Themes from Consultation Meeting in Sault Ste. Marie

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: 15

Thoughts about Principles

Accountability

  • Accountability is important.

Fairness of representation

  • Results should be proportional (seat share should equal vote share).
  • All votes should count equally: one person, one vote. Votes should not be distorted.
  • The legislature should reflect our diverse population (e.g. 50% women and representation of youth, Aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, immigrants). This is not going to be easy to accomplish, but is necessary for an equitable society.
  • It is essential to have better local representation than we have now. Ridings in the North are too big for our members to represent us. (For example, I think the riding of Kenora has 55 fly-in communities.) We could add more members for rural areas.
  • Representation by population is unfair to the North. If 90% of the population is in the South, the North gets only 10% of the seats.

Legitimacy

  • Legitimacy comes from strong voter participation.
  • Legitimacy comes from proportional results. Manufactured majorities are illegitimate.

Simplicity & practicality

  • Any new system should be simple and practical.

Stable & effective government

  • The ability of a system to allow governments to develop long-term plans should be considered.
  • Stability in government policy from one election to the next is as important as the length of time a government stays in office.
  • In Italy they have had many governments but fewer elections.

Stronger voter participation

  • More people would vote if there was more accountability and fairer representation.
  • People don’t vote because of the antagonism and hostility in politics.
  • Voter participation is tied to good citizenship.
  • Young people don’t vote. They have the lowest turnout rate. They think their voices don’t count.
  • More young people would vote if there was more education, and more discussion of voting in the home.

Thoughts about Ontario’s Current Electoral System

Participants highlighted these advantages of First Past the Post:

  • Our system produces strong governments.
  • Under our system, governments form quickly after elections.

Participants highlighted these disadvantages of the current system:

  • In our system, not every vote counts equally or at all.
  • Winners often do not have the confidence of the majority of voters.
  • The system does not make it possible to hear underrepresented voices.
  • Winners get seat bonuses.
  • Our system can produce massive policy shifts after the election of a new government.

Thoughts about Other Systems

Participants made these comments about other systems:

Proportional Representation (PR) systems

  • PR creates fairer representation.
  • PR would increase the number of women in the legislature.
  • PR would better reflect our diverse population. We could require parties to have demographically representative lists.
  • I think the average length of time a government stays in office is 3.5 years under PR compared to 4 years under First Past the Post. It’s not much of a difference. It is in the interest of a coalition to stay together under PR.
  • Under PR, politicians may not be able to keep their policy promises if they are part of a governing coalition.
  • Local representation need not be sacrificed for proportionality. We can add more seats.

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

  • Under an MMP system, party lists could be used to include more women and Aboriginal peoples, and increase demographic representation.
  • MMP facilitates fairness of representation, voter participation, and accountability.
  • MMP creates a less confrontational legislature and coalitions, which would be more stable.
  • MMP gives proportionality while preserving voters’ connection with their representatives which is vital.
  • Under an MMP system, 60% of the seats should be filled by riding MPPs and 40% by party list members.
  • MMP could work without increasing the size of the legislature but by using bigger ridings, though this would be a problem in the North.
  • Independents could run as riding candidates in an MMP system.
  • We could have MMP without a double ballot to keep things simple (i.e. party votes could be determined from the party affiliations of riding candidates.)

Other Thoughts

If the Assembly recommends a new system

  • Don’t change for the sake of change.
  • A public education process will be critical.
  • The 60% threshold is not reasonable. If a lower threshold is good enough to elect a government, it’s good enough to change the system.
  • The referendum question should be simple (e.g. our system or PR). Let’s decide on the details after.
  • The referendum question should ask voters if they want to keep the current system (yes or no). If the choice is no, then we should be asked what to replace it with.

Size of the legislature

  • We should not be concerned about adding one more MPP if it gives a region an adequate voice.
  • Increasing the number of MPPs is not a problem. We had 130 MPPs before.
  • There should be more MPPs because of our geography. The ridings in the North are too big.140-150 seats would provide better, more equitable, representation.
  • Increasing the number of MPPs may not be necessary. Even from remote areas, we can still get in touch with them (e.g. using technology).

Other comments

  • Voting methods (e.g. paper vs. electronic ballots) should be considered.

» Return to Summaries of Public Meetings