Referendum Question for upcoming Election

[Queen of the Beach]

Just a few days to Thanksgiving and to the next election. Just wondered what your thoughts were on this topic.

Are you going to vote?
Do you know which party you want to vote for? Do you like the head of that party?
What do you think of the current electoral system FPTP "First Past the Post" ? Do you care if it becomes obsolete?

There is a Referendum question about changing the Canadian electoral system to MMP or mixed-member proportional representation. Do you agree with changing it to MMP? Or you don't care either way?

[cldale]

I vote for a non-major party (Green) so I would like to see MMP since it means that the party would get higher profile and even one or more MPP's.

I think FPTP is flawed because you consistently get majority parliments for whom less than half the voting population wanted. I also think the current system works to alienate anyone who does not vote PC/Liberal. 20% of the popular support (give or take) is usually for the NDP, yet they hold very little power in most governments, which is a disservice to 1/5th the population. Even though I dislike NDP politics personally, everyone has a right to see their view represented, especially when the group is 1 in 5 people.

Any system which includes more of the population in the system and brings a wider range of viewpoints to the table is desirable imho. Its part of what democracy SHOULD be.


Just a few days to Thanksgiving and to the next election. Just wondered what your thoughts were on this topic.

Are you going to vote?
Do you know which party you want to vote for? Do you like the head of that party?
What do you think of the current electoral system FPTP "First Past the Post" ? Do you care if it becomes obsolete?

There is a Referendum question about changing the Canadian electoral system to MMP or mixed-member proportional representation. Do you agree with changing it to MMP? Or you don't care either way?

[leftintherough]

The key issue I have with the proposed mixed member proportional represenation is the same issue I have with the senate. NON-Elected members. With the MMPR, each party would have members appointed from their published list. You do not get to directly vote for these folks. So how will they be accountable to us, the public when voting in the legislature? They would be bound by the party whip.

Give me a system where the MPPs and MPs are accountable to their riding.

[cldale]

I'd agree with you, except that the reality in Canada is that members all vote along party lines or they leave their party for another. There are so few free votes held (only when it benefits the ruling party to do so really).

At least with MMPR you eliminate some of the alienation that a LOT of canadians feel, that their votes don't really matter and that the system doesn't really represent them at all.

I'd rather have appointed positions and include as much of the electorate as possible in the process.

The key issue I have with the proposed mixed member proportional represenation is the same issue I have with the senate. NON-Elected members. With the MMPR, each party would have members appointed from their published list. You do not get to directly vote for these folks. So how will they be accountable to us, the public when voting in the legislature? They would be bound by the party whip.

Give me a system where the MPPs and MPs are accountable to their riding.

[leftintherough]

I'd agree with you, except that the reality in Canada is that members all vote along party lines or they leave their party for another. There are so few free votes held (only when it benefits the ruling party to do so really).

At least with MMPR you eliminate some of the alienation that a LOT of canadians feel, that their votes don't really matter and that the system doesn't really represent them at all.

I'd rather have appointed positions and include as much of the electorate as possible in the process.

True, most voting is line with the party. I just like to have a good conversation with these folks when I don't agree with the way they have voted on a particular issue.

I guess I'm spoiled with Dan McTeague who will vote on conscious and conviction. Love or hate him, I a fan because he speaks his mind and takes a stand on issues based on his ridings feelings.

[cldale]

True, most voting is line with the party. I just like to have a good conversation with these folks when I don't agree with the way they have voted on a particular issue.

I guess I'm spoiled with Dan McTeague who will vote on conscious and conviction. Love or hate him, I a fan because he speaks his mind and takes a stand on issues based on his ridings feelings.

I think anyone with a free-thinking MP/MPP is spoiled. My riding is very Red, my two reps are Laurel Brotten and Michael Ignatief. Both are too "inside" to do anything other than tow the party line. Although at least with Iggy he defines much of what the party line is.

I get depressed every time I drive around my neighborhood and see all the liberal signs. I feel like the only sane man in the assylum sometimes.

[cdnputter]

I like the thought having some more say in which party is elected, rather than what we have now.

I'm not quite sure how voting for a certain candidate helps that person get to Queen's Park. If they're voted in with a large enough local percentage they get one of their party's seats?

[leftintherough]

I like the thought having some more say in which party is elected, rather than what we have now.


