Themes from Consultation Meeting in Scarborough

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: 51

Thoughts about Principles

Accountability

  • There is no accountability because our system is not legitimate.
  • We have to legislate accountability.
  • Parties should keep their election promises.

Effective parties

  • Small, newer parties need representation.
  • There should be low thresholds or no thresholds so that independents can win seats. Thresholds are artificial barriers.

Fairness of representation

  • The poor are shut out of the political system. They need representation.
  • Voters should be represented by someone who supports policies they believe in. Election results should represent voters’ intentions.
  • Results should be proportional (seat share should equal vote share).
  • Any reform must be favourable toward getting more women in parliament. We must remove the barriers to women.
  • Better demographic representation will be better for decision-making. Laws should be made by those most affected by them (e.g. the working poor, women, Aboriginal peoples).
  • Quotas for representation undermine the efforts of those who work hard to get elected.
  • The bulk of our representatives come from urban areas. Rural needs and issues (e.g. the environment) are excluded.

Legitimacy

  • Legitimacy is the most important principle. It is the foundation of the electoral process.

Stable & effective government

  • Stability or instability can come from national culture as much as from an electoral system.
  • Policy changes between majority governments might lead to more instability than changes in coalitions.
  • Coalition governments where there are never radical changes might be too stable.

Stronger voter participation

  • There should be mandatory voting (maybe only for people under 75).
  • More voter participation is needed. Youth are not voting. It should be easier for the elderly to vote. E-voting and mail-in voting might help both groups.
  • I think people don’t vote because they are lazy. We shouldn’t worry about people who don’t want to participate.
  • People don’t vote because they think they have no choice.
  • There is no evidence that changing the electoral system increases voter participation.

Voter choice

  • There is no real choice when your vote has no effect (i.e. you already know which candidate is the most popular and is going to win).
  • Strategic voting reduces choice. People should not be afraid to vote for the candidate they like.
  • Preferential ballots seem fair but can produce worse results than First Past the Post. When a party drops off a ballot, its vote is split among the remaining parties. One party can end up winning 100% of the seats.
  • Preferential ballots are better than categorical ballots.

Thoughts about Ontario’s Current Electoral System

Participants highlighted these advantages of First Past the Post:

  • Our system produces stable governments.
  • It produces effective parties.
  • In our system we know who our MPP is and can hold them accountable.

Participants highlighted these disadvantages of the current system:

  • It produces manufactured majorities. Election results do not represent voters’ intentions.
  • In our system, people vote for parties they don’t believe in (strategic voting).
  • Voters who do not support the winner have no representation. The majority of people are not represented.
  • Our system does not represent women, minorities, or special interests.
  • Small parties are underrepresented. I think we have 27 registered parties but only a few have seats.
  • The system promotes regionalism because smaller groups within each region are not represented (e.g. In Alberta, you’d think everyone was conservative. In cities, you’d think there were no conservatives at all).
  • The system encourages gerrymandering.
  • We have a lot of sudden policy changes after elections.
  • The system produces adversarial decision-making.

Thoughts about Other systems

Participants made these comments about other systems:

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

  • A change to MMP would be less shocking than a change to pure List-PR and would bring many of the same benefits.
  • An MMP system should have regional lists to improve geographic representation.
  • MMP is fair.
  • MMP gives voters choice. You can vote for a party you like even if you know who’s going to win your district.
  • A 5% threshold for parties to win seats would make MMP stable.
  • A mixed system would keep establishment parties in control.

“Personally Accountable Representation”

  • This is a proportional system developed by the Center for Collaborative Democracy. It is designed to avoid the major drawbacks of Single Transferable Vote (STV) and Mixed systems.
  • Each riding has at least three representatives who are elected by preferential ballot.
  • When the ballots are counted, the candidates with the least support are eliminated and their ballots are reassigned to voters’ next preferences, until the number of candidates left equals the number of seats in the riding.
  • Each representative gets voting power in parliament in proportion to the number of votes received.
  • Representatives are encouraged to communicate regularly with their constituents.

Proportional Representation (PR) systems

  • Proportionality would more accurately reflect the views of voters.
  • In PR, all votes count. This would increase voter participation.
  • PR better represents women and other underrepresented groups, and gives small parties representation.
  • PR produces many single-interest parties.
  • Thresholds prevent extremist candidates from winning seats.
  • It would be impossible to run as an independent in a PR system. Thresholds eliminate all the independents.
  • PR would produce coalitions, which produce long-term stable policy (even though coalitions change) and better, consensual decision-making.
  • PR would increase accountability, because no party would have a majority.
  • Under PR, there can be affirmative action (e.g. “zippered lists”) to ensure that party lists are demographically representative.
  • We don’t need quotas for women (or other groups), but we do need party lists that are long enough to provide an incentive for parties to put enough women on the lists. Public scrutiny of party lists will make this happen.
  • PR produces backstabbing that is worse than what we have now.
  • List-PR (with no regions) is the only system that would fully represent small, geographically distributed groups (e.g. the poor).
  • List-PR is the best way to get independents, women, and underrepresented groups into parliament.
  • List-PR is the best way to get geographic representation.
  • List-PR is simple, clear, effective, and flexible.

Other Thoughts

If the Assembly recommends a new system

  • The 60% threshold is appalling. Many referendums only require 50% to pass.
  • The 60% threshold is not that bad.

Voting

  • Voters’ lists are inaccurate and should be revised.
  • Internet voting, e-voting, and voting by mail should not be used because they can be tampered with. There is a downside to making voting easier.
  • There should be more education for immigrants about voting.

Other comments

  • The Citizens’ Assembly needs to advertise more. Most people in the province haven’t heard about it.
  • The Citizens’ Assembly in B.C. failed because it couldn’t explain the new system (STV) to the public.
  • If the number of seats in the legislature has to be increased for better representation, I’m in favour of it.
  • MPPs should not be allowed to cross the floor.
  • We should consider other reforms, such as sharing Cabinet seats or the budget among the parties on a proportional basis.
  • No electoral system can function if there is tampering. The police need to be more involved in stopping political criminality.
  • Donations to political parties should be tax-deductible.

» Return to Summaries of Public Meetings