of the overall vote.

MPR won't make sense if you think that first-past-the-post makes sense.

[Wayne Smith]

Under the MMP proposal we will be voting for on October 10, the parties will have to submit their ordered list of candidates to Elections Ontario before the election. They will also have to report on the process used to create those lists. They will also have to explain why the process was fair and democratic.

So, the identity of the list candidates, the method used to create the list, and the rationale for the method, will all be available for scrutiny by the voters, the media, and the other parties, throughout the election campaign. Voters will be able to see whether each party's list contains candidates from every part of the province, has a good balance of men and women, and reflects the diversity of Ontario's population. The nominating process for list candidates will be far more open and transparent than the current nomination process for riding candidates.

Parties will have to include candidates from every area of the province in prominent positions on their list because, and here's the kicker, under MMP, every vote counts, no matter how you vote or where you vote. Even a few votes in a region will help to elect your list members. No longer can whole regions be written off. Under the current system, all the attention is paid to a few swing voters in a few swing ridings. Under MMP, every voter is equal and every region is equal.

When the votes are counted, candidates who have won their riding come off the list and the list seats go, by default, to areas where the party has not won ridings. Every party will have MPPs in every region. Every voter will have local MPPs from every party. There will be fewer constituents per MPP.

It is important to understand that the party list is a list of candidates. Of course the party names the candidates on the list, just as they name the candidates in the ridings. The candidates on the list do not get elected unless they attract enough votes to the party, just like the candidates in the ridings.

There is a great deal of bafflegab being spread around on this topic. Please read the report of the Citizens' Assembly:

www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca

[For-Life]

It's not the person - it's the party. The whole point is to end up with a legislature that more accurate reflects the parties' relative shares of the overall vote.

MPR won't make sense if you think that first-past-the-post makes sense.

It does a fair job of representing Canadians in overall popular vote per seat. Canada and the Province of Ontario are very spread out. We also have the majority of our population in one small area. The FPP system has given more representation to areas that does not have a great amount of people.

Without the value of a strong representative, areas can be forgotten about.

[For-Life]

Under the MMP proposal we will be voting for on October 10, the parties will have to submit their ordered list of candidates to Elections Ontario before the election. They will also have to report on the process used to create those lists. They will also have to explain why the process was fair and democratic.

So, the identity of the list candidates, the method used to create the list, and the rationale for the method, will all be available for scrutiny by the voters, the media, and the other parties, throughout the election campaign. Voters will be able to see whether each party's list contains candidates from every part of the province, has a good balance of men and women, and reflects the diversity of Ontario's population. The nominating process for list candidates will be far more open and transparent than the current nomination process for riding candidates.

Parties will have to include candidates from every area of the province in prominent positions on their list because, and here's the kicker, under MMP, every vote counts, no matter how you vote or where you vote. Even a few votes in a region will help to elect your list members. No longer can whole regions be written off. Under the current system, all the attention is paid to a few swing voters in a few swing ridings. Under MMP, every voter is equal and every region is equal.

When the votes are counted, candidates who have won their riding come off the list and the list seats go, by default, to areas where the party has not won ridings. Every party will have MPPs in every region. Every voter will have local MPPs from every party. There will be fewer constituents per MPP.

It is important to understand that the party list is a list of candidates. Of course the party names the candidates on the list, just as they name the candidates in the ridings. The candidates on the list do not get elected unless they attract enough votes to the party, just like the candidates in the ridings.

There is a great deal of bafflegab being spread around on this topic. Please read the report of the Citizens' Assembly:

www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca

Every riding will have MPPs, yes. But legislature will be watered down by people who do not represent particular ridings. Now when there are many more candidates from the Toronto area, how are regions with fewer ones going to regularly have a fulfilled list? It just will not happen.

This will essentially end up being the placement of more representation down in Toronto.

[blueyedviking]

Can't vote in Ontario, but my vote would go to the Freedom Party of Ontario.
www.freedomparty.on.ca/

[For-Life]

I was not a big supporter of the NDP coming in, but with Hampton from Kenora and his pro-north stance, there was a chance. I really backed down when he pushed for the $10 minimum wage, and I have now decided I will not vote for them at all with him pushing for an immediate one.

Still up between the PC and Libs for me.

[For-Life]

Well, I am lucky. I just moved and had not updated my information. This means I had a choice of two ridings to vote in. The current one I am living in has a Liberal MPP. He is a fine man, and busts his quad to get things through to his idiot leader. I knew he was going to win, so I did not see as much purpose in voting for or against him (probably for if I voted in this district). The other region was a close call. Currently has a Liberal MPP who is an idiot and a PC candidate who works hard for the region. I figure that the PCs will not win, but by her representing us in a Liberal dominated area, especially if a minority wins (which it does not appear to happen anymore), she could be an asset. So I voted for PC for the first time in my life.

Though, to me, the PC Party of Ontario is far from the evil Harper Canadian Conservative Party.

As for the voting system, the more I read about it, the more firmer I became in my stance for the current, first past the post system. Under the other system, my region was going to lose a MPP. That means less representation!!! Plus, I saw information about how Mixed Member Proportional (this was pushed by MMP supporters) that the system would mean more women and minorities in Parliament. I then realized this would be true. Though, not because these particular women or minorities have been ignored by the public for racial or sexist reasons, but to try to look fairer. I voted for a female and have no problem voting for a minority. But I vote for the best person, not sex, race, sexual orientation, or colour of hair. I could just see this system where extra females/minorities who, in these particular cases, tend to be horrible candidates, just to balance things off.

Lets stick with voting for each of our member in our region. I want representation, and that is why I vote.

[Wayne Smith]

There are lots of capable candidates among women and minorities, and both experience and studies show that Canadians will vote for them—if they can get their names on the ballot!

The problem for women in Canada is not getting elected, it is getting nominated in a winnable riding. Same thing for minorities. When every riding sends one MPP to Queen's Park, then every riding association tends to use the same strategy to select its candidate, and we end up with a lot of MPPs who all look the same.

With a proportional system and a slate of candidates, the strategy is different—something for everyone. That is why every country except Cuba that elects at least 30% women in its national assembly uses a proportional voting system.

When New Zealand switched to MMP, they immediately started electing more women, and twice as many Maori people, as well as Pacific Islanders, Asians, Muslims, and all sorts of people who had never been elected in New Zealand before.

Meanwhile in Ontario, we have 25% women in our Leg, and we have NEVER elected an Aboriginal person. Shameful.

[For-Life]

Go to a political science class, that will tell you why we only have 25 percent women in parliament. It is the same with female CEOs. People always questiont the lack of them, but the business program I took was 10 percent female in undergrad and 0 percent in grad school. Less people running, means less will get in. I was at a recent conference where Aboriginal Leaders discussed consultations, and they made their reasons clear why they do not run.

I live in a very backwards area of the nation, and we have a female Mayor, MPP candidates, and so forth. People have no problem voting for them, even as riding candidates, if they are the best person for the job.