Themes from Consultation Meeting in Peterborough

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: 61

Thoughts about Principles

Accountability

  • Is there some way to separate the party and the candidate vote? For example, I want to punish the Liberals because of the sponsorship scandal, but my local MP had nothing to do with that and he did a good job.

Effective parliament

  • I’m appalled by the behaviour of MPPs. MPPs should work together and for everyone.
  • Bills should be debated in parliament, not forced through (e.g. by majorities, or by being presented in big omnibus bills which are difficult to debate).

Effective parties

  • Parties are effective for distributing information and ideas, but with party discipline, democracy breaks down.
  • Independents and minor parties should not get seats unless they receive 3% of the vote.

Fairness of representation

  • My local MPP can’t represent me because of party discipline. I don’t care about local representation — I want my vote to get the representation it deserves.
  • For more than three decades, the parties I’m close to haven’t run in my riding. This denies me my representation.
  • Geographic representation used to be more important than it is now because there are fewer geographic differences.
  • Both people and regions should be represented. In the northwest, two-thirds of the geography is represented by 11 seats. This is unfair.
  • I want to vote for what I believe in knowing that I’m going to get the representation I deserve. Every vote should translate into a voice.
  • Our representation should reflect our diverse political landscape.
  • Our representatives should be diverse in many ways, including: profession, ethnicity, gender, religion, class, disability. (Where do you draw the line?)
  • Aboriginals should be consulted as to how to gain representation. Maybe they should be guaranteed seats.
  • We should vote for candidates who represent our beliefs and on their own merits, not because of their backgrounds. Demographic representation should not involve special treatment.

Legitimacy

  • Legitimacy is about confidence in the system.
  • Legitimacy comes from representing the people.
  • In a representative democracy, legitimacy comes from majorities.
  • Increased voter turnout is important for legitimacy, otherwise winning parties only get a fraction of popular support.

Simplicity & practicality

  • Because of the high threshold for a recommendation to pass, the assembly should give priority to simplicity and practicality.
  • A new system will work well once it is understood by voters, but experts should design it. (I don’t need to know how to build my house, but I would know if I needed a new one.)
  • A simple and practical system is better understood and inspires confidence.

Stable & effective government

  • Minorities can be stable and create cooperation between parties, both minor and major ones (e.g. as in New Zealand).
  • The best government policies have been the result of minorities.
  • We need long-term planning and stable minorities.

Stronger voter participation

  • More people would vote if they thought they could trust the system to reflect votes and create balance in the legislature.
  • People are getting more cynical. Youth don’t participate because they don’t care.
  • There should be compulsory voting. Maybe use a tax cut as a reward instead of a penalty.

Voter choice

  • We should not consider preferential ballots [link to glossary]. Under them, most people are represented by their second choice and this would be a problem, not a solution.
  • People should be able to vote for what they believe in: for something, not against something.

Thoughts about Ontario’s Current Electoral System

Participants highlighted these advantages of First Past the Post:

  • In our system, governments are chosen by the people not the party faithful.
  • The party with the largest proportion of seats forms the government. The candidate with the largest proportion of votes becomes the MPP. This is fair.
  • Our system lets parties flourish on their own merits and forces them to gain broad support.
  • It allows us to vote for people because we want them as our representatives.
  • It is the only system that embodies the principles.

Participants highlighted these disadvantages of the current system:

  • It favours established parties and parties with concentrated support (e.g. the Green Party has no seats; federally, the NDP attracted more voters than the Bloc Quebecois, but won fewer seats).
  • In our system the results are not a true reflection of voter preferences. The majority usually votes against the winners, both at the constituency level and province-wide. Significant numbers of voters have no representation at all.
  • Majority governments with minority support can pass unpopular bills; there are no checks and balances.
  • Each new government changes what we paid a former one to do.
  • Our system encourages people to vote strategically or not at all. It leads to disengagement.
  • Under our system, parties try to be all things to all people. Their agendas are watered down.
  • I can’t see a single principle our system lives up to.