That was my first line of thinking as well. Then it just started bugging me about a bunch of MPP's not being accountable to a riding. The other solution would be more of an USA system where you could vote for the executive, then add perhaps cabinet positions as well. Then its more of a democratic representation. More checks and balances (but at times less action) if the executive does not have a majority in the house.

[laps]

Only elected representatives should be allowed to sit in parliament. With the proposed system, we would get even more MPP than we currently have with all the costs and bureaucracy associated with these people. Canada is overgoverned and malgoverned. We need to reduce the number of politicians, not increase it.

Also, parties would chose the the members, and everything would need to be politically correct - we would get quotas based on certain demographic factors and not on skill.

I am fan of competition so I like first past the post. I would accept as an alternative to have run-off elections where the candidates would require 50% of the vote. At each ballot, candidates with fewer than a certain pre-determined percentage and at least the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated. Some countries use this system to elect their president and all Canadian political parties use this system to chose their leader.

There is too much government - we need to reduce. We pay enough taxes so that if our money was used efficiently we could pay for everything that is an essential common good, like healthcare, and infrastructure.

LESS GOVERNMENT IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!

[landlord]

I live in a riding where I like the incumbent ... but I don't want his party leading things. This has been the case (for me) for a couple of decades now.

The referendum will apparently allow us to make this distinction; i.e., to vote for the candidate you like locally, and also vote separately for the party you'd like to lead.

For all the weaknesses of MMPR (the main two, IMO, being that there will be more members and some of them will be appointed not elected), it still strikes me as an improvement over FPTP. Under FPTP, especially after a close race, too many valuable politicians (pardon the oxymoron) are out of a job. Winner-takes-all knocks too many good people out of public service.

I'm also in favour of fringe parties having a voice at Queen's Park. Most of them have a valid point at their core, albeit perhaps unrealistic or extreme, but it's be a shame to shut that out entirely.

[Shake99]

I live in a riding where I like the incumbent ... but I don't want his party leading things. This has been the case (for me) for a couple of decades now.

The referendum will apparently allow us to make this distinction; i.e., to vote for the candidate you like locally, and also vote separately for the party you'd like to lead.

No it does not.
What it does do is allow parties that attract only minority votes to add "members" from a predetemined list and will almost certainly guarantee a rash of minority governments and resultant chaos DO I hear ITALY?

Like a lot of theories it sounds way better in theory than the results.

Bottom line more MPP's more cost and less action and a bunch of members accountable only to their own party.

Example
Lib 40%
PC 30%
NDP 15%
Green 10%
Other 5%

Green would get 10% of the 39 floating members even though their "votes" are from scattered results across the province running a distance 4th in every riding.

[landlord]

http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/default.aspx

I dunno, shake99. According to the official (?) website above, we'll be able to vote exactly as I said -- once for the local candidate and once for the party.

I understand what you're driving at and that you don't like MMPR as it's being proposed, but what am I missing in my interpretation of what the referendum asks us?

[Big Shooter]

I'm up for all the CHANGES! ;)

[Golden Bear]

Example
Lib 40%
PC 30%
NDP 15%
Green 10%
Other 5%

Green would get 10% of the 39 floating members even though their "votes" are from scattered results across the province running a distance 4th in every riding.But that's the point. 10% of the electorate is a significant chunk. With MMP, those 10% are represented. Without MMP, they're not. They may not be number one in any particular riding, but they're number one among a tenth of the population.

Basically, it's allowing two forms of representation: there are MPP's representing a riding, and there are MPP's representing a cross-section of the overall population.

[dekker]

http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/default.aspx

I dunno, shake99. According to the official (?) website above, we'll be able to vote exactly as I said -- once for the local candidate and once for the party.

I understand what you're driving at and that you don't like MMPR as it's being proposed, but what am I missing in my interpretation of what the referendum asks us?

I just tagged that website and if they want to discourage any participation by using such fine print and awkward presentation,they've done it with that one.

I am all for a reform to the present process,if it reduces the size of the government,not compound it. A large body of representatives catering to specialized focus groups is an extraordinary drain on the country and can ruin rather than enhance a democracy. Ideals set into practice seldom meet expectations.

[RCCHGA]

There is a Referendum question about changing the Canadian electoral system to MMP or mixed-member proportional representation. Do you agree with changing it to MMP? Or you don't care either way?

Will vote against the referendum strictly on the basis that the entire issue has not had an adequate public airing and debate. It's the best kept secret around. The website they put up to help explain it has had fewer than 1,000 hits! If it is considered important to shake up the electoral system, then such a vote should be held away from a provincial election to be taken seriously.

