Themes from Consultation Meeting in Kingston

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: 96

Thoughts about Principles

Accountability

  • Representatives should know what issues are really important to Ontarians—that’s accountability.
  • Local representation is important for accountability.

Effective parliament

  • It is important to have an effective opposition.

Effective parties

  • There should be a 5% threshold.
  • New parties should be able to win seats. Winning seats will encourage voters to take new parties seriously.

Fairness of representation

  • Our electoral system should represent a diversity of views and demographics to reflect our diverse population. Every voice should be heard.
  • Rural areas need better representation.
  • We should reserve seats for Aboriginals (like New Zealand).
  • All citizens should have an equal opportunity to influence the government. Every vote should count.
  • All citizens should participate equally in the collective decision-making process (government). This requires representation in parliament.
  • Low-income people are not fairly represented. Their votes don’t count.
  • Local representation should be eliminated. This would reduce corruption, excessive focus on winnable ridings, and feelings of disenfranchisement when your MPP isn’t in government.
  • Local representation is important for accountability. It also allows campaigns to be run on a low budget.
  • We should have representation based on communities and their sizes. Small cities don’t differ in their needs, e.g. how different are Kingston’s needs from Guelph’s?

Legitimacy

  • Legitimacy comes from inclusion, involvement, and cooperation.

Simplicity & practicality

  • Any new system must be simple enough to win public support.

Stable & effective government

  • Coalitions increase the number of viewpoints represented. Coalition-building is a positive force despite its messy appearance.
  • Coalitions would be likely to support better social programs (e.g. universal daycare.)
  • Coalitions are stable all over the world. Coalitions are often more stable than our system.
  • A reduced chance of majority governments does not mean that stability will be reduced.
  • Stable and effective government does not come from artificial majorities.

Stronger voter participation

  • More young people would vote if they thought their votes counted.
  • Young people don’t vote because they think that voting is an ineffective way to have influence.
  • Young people don’t vote because they prefer non-partisan politics and coalition-building.
  • Compulsory voting would make the system more inclusive.
  • We have the right to choose not to vote. By not voting, we accept the decision of the voters.

Voter choice

Thoughts about Ontario’s Current Electoral System

Participants highlighted these advantages of First Past the Post:

  • Our system permits small ridings, which encourages the representation of local concerns and allows grassroots campaigns.
  • The current system is simple.

Participants highlighted these disadvantages of the current system:

  • In our system, only votes for the winner count. People who vote for a losing candidate are not represented. They are denied their right to participate in the decision-making process.
  • Our system does not reflect voters’ intentions. It produces dramatically disproportional results and manufactured majorities.
  • Our system doesn’t encourage gender equality or cultural diversity in our representatives.
  • In our system, Aboriginal people are not represented.
  • Our system is unfair to groups that are geographically distributed (e.g. students.)
  • Our system is based on an adversarial relationship between government and opposition. The partisanship turns people off politics.
  • In our system, governments have no incentives to focus on long-term goals.
  • Our system produces drastic swings in policy at elections.
  • Our system has ceased to give us stability. Governments are now failing to even get a majority of seats.
  • Our system encourages patronage.

Thoughts about Other Systems

Participants made these comments about other systems:

Alternative Vote (AV)

  • AV would eliminate manufactured majorities.

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

  • MMP provides proportionality while preserving our direct local connection to government. It retains the best features of our system and remedies its deficiencies. It is the best compromise.
  • In MMP, every vote counts even if you don’t get your choice for your riding representative. This would reduce voter apathy.
  • It would eliminate majority governments, and encourage cooperation among political parties.
  • It would increase the number of voices and ideas in politics. It would give us more choice.
  • MMP would increase the representation of underrepresented groups.
  • MMP would help reduce dramatic shifts in policies after elections.
  • MMP is similar enough to our system that it can calm some fears about electoral reform.
  • MMP is less complicated than other systems. It has a better chance of winning a referendum than other proportional systems like Single Transferable Vote (STV).
  • In MMP, party lists could give parties too much power. There should be riding-by-riding polls to decide who is on the list.
  • In MMP, adjustment seats should be filled by the “best losers” of the riding elections. This would eliminate party lists.

“Modified MMP”

  • In this system, two-thirds of seats (100) would be elected locally by a two-round system to ensure that candidates have majorities.
  • One-third of seats (50) would be adjustment seats, divided into 10 regions of 5 seats each. In each region, each party that receives more than 7% of the votes and is not represented in the riding seats would be assigned an adjustment seat. Any remaining adjustment seats would then be assigned for proportionality.
  • This system prioritizes diversity of political parties over strict proportionality.

Proportional Representation (PR) systems

  • PR would give representation to a wider variety of viewpoints.
  • It would reduce strategic voting and reduce cynicism.
  • PR would encourage underrepresented groups to run on party lists. It would increase demographic representation.
  • List PR gives party leaderships too much power.
  • Party lists should be determined in a democratic manner. This should be formalized in legislation and must be addressed by the Citizens’ Assembly.
  • PR would increase the number of coalition governments.
  • PR may be complex, but so is our current system. “Seat share should equal vote share” is simple enough to be understood.
  • Pure PR requires large multi-member districts which break the connection between voters and their representatives.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

  • In STV, districts have to be relatively large. This makes the elections vulnerable to manipulation by the media or corporations.
  • We have limited experience with STV in North America where we have the most power-oriented societies in the world.
  • I prefer STV, but it’s a tough sell and may not pass the referendum threshold.

Other Thoughts

If the Assembly recommends a new system

  • The 60% referendum threshold is too high. The referendum should require a simple majority.
  • The referendum should only be held after widespread education and consultation.
  • The referendum question should present a clear alternative. The question should be clear and the proposal should be simple.

Size of the legislature

  • A larger legislature would bring the ratio of voters to representatives closer to the federal ratio.
  • Increasing the number of seats in the legislature by about one-third would create more benefits than problems.

Other comments

  • Contributions to political parties should be restricted. Reform of political finance is crucial.
  • The electoral system should address the growing concentration of wealth and media.
  • Education is key to getting out the youth vote.
  • The consultation meetings attract mostly people who want change. Those who don’t want change are not represented.

» Return to Summaries of Public Meetings