Thoughts about Other Systems

Participants made these comments about other systems:

Alternative Vote (AV)

  • AV will permit us to vote with our hearts and our brains.
  • AV reduces party influence and gives independents a chance.
  • Under AV, we can rank our choices easily.
  • In an AV system, we should not have compulsory ranking—you should be able to rank as few or as many candidates as you wish.
  • AV is simple and practical. Under AV, the ballot would not change.
  • Under AV, it would be a comfort to know that if your first preference does not make it your second or others are accepted.
  • AV ends up with the majority unhappy and without representation.

Proportional Representation (PR) systems

  • It is regrettable that in the past few years organizations have slipped into the habit of using PR as a synonym for change.
  • PR would be a big improvement, but it is too complex to be accepted.
  • Ontarians like PR, so don’t let the 60% threshold scare you.
  • I would favour a list system, but I have reservations because it centralizes power in parties. Open lists would help.
  • PR is fair to voters and will increase voter turnout.
  • Under PR, MPPs will be expected to work together.
  • Many countries with PR have stable governments. A 3%-5% threshold for parties to get seats will keep government stable.

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

  • MPP is the best of both worlds (proportionality and local representation), and used in many places.
  • Under MMP, every vote counts equally and the vote is accurately reflected in the seat count.
  • MMP encourages consensus building by coalition. It constrains a political party’s ability to pursue its agenda.
  • Having two votes is attractive. Party voting allows the results to be proportional. I think separating the party vote from the local candidate vote would address the rural/urban divide.
  • For simplicity, I prefer one-vote MMP where voters choose one candidate, and party preference is determined by the candidate’s affiliation.
  • Under MMP, we can use lists to help women get elected. We can mandate whatever it takes on the list to get broad representation.
  • I think you should consider MMP with open lists, to give voters more choice and increase personal accountability.
  • In an MMP system, regional proportionality would give better local representation and accountability (because list members would be tied to a region), but province-wide proportionality would be more proportional. We could suggest list MPPs run locally the next time.
  • In an MMP system, adjustment seats should make up no more than 25% of the total and should be apportioned by region and filled by runner-up candidates (“best losers”).
  • If we change to an MMP system, the number of seats should increase to 130, with riding boundaries the same and the extra seats used for adjustment.
  • If we change to an MMP system, we should have 85 local and 45 list seats, with 10 seats per region. Local ridings should stay the same size in the North and be enlarged in urban areas.
  • In Germany, MMP results in election not by the people but by the party faithful. This nullifies voter choice and participation.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

  • STV offers little in the way of improved representation.

Other Thoughts

If the Assembly recommends a new system

  • The 60/60 threshold is too high, hypocritical, artificial, and will make the referendum fail. The threshold should be 50%+1.
  • Change may be daunting. Vision and imagination are needed in addition to statistics.
  • There should be a properly funded province-wide education campaign so voters can make an informed decision. There is not enough time between May (when the Assembly submits its report) and October (the next provincial election).
  • The ballot should have a simple question (e.g. “Do you want PR or don’t you?”).
  • If the new system is unsatisfactory, we can change it again.

Other comments

  • The Internet is fine for getting information out, but older people don’t use the Internet.
  • The voting age should be lowered to 16 at the municipal level. Voter participation went up in 29 states when youth were given a chance to vote.
  • The mass media oversimplifies issues and makes parties do the same.
  • There are good people who can’t get elected, so maybe there is a place for appointments.
  • Ridings should reflect how people relate to each other.
  • It doesn’t matter what system we have. It’s more important to have informed voters.
  • I don’t like professional politicians, but I’m concerned about what kind of politicians we have. If we change systems, will they be neophytes each time they are elected?
  • If you feel a candidate is not qualified, don’t vote for him.
  • We need enumeration at every election. Renters move often and are disenfranchised at a high rate.

» Return to Summaries of Public Meetings