Themes from Consultation Meeting in Guelph

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: 60

Thoughts about Principles

Effective parliament

  • Parliament should represent a diversity of ideas.

Effective parties

  • Why do we need parties? Why are we trying to ensure representation for parties? Party dominance has interfered with our local representation.

Fairness of representation

  • Demographic representation should be increased without changing the electoral system. It’s up to parties to do so.
  • We should have one representative per constituency. Our representative should think of our local needs.
  • There will always be winners and losers in an election. If you lose, accept it and move on.
  • MPPs should not be elected with only minority support.

Legitimacy

  • The most successful party should exercise power, not the third or fourth largest which might form a coalition.

Simplicity & practicality

  • The Assembly should suggest a system that people will understand, even if it’s flawed, rather than a complex system which tries to solve all problems.

Stable & effective government

  • Coalition governments often give voice to very narrow viewpoints.

Stronger voter participation

  • Stronger voter participation is the key principle.
  • Voter turnout would increase if there was greater accountability.
  • More people would vote if they thought they would be represented.
  • There is no evidence that changing the electoral system will increase turnout.
  • Voter participation would be increased by mandatory voting and other mechanisms (e.g. mail-in ballots).

Thoughts about Ontario’s Current Electoral System

Participants highlighted these advantages of First Past the Post:

  • Our system is simple and easy to understand.
  • Our system has produced stable and effective government.
  • Our system produces effective parliaments.
  • Our system has small riding sizes, which ensure representation for all geographic areas.
  • In our system, our representatives are directly accountable to voters. Our MPPs represent all of us, even those who did not vote for them.
  • Votes are never wasted. The secret ballot makes every vote count.
  • Our system reconciles local needs with the larger perspective of parties.
  • Our system allows parties to compete.

Participants highlighted these disadvantages of the current system:

  • Our system has ‘dumbed down’ democracy by excluding minority points of view. Ideas that many people share are not represented in parliament, media coverage, or debates. A single viewpoint (the winning party’s) predominates in government.
  • Our system distorts election results. It produces manufactured majorities, false winners, and sweeps. Small individual victories can translate into complete dominance by the winning party.
  • In our system, only a minority of voters are represented. The supporters of candidates who lose don’t have a voice. This reduces accountability.
  • In our system, parties must seek wide support. This drives party platforms towards the centre.
  • Our system overemphasizes local representation.
  • Our system advantages parties with regional support (e.g. the Bloc) and disadvantages those with spread-out support (e.g. the Greens).
  • Our system makes it difficult for small parties to be elected.
  • Our system forces us to vote strategically.
  • Our system discourages participation.

Thoughts about Other Systems

Participants made these comments about other systems:

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

  • MMP is a compromise between our system and pure Proportional Representation. It balances party representation and local representation. It will be easer to sell.
  • MMP requires large ridings. Rural and northern areas would lose representation.
  • We should have MMP with regions. This would give the adjustment seats some local character.
  • We should have MMP with a split ballot. This would give voters more choice.
  • We should have MMP with an open list.
  • We should fill adjustment seats with the “best losers” from the local races, not using party lists. The voters should determine who wins seats, not the party. No one should be appointed to the legislature.
  • Using “best losers” would lead to unbalanced geographic representation. There would be two MPPs from some constituencies.
  • Using “best losers” makes it impossible to see ahead of time what a party’s “team” looks like.

Proportional Representation (PR) systems

  • PR creates coalitions, which produce a consensus style of government and make politicians more cooperative with each other (as in New Zealand).
  • PR gives power to more parties. Small parties can have an impact as coalition members.
  • PR represents almost everyone. It reflects the plurality of values found in our communities.
  • In PR, lists may require quotas or limitations on candidates or parties.
  • In PR, there is limited local contact with representatives. MPPs are more likely to think of provincial interests than local ones.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

  • STV is too complicated for voters and vote-counters.
  • STV requires large, multi-member ridings. Rural and northern areas would lose representation.

Two-Round System

  • I would support run-off elections ahead of a preferential system.

“Approval Voting”

  • In this system, ballots and ridings would be unchanged. Voters could vote for as many candidates as they like. The winner would be the candidate who receives the most votes.
  • I believe this system is used by the United Nations to choose the Secretary General.

Other Thoughts

If the Assembly recommends a new system

  • The referendum threshold is too high.
  • The referendum should not be held during the election.

Size of the legislature

  • The legislature should be expanded if needed for a new system (e.g. MMP).

Other comments

  • There are flaws in the Permanent Register of Electors which need to be addressed.

» Return to Summaries of Public Meetings