Themes from Consultation Meeting in Barrie

This is a summary of thoughts expressed by members of the public who attended this consultation meeting. If a point was made by more than one participant, it is included only once in the summary. The comments below sometimes contradict one another because they reflect the diversity of the viewpoints of participants.

Number of public participants: 20

Thoughts about Principles

Accountability

  • Accountability is linked to transparency. It’s hard to hold people accountable if you don’t understand how decisions are made.
  • In large parties, decisions are made in secret. In coalitions, decisions are made more openly.
  • We need local representatives to hold accountable.

Effective parliament

  • There’s a trade-off between effective parliament and effective parties. Individual MPPs don’t have enough power because parties are too strong.

Effective parties

  • Coalition governments make parties more effective because parties are forced to work together.
  • We already have coalitions in our system. Large parties are essentially coalitions.
  • Parties are too effective. They manipulate voters and the media.

Fairness of representation

  • We need to be able to talk to our local MPPs to give them “the pulse of the people.” MPPs should have to listen to the public.
  • There should be more women in power.
  • We need geographic representation.

Legitimacy

  • A government can’t be legitimate if most people didn’t vote for it, or if representation is unfair.

Simplicity & practicality

  • Simplicity and practicality are not that important. We can have more complex systems, or systems that take longer to get results.
  • Simplicity and practicality are very important. The average voter needs something straightforward to understand.
  • A new system must be practical, but we shouldn’t sacrifice other principles for practicality.

Stable & effective government

  • Coalitions give more long-term consistency across governments.
  • Policy changes from new governments are expected and necessary because circumstances change.
  • Some of the best governments are minorities or coalitions, so stability isn’t a problem. Other systems can create stable governments.
  • A stable government should be able to get through its four-year mandate. Coalitions may not last long enough to carry out their agendas.
  • I like stable government, but it’s not sufficient. A system must also be effective.

Stronger voter participation

  • Voter participation is too low. Greater participation would legitimize the electoral process.
  • More people would vote if representation were fairer. People don’t vote because of wasted votes.
  • More people would vote if they had more interaction with their MPPs.
  • We should consider mandatory voting or rewards for voting (e.g. a tax rebate).

Voter choice

  • People vote for many different reasons: for a party, for a candidate, or against a party or candidate. An electoral system should allow people to express these preferences simply.
  • I like the idea of preferential ballots. They allow our second choices to count.
  • People should be able to split their vote (e.g. between parties and candidates) to let them make more strategic choices.

Thoughts about Ontario’s Current Electoral System

Participants highlighted these advantages of First Past the Post:

  • It produces majority governments. They are stable and can make unpopular but necessary decisions.
  • We have geographic representation.
  • We can vote for an independent candidate in our system.

Participants highlighted these disadvantages of the current system:

  • Results can be confusing. There is no clear (i.e. proportional) relationship between votes and seats.
  • It forces voters to make complicated choices, e.g. to vote strategically or against someone (and it is difficult to vote against someone).
  • It produces wasted votes—these votes don’t count. It’s frustrating to voters.
  • In our system, the majority party can do whatever it wants. The opposition can say anything it wants. No one is held accountable.
  • Big parties are over-represented and small parties are under-represented.
  • The current system is unstable. Small changes in vote share create big ideological swings in governments. There is no long-term planning.
  • In our system, a small number of people make the decisions.
  • The current system can produce governments with extreme positions.

Thoughts about Other Systems

Participants made these comments about other systems:

Alternative Vote (AV)

  • AV is the most effective system. (No details were given.)

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

  • MMP would reduce wasted votes and strategic voting, create a more representative legislature, increase transparency, consistently produce coalitions, and increase voter choice and participation.
  • Under MMP, people would accept a larger legislature if it reflected Ontario better.
  • If we change to an MMP system, there should be a single ballot.

Parallel Systems

  • We should have a parallel system. We should add 20 proportional seats, each representing 5% of the vote.
  • A parallel system would create a pool of MPPs (e.g. the Premier, Cabinet, party leaders) who could concentrate on issues other than representing their ridings.
  • A parallel system should have closed lists so the party can act strategically. High-profile people who don’t want to run locally and important riding candidates who lose could still be in parliament.
  • In a parallel system, we should only vote once to avoid confusion.
  • In a parallel system, there should be a threshold for the proportional seats to avoid having too many parties.

Proportional Representation (PR) systems

  • In PR, parties can appeal to smaller groups for support. This makes the choices more explicit.
  • Having too many choices in PR leads to unstable governments. Coalitions may not last long enough to carry out their agendas.
  • I think PR has successes (Germany, New Zealand, Scandinavia) and failures (Italy, Israel). Stability is based on where you are, not what system you have.
  • In PR, extreme groups could get elected on one issue and hold the balance of power.
  • In PR, coalitions would moderate policies to avoid extremes. The major parties would cooperate.
  • In List-PR, there is no local accountability. List members may not listen to the public. Parties would have too much power.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

  • STV was too complicated for voters in BC.

Two-Round System

  • Poorer countries use Two-Round Systems, so we can afford them.
  • We don’t need immediate election results. It’s okay to take time for a second round.

Other Thoughts

If the Assembly recommends a new system

  • The 60% threshold is too high and unfair. It will prevent change.
  • The ballot question should be simple enough for the electorate to accept it.
  • There should be advertising before the referendum.

Size of the legislature

  • We should not reduce the number of MPPs. It’s bad policy.
  • We should keep the number of MPPs under 200. 150-180 would be okay.

Other comments

  • The government needs to be accountable at all times, not just at election time. We should have recall.
  • We should not have recall. It would be hard to prevent constant recalls.
  • We could have periodic plebiscites on major issues.
  • We should consider a broader change in the structure of government, for example, the U.S. model. There could be a greater division of powers.

» Return to Summaries of Public Meetings