Themes from Consultation Meeting in Niagara Falls

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: 28

Thoughts about Principles

Accountability

  • Cabinet solidarity prevents us from holding MPPs accountable.
  • MPPs should hold party leaders accountable. Leaders should need their approval at least once a year.

Effective parliament

  • The legislature should be about debate, including controversy.
  • We should have an effective opposition. Government should be based on compromises.

Effective parties

  • Small parties should be able to win seats. They bring new ideas to the table and voters like them.

Fairness of representation

  • Every vote should count and contribute to the outcome of elections.
  • The First Nations should have representation.
  • All voters should be represented. We should increase the engagement of under-represented groups (e.g. women, Aboriginals, youth).

Simplicity & practicality

  • Electoral systems should be simple for citizens, not for politicians.
  • We shouldn’t insult the public’s intelligence by thinking that they can’t understand a particular electoral system.

Stable & effective government

  • Coalitions are long lasting where they are common; in Europe, coalition governments can last 4-5 years.
  • Coalitions reduce policy lurches as governments change from one party to the next.

Stronger voter participation

  • Voter participation is declining because people think they are wasting their votes.
  • More people would vote for other parties if they thought those parties had a chance of being elected.
  • There is no connection between electoral systems and voter turnout. Politicians are to blame for voter apathy, not the electoral system.

Voter choice

  • Ranking of choices can be confusing. Voting should be simple.

Thoughts about Ontario’s Current Electoral System

Participants highlighted these advantages of First Past the Post:

  • Our system is the same as the federal system.
  • In our system, MPPs can represent their constituency’s interests.
  • Our system is simple. Voting is clear. The results of elections are clear and fast.
  • Our system produces stable and effective governments. It produces majorities where the governing party can make important decisions without having to play politics.
  • Our system has worked well since 1792. If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.
  • Our system represents the voters. Our local representative is the most popular one. In 1995 and 2003, people wanted change and received it.

Participants highlighted these disadvantages of the current system:

  • Our system does not reflect the true wishes of voters.
  • In our system, if your candidate doesn’t win your vote is thrown into the garbage. This makes people vote for candidates who have a chance to win and prevents the spread of new ideas and the growth of new parties.
  • Our system discourages new parties. Many parties get votes and no seats. We have essentially two parties in Canada.
  • Our system produces weak oppositions. The governing party can do what it wants (“King for a Day”). It’s winner-take-all.
  • In our system, the majority of people usually vote against the winners.
  • Our system produces shifts in policy after elections. What one party does, the other gets in and unravels.

Thoughts about Other Systems

Participants made these comments about other systems:

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

  • MMP combines local representation with the fairness and versatility of PR. It is the way to go.
  • MMP allows independents to be elected as riding members. MMP systems with regional lists can also allow independents to be elected.
  • In MMP, list members can focus on regional or province-wide issues. There could be a useful division of responsibilities between the two classes of members.
  • We should have an MMP system with adjustment seats calculated in regions (8-10 members per region). This ensures that each region gets some list members elected.
  • In MMP, there is a trade-off between emphasis on local ridings, and proportionality.
  • MMP allows parties to use their lists to increase the representation of under-represented groups (e.g. Aboriginals, women, and youth).
  • An MMP system could use an open list to allow voters to choose which candidates are elected and reduce the power of party leaders.
  • MMP with regional lists could give power (to decide who gets on the list) to the grassroots and not the party leaders.
  • MMP ensures that parties are not wiped out (as the NDP was in 1993).

Proportional Representation (PR) systems

  • PR makes every vote count.
  • PR is supported by people on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
  • PR is the only way to encourage small parties.
  • In PR, thresholds can be used to prevent fractious legislatures. With thresholds, majority governments are common in PR.
  • PR gives power to small parties, like the Greens, who have a lot to offer and can help keep the others honest and get things done.
  • PR strengthens political parties.
  • PR would give representation to First Nations.
  • In PR, party lists give party leaderships too much power over MPPs.
  • PR makes it hard for politicians to govern because no party will have a clear majority. It is also hard for voters to know who to blame.

Other Thoughts

If the Assembly recommends a new system

  • The Assembly must communicate its proposal in a way that people will understand it.
  • I intend to support the recommendation, no matter what it is. It is almost impossible for any recommendation following so much information, consultation, and consideration not to be better than the current system.

Size of the legislature

  • Enlarging the legislature might cost more, but democracy is worth it in this case.

Other comments

  • We should focus attention on partisan processes instead of on electoral systems. Politics is too leader-focused. For the price of a membership, anyone of any political stripe can vote for a party leader.
  • We can fix the problems that exist by changing the legislative rules. People are upset because politicians don’t do what they said they would do.
  • I would love to see recall.
  • People are not interested in change. If they were, there would be greater turnout at the Assembly meetings.
  • People are not coming to the Assembly meetings because the issues are confusing. If they were more people-friendly, there would be higher turnout.
  • We are not ready for change. We should educate people first before we consider change.
  • Elections Ontario should run party leadership contests. Party leadership contests should be more open.
  • We should be able to vote for leaders and MPPs on separate ballots.
  • Backbenchers should only work part-time. Since they’re not in Cabinet, they don’t have full-time responsibilities.
  • The media will tend to trivialize any recommendation and discourage change.
  • There should be more polling stations. Technology should be used to make voting easier. People want to vote but sometimes can’t on election day.
  • Moving to a system that requires more technology will be a challenge. Technology can be unreliable and elections officials may resist it.
  • We should engage students in voting in schools, e.g. by simulating elections.
  • If we keep the current system, parties should only be allowed to register if they run a candidate in every riding. There should be no regional or single-issue parties.
  • Some people are really scared of democracy. I think maybe there should be a marijuana party if that’s what people want.

» Return to Summaries of Public Meetings