Ontario Citizens Assembly

Mixed Member Proportionality vs. First Past the Post.

That is what Ontarians will be voting for in the electoral reform referendum on October 12.

On Sunday the Ontario Citizens assembly voted 94-8 in favour of the Mixed Member Proportional system of electing representatives. While I don't plan to be in the province for the referendum or election, I do plan on voting by special ballot.

I know I know, this is a dry issue and it doesn't typically bring much emotional discussion with it, why is this kid blogging about it?

Well here's why. I recently finished a third year political science class here at MTA about Canadian electoral politics. 1/3 of the course was a simulated citizens assembly on electoral reform, just like the one wrapping up in Ontario.

When it came time for our class to make a recommendation, it came down to one of two systems, MMP and FPTP. The final vote was ridiculously close, something like 12-11 in favour of MMP. After the vote, both sides plead to the other to join their sides so there could be a larger margin of victory.

What prevailed was a pretty heated discussion into both the flaws of the FPTP system and what a change to MMP might mean. Emotions ran high and some students (including myself) got really into it.

Maybe it was just because we were political science students, in a class full of political science dorks, that it got as heated as it did. But I would bet that if you collected a group of any people with and solid base in politics and asked them to do the same thing, the resulting discussion would (eventually) get quite heated.

The reason for this, I believe, is the role that the electoral process plays on politics. If Ontario chooses a new electoral system, the dynamics of their politics will change with that electoral system. To look at a Canadian example of this, look at the May/Dion deal last week. Under a proportional electoral system, the green party would already have a seat in the House. The Green leader would not need to run in a riding such as Central Nova, and would certainly not need sign an electoral pact with the Liberals.

I am not commenting on whether it is in Canadians interests for such a deal to happen, I am only pointing out that under a PR system, this probably would not happen. By changing to a MMP system, who knows what kind of changes to the political system will occur.

The National Post has an interesting article about that very thing today titled "PR is a bad idea":

PR also detaches legislators from a grounding in specific, local concerns. Party discipline can be stifling enough as things stand. Under PR, with a large percentage of members elected from lists chosen by party organizations, as opposed to voters in a specific riding, it would be much worse.
The experience of the past hundred years in numerous countries has shown how PR leads small parties to breed like rabbits. Politics becomes a continual cabinet shuffle, with jostling and shifting coalitions. Governing along any steady course becomes extremely difficult. The Italians know this all too well, but when they tried to get rid of PR, the politicians who had gained power under that system got in the way.

In Israel, similarly, proportional representation often has produced government gridlock. Major parties such as Labor, Likud and Kadima typically get no more than a third of the total seats in the Knesset. And so a party leader who seeks to form a government often trade horses with a half-dozen minor parties with their own parochial agendas. In some cases -- West Bank settlers and ultra-religious Jews come to mind -- the policies of the government are seriously distorted in the process.

While I don't necessarily think the idea of PR is a bad thing, I agree with alot of what this article has to say. In particular with the influence that fringe parties might gain.

Something I believe is a strength of the first past the post system is the need for major parties to reach out to a diverse group of individuals . Under MMP or other proportional electoral systems, instead of reaching out to diverse groups of individuals, all parties need to do is reach out to enough minor or fringe parties to form government.

It is easy to become frustrated as a conservative when the Conservatives go fishing for votes in Liberal waters. Likewise for a socialist when the Dippers move to the center. But I have come to understand why this is done, and to see it as a good thing for democracy.

I fear that this inclusive spirit will be lost in our parties under a proportional system, and it may lead to the inclusive spirit being lost in how these parties govern....

My other worry is that a change to MMP might not achieve the goals we have for it.

To me, the best arguments for electoral reform is that it is necessary in achieving the goal of increasing voter turnout and decreasing voter apathy; not that FPTP is unfair. I find the majority of people who use fairness as an argument tend to be coming off an election loss themselves.

As far as increasing turnout, many people tend to believe that it will be achieved though some form of proportional representation. That the cure to voter apathy is, at least in part, proportionality.

To anybody who believes this notion, I advise you to look at the facts a little deeper. While states with proportional systems do have higher turnouts on an aggregate ( see Blais, A. and A. Dobrzynska. 1998). States that switch from FPTP systems to more proportional systems often see a decrease in voter turnout. In NewZealand's case, voter turnout was fairly constant over time, and did not experience a drop in turnout until AFTER the switch. (see Henderson, A. 2006, in Canadian Public Policy)

Despite all this, if Ontario and eventually Canada reform their electoral system, I might grumble slightly, but in the name of democracy it may be for the best.

If 60 percent of the population, from 60 percent of the riding's believes it is good for Ontario, then that is the will of the people.

All I ask is that people inform themselves.
Look at both sides of the issue.
Understand that changing your electoral system will change your political system.
Be prepared for unintended and unmentioned consequences that may result.
And get excited the issue.

It is an important debate, and it is something worth getting excited about. If everybody does this, irregardless of the outcome, democracy will have truly won.