James Sturgeon
Op-ed senior editor, Humber Et Cetera
Sept. 27, 2007
Unbeknownst to at least a few of Humber's eligible electorate, Oct. 10 marks a watershed moment in Ontarian democracy.
There is, of course, the provincial election, where voters will head to the polls to determine who will govern the province for the next four years.
Yet also on the ballot will be question with a far greater scope: are you content with the current voting system, or would you prefer a new one?
This referendum is by no means anything to shrug at.
One outcome will entrench an archaic, outdated and unrepresentative system for the foreseeable future, while the other will serve to broaden representation in Queen’s Park and create a more stable policy trajectory.
The current system, called first-past-the-post (FPTP), is a colonial hangover from Ontario’s Dominion forebearer, Upper Canada.
Since 1792—over 200 years ago—FPTP has been our prevailing system, where the person who wins the highest number of votes within their constituency, wins that riding.
The alternative, dubbed mixed-member-proportional (MMP), is a blend of FPTP and proportional representation, a system where the number of seats in the legislature allotted to a given party reflects the percentage of votes they’ve received overall, irrespective of individual success in any one riding.
What does this actually mean, though?
To use an example, the Green Party, who are continually shut out of Queen’s Park because they can never muster enough votes in any one riding to win it yet have received between one and three per cent of the popular vote in the last two elections, would be guaranteed seats based on that percentage.
To be sure, the legislature’s 107 seats would grow to 129 to make room for MPPs who are awarded seats by the popular vote, leading some to decry the new system as more expensive and cumbersome (www.nommp.ca).
It may be at times, but so what?
Volumes could be written of examples of how MMP is a more stable—and democratic—model:
In every single nation that MMP has moved into, women’s participation has ballooned.In Wales 50 per cent of their parliament are women; The Swedish Riksdag sits at 43 per cent; in New Zealand, 29, while just under 40 per cent of the Scottish Parliament are women.
Under the creaking apparatus of FPTP, only 18 per cent of Ontario’s legislature is female.
If you’ve caught on to the trend above, many of those nations have their political roots in British imperialism of the 18th and 19th centuries. South Africa moved into a form of proportional representation in 1980—well before the sickening Apartheid was abolished in 1994.
What’s more, MMP makes majority governments much more difficult to attain. No one party can dominate parliament in between elections.
This means that disruptive swings in policy like the massive tax cuts under the Harris conservatives in the 1990s followed by tax increases by the McGuinty Liberals will likely be replaced by greater co-operation between a broader party base, making for more stable and lasting legislation.
So why is Ontario holding on to this relic? Complacency?
A brief (and by no means absolute) sampling across North campus drew the usual blank expressions that are found when the unglamourous topic of politics is drummed up.
A few students—three of 12—had some inkling of the referendum between the two systems, but most did not.
On Oct. 10, you’ll be asked to make an informed decision on the future of Ontario’s democracy.
Whether you decide to vote for a particular party or not is your call.
But beyond your personal politics lies a civic responsibility to vote for the best way to administer democracy in Ontario, and that vote lies with MMP.
You can find more information on the referendum at Elections Ontario’s non-partisan website (www.yourbigdecision.ca).
