Themes from Consultation Meeting in Toronto West

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: 52

Thoughts about Principles

  • Citizens should know who’s in charge so they can hold government accountable.
  • There should be a direct line from who you voted for to what is being done.
  • Politicians should not change parties. It’s dishonest and not what they promised.

Effective parliament

  • There is too much concentration of power in the Premier. Ministers should be responsible to caucus.

Effective parties

  • Small parties should have an opportunity to be heard. Small parties are not treated fairly.
  • Small parties would not be small anymore if there weren’t so many wasted votes.
  • Thresholds are necessary for stability, but should be low (e.g. 5%, 4.5%, 2%).
  • Parties are a good place to produce consensus; they build consensus in order to appeal to the general public.
  • Parties should not have more power, because then people will have less.

Fairness of representation

  • Ontarians with disabilities should have more representation. There should be accommodations for candidates with disabilities.
  • Results should be proportional (seat share should equal vote share). All parties would benefit.
  • Multi-member districts are essential for fair and demographic representation. We need a district magnitude of at least 5. Multi-member districts could also be adjusted to improve representation by population.
  • We could use more seats to improve representation by population.
  • Barriers preventing women from running should be removed. I’m not a supporter of quotas or “zippered lists,” but if obstacles are removed, women will run.
  • Geographic representation is unnecessary. It does more harm than good. Ideological proximity is more important than geographic proximity.
  • The riding system is not fair. Up north the ridings are huge.
  • Everyone should have equal power. One person, one vote should apply.
  • Representation by population should be more closely respected. The 25% variation allowed by federal law is too wide and has been used to under-represent suburban and urban people. We should not make exceptions for the North.

Legitimacy

  • Legitimacy is not about values. There is no consensus on values; that’s why we have elections.
  • Legitimacy comes from fair representation.

Stable & effective government

  • Governments should be able to implement their platforms.

Stronger voter participation

  • People don’t vote because their votes are wasted.
  • We need more accommodation for voters with disabilities.
  • Participation might increase if we change the electoral system, but if you look around the world all countries have seen similar declines. Citizens are feeling detached from the process.
  • People don’t refuse to vote because of the electoral system.

Voter choice

  • You should move toward a preferential style ballot.
  • It would be good to let people split their vote between party and candidate.
  • Choice is necessary for democracy. You should be free to vote for who you want to vote for.
  • If someone lives in the Premier’s riding and does not want to vote Liberal, their vote has no chance of being heard. This eliminates voter choice.

Thoughts about Ontario’s Current Electoral System

Participants highlighted these advantages of First Past the Post:

  • The current system is competitive. Every major party in Ontario has had a chance to govern in the recent past.
  • In our system, with majorities, governments can implement their platforms.
  • Our system has clear lines of accountability.
  • We have geographic representation.

Participants highlighted these disadvantages of the current system:

  • The current system forces us to vote for majority parties rather than smaller ones that represent us better. It is unlikely that new or small parties will gain representation because voting for them is like wasting a vote.
  • Our system produces large numbers of wasted votes.
  • Our system is not truly representative. MPPs are elected with less than half the votes and governments are elected the same way. In one district, 36% of the vote went to the winner. This means the majority did not want the winner. This is not fair or legitimate.
  • The current system rewards regionalism (e.g. the Bloc). The Greens get penalized because they appeal to Canadians all over the country.
  • Our system is adversarial. It does not allow the best to get elected.

Thoughts about Other Systems

Participants made these comments about other systems:

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

  • MMP gives voters personal contact with an MPP and the ability to vote for a party they might not have voted for otherwise. MMP increases voter choice by splitting the ballot (between local candidate and party).
  • MMP produces a focus on coalition building rather than adversarial politics (e.g. as in New Zealand).
  • It keeps the good points of our current system—clear accountability and geographic representation—and introduces some proportionality.
  • In MMP, there should be a threshold to ensure stability.
  • There should be regional lists to reinforce geographic representation, but there should be province-wide, not regional, proportionality. Lists should be closed for simplicity.
  • Closed lists give parties too much power. Lists might be made up of “best losers” (i.e. the runners up in the local riding races) instead.

Open Transferable Representation

  • Voters would vote for a single candidate, either in their riding or anywhere else.
  • This system would increase accountability because voters could hold any MPP accountable, not just their local MPP.
  • It would increase access to MPPs. Technology makes this possible. If you have 103 people to go to, one of them will help you.

Parallel Systems

  • A Parallel system would give small parties some representation but not overwhelm the ability of the government to govern.

Proportional Representation (PR) systems

  • PR would end strategic voting and make every vote count.
  • PR would be more inclusive (e.g. for women and youth) because it would use multi-member districts.
  • List-PR would improve fair representation if the district magnitudes were large enough.
  • I support PR with an open list because I believe I am entitled to choose the person who will represent my interest.
  • PR would create permanent minorities, which would be unstable. Countries with PR systems have trouble finding consensus. Unless we develop a consensus style of government, nothing will get done.
  • In PR, policies are often developed after elections (because of coalitions) and are not what the parties campaigned on.
  • PR might give representation to parties with extreme views or to regional parties. We might have too many parties.
  • In pure List-PR, there is no regional representation.
  • I believe countries with PR have higher taxes. Not only is the democracy of Ontario in your hands, but the prosperity of the province as well.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

  • STV is the most complicated system.
  • STV allows you to vote for your first choice without fear of unintended consequences.

“Two-Election System”

  • We should have two elections one week apart. Winners in both elections win seats, but in the second election, we choose among the losers of the first election. This would give us more choice, let us control who forms coalitions, and fix mistakes we make on the first round.

Other Thoughts If the Assembly recommends a new system

  • The Assembly should explain why it made its recommendation, and consider the impact the result would have on the operation of government.
  • If the recommendation moves away from local representation, it will not meet the 60% threshold.

Other comments

  • Accessibility must be added as a separate and distinct principle. Courts have established the right of all citizens to fully participate. The consultations should be accessible. The Democratic Renewal Secretariat should work with disability organizations to develop a toolkit for the use of parties to address these issues.
  • We don’t need electoral reform, but we do need political reform. The two major problems are campaign and party financing. We need transparency.
  • The voting system should be verifiable and secure. We should keep the paper ballot.
  • There could be a website for each electoral district to provide more information.
  • Government spending is higher in ridings held by the governing party and in those that were won by a narrow margin than in ridings where the governing party did not win or won by a significant margin.

» Return to Summaries of Public Meetings