Themes from Consultation Meeting in Toronto Central

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: 32

Thoughts about Principles

Accountability

  • I want a candidate that I can question directly. I should able to give or withhold my vote directly to a candidate. This keeps politicians responsive.
  • I would like our representatives to be more accountable to the voters, not to their parties.

Effective parliament

  • We need a system that forces more collaboration. Parliament is too partisan.

Effective parties

  • We should vote for a platform of a party, not for an individual candidate.
  • Parties make too many important decisions. People are forced to join parties even though they don’t like all their values. This is undemocratic.

Fairness of representation

  • I don’t like the idea of a neighbour across the street being a member of a different riding, and by implication, a member of a different community.
  • We need more women MPPs.
  • We should not mandate a 50:50 gender split in the legislature.
  • Aboriginals need representation in the legislature. We could have reserved seats for Aboriginals (like in New Zealand).
  • Representation should reflect the will of the people.

Simplicity & practicality

  • I want a system that is straightforward and transparent, and to know the results quickly.

Stable & effective government

  • Coalition and minority governments are not necessarily a bad thing.
  • The only coalition I can think of didn’t work. They are a slippery slope.
  • Stable policies are more important than stable governments.
  • Governments should pass laws that the majority support.

Stronger voter participation

  • People don’t vote because it’s hard to get to the polling stations.
  • People don’t vote because they think their votes don’t matter.
  • Voter participation is part of the broader idea of civic engagement. It is not a product of the electoral system. Turnout has decreased in all electoral systems.
  • People will be more engaged if a greater diversity of views is expressed in politics.

Voter choice

  • People should know who they are voting for. Party lists are unacceptable. We should vote for individuals.

Thoughts about Ontario’s Current Electoral System

Participants highlighted these advantages of First Past the Post:

  • Our system is simple.
  • The current system forces parties to compromise on candidates who are saleable to the entire riding. Compromise produces a tolerant society.
  • In our system, it’s easy to belong to a party and to be part of the nomination procedure.
  • In our system, it’s easy to contact the candidates and representatives in our ridings.

Participants highlighted these disadvantages of the current system:

  • The current system encourages partisan competition. It’s a power game.
  • In our system, ridings are artificial and divisive.
  • Our system produces skewed results and manufactured majorities. It is very rare for a true majority to be elected.
  • It produces dismal representation of women.
  • It excludes small parties.
  • Our single-member structure creates party strongholds (“safe ridings”) and is paternalistic. It limits voter choice.
  • Our system encourages strategic voting.
  • Our system usually produces one-party rule.
  • Our system gives parties too much power. All important decisions are made within parties.
  • Our system overvalues rural voters.
  • Our system is unstable. Small changes in votes can produce large changes in seats, and policies change after each election.

Thoughts about Other Systems

Participants made these comments about other systems:

Majority Systems

  • I favour going to a majority system (e.g. Alternative Vote, Two-Round System) because they’re close to our current system but will solve some of the problems that exist.
  • Majority systems will increase legitimacy, accountability, and fairness. They are simple.

Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)

  • I prefer MMP over STV because it’s simpler.
  • MMP is complicated. This may reduce voter participation.
  • Having two people represent one area is faulty. Who do you go to?
  • MMP allows some candidate autonomy.
  • We should have a low proportion of adjustment seats (e.g. 1/3) in order to keep the legislature small.
  • Adjustment seats should be grouped into regions (8 or 9 of them). This makes the regional list candidates elected by and accountable to the region’s constituents. Regions would allay concerns about Toronto domination of the adjustment seats.
  • Instead of party lists, we could fill the adjustment seats with riding candidates who lose (“best losers”). This would let the voters choose their representatives, not the party.
  • There is nothing wrong with having party lists. List candidates are nominated at conventions just like riding candidates.
  • In MMP, party lists should be open. Otherwise we don’t know who our votes are going to.
  • We could split adjustment seats evenly between male and female candidates.

Proportional Representation (PR) systems

  • PR reduces strategic voting.
  • PR eliminates wasted votes and makes every vote count.
  • I support PR with open lists.
  • Open lists are a good idea, but complicated.
  • If we switch to PR, we should preserve ridings. They are useful.
  • A PR system should allow representation of regions, not ridings, which are arbitrary.
  • PR allows us to address the differences that exist in society by representing a diversity of views. Small parties would have a voice.
  • PR encourages politicians to build on commonalities.
  • PR would encourage more women and minorities to be elected and to participate in the system.
  • PR won’t necessarily produce greater diversity in representatives. Parties will have to put diverse representatives on their lists. Having more diverse representatives doesn’t ensure that greater understanding will occur.
  • In PR, parties will have very narrow interests. Parties may fracture. Fringe parties may have too much power. PR societies are not necessarily very tolerant.
  • PR would not change the competitive nature of politics.
  • In PR, candidates are not as involved in the election.
  • In PR, representatives are not accountable to ridings or easily accessible. Who do you go to when you have a problem with the government?
  • In PR, you don’t know who you are voting for.
  • PR gives parties too much power to control who gets on lists.

Single Transferable Vote (STV)

  • STV possesses a conceptual elegance that comes with preferential voting. I think it would be very saleable.
  • It allows for truer representation of voters’ political values. It allows a greater diversity of viewpoints to be expressed.
  • STV makes every vote count.
  • STV combines proportional representation and local representation.
  • STV increases the representation of women and other under-represented groups.
  • STV would engage more voters.
  • STV allows members of the same party to compete against each other. This gives voters more choice and gives parties less power.
  • STV is not too complicated. It’s simpler than doing our taxes or dealing with Windows. If Malta, Ireland, and Australia can make STV work, so can we.
  • STV would eliminate gerrymandering.
  • District magnitudes in STV could be adjusted to reflect regional concerns (e.g. the North).
  • The more people hear about STV, the more they like it.

Other Thoughts

If the Assembly recommends a new system

  • The province may not be ready for the shift in attitude that is needed to go along with any change.
  • The recommendation should be bold, but not radical—a better system, not necessarily a perfect system.
  • There must be a widespread public education campaign to help people understand the new system.
  • The Assembly should be a strong advocate of its recommendation leading up to the referendum.

Other comments

  • We elect politicians because we share their party’s interests. Politicians who change parties in mid-term should have to run again in a by-election. We should have recall.
  • We need a new kind of leadership that leads by example towards consensus and cooperative politics.
  • Let’s stop the corporate domination. Roll the four-year term back to two years. Get rid the automated ballot box.
  • All candidates should be invited to the TV debates. They’re the most influential part of the campaign, but electoral law is silent on the issue.
  • The voting age should be reduced to 16.
  • We should challenge the idea that we need specialized politicians.

» Return to Summaries of Public Meetings