[landlord]

Will vote against the referendum strictly on the basis that the entire issue has not had an adequate public airing and debate. It's the best kept secret around. The website they put up to help explain it has had fewer than 1,000 hits! If it is considered important to shake up the electoral system, then such a vote should be held away from a provincial election to be taken seriously.
I started out fairly gung ho to vote yes on this, but the more I hear the more doubtful I get. You said it well, RCCHGA.

So here we are, less than a week away from the biggest deal in the history of Ontario politics, and a guy like me, who doesn't mind a bit of homework, has no idea what the hell they're talking about. Or, more accurately, who's telling the truth.

Where does that put those who hate political homework? I thought one of the strengths of MMPR was that it would attract those who previously were too apathetic/distrustful/cynical to vote.

Why have the leaders of the major parties not uttered a peep about it? Is it because they don't want it and hope it will go away? If so, you can put me down as more cynical than ever.

Who makes these scary-sounding "lists" of acceptable candidates I hear so much about, the party from which they come or the other parties?

Lastly, and perhaps most tellingly, why do I have to go to Toronto Golf Nuts to get edumucated?

[hamiltonhacker]

I started out fairly gung ho to vote yes on this, but the more I hear the more doubtful I get. You said it well, RCCHGA.

So here we are, less than a week away from the biggest deal in the history of Ontario politics, and a guy like me, who doesn't mind a bit of homework, has no idea what the hell they're talking about. Or, more accurately, who's telling the truth.

Where does that put those who hate political homework? I thought one of the strengths of MMPR was that it would attract those who previously were too apathetic/distrustful/cynical to vote.

Why have the leaders of the major parties not uttered a peep about it? Is it because they don't want it and hope it will go away? If so, you can put me down as more cynical than ever.

Who makes these scary-sounding "lists" of acceptable candidates I hear so much about, the party from which they come or the other parties?

Lastly, and perhaps most tellingly, why do I have to go to Toronto Golf Nuts to get edumucated?

I agree with you on this, my gut reaction was in favour, but I am less sure now. My major concern is twofold; One is that there has been no debate among the major parties about the virtues/vices of the concept. Secondly, if it is important, then we should have a vote about it independent of, and not subordinate to the provincial election.

Also a thought just occurred to me; is this vote binding.I have no idea:eek::eek:

[cldale]

Will vote against the referendum strictly on the basis that the entire issue has not had an adequate public airing and debate. It's the best kept secret around. The website they put up to help explain it has had fewer than 1,000 hits! If it is considered important to shake up the electoral system, then such a vote should be held away from a provincial election to be taken seriously.

I am very much for this system, however I think this argument has a LOT of merit. Changing the electoral system is a huge move in any democratic society, one which should only come after extensive public consultation and debate.

The issue I have is that the major parties benefit from the system as it stands, and so are loathe to change it, thus don't have any real cause to debate this or make it an issue.

I am all for a reform to the present process,if it reduces the size of the government,not compound it. A large body of representatives catering to specialized focus groups is an extraordinary drain on the country and can ruin rather than enhance a democracy. Ideals set into practice seldom meet expectations.

So your solution is that 1/3 of the population have no voice, or be forced to comprimise their beliefs and vote for a more mainstream party, or simply shrug their shoulders and ignore the process entirely?

The cost of addition MPP's is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things, especially if the additional MPP's make a larger portion of the population feel involved in the process and included in our democracy.

In countries where this system is used, I have heard nothing but good things about this, with the exception of Italy, but I would argue that Italy's problems are more to do with Italy than the system itself.

I also don't have much problem with minority governments. If the system is going to give a party with less than 1/2 popular support the power to form government, that party should at least be made to work with the other parties to form policy.

[el tigre]

I agree with you on this, my gut reaction was in favour, but I am less sure now. My major concern is twofold; One is that there has been no debate among the major parties about the virtues/vices of the concept. Secondly, if it is important, then we should have a vote about it independent of, and not subordinate to the provincial election.

Also a thought just occurred to me; is this vote binding.I have no idea:eek::eek: The major parties don't want it, the smaller parties do. That is why it has such a low profile with minimal debate.

Referendum questions are almost always done in concert with elections to save on costs.

[dekker]

The major parties don't want it, the smaller parties do. That is why it has such a low profile with minimal debate.

Referendum questions are almost always done in concert with elections to save on costs.
Your right . The majors don't want to rock a system that works in their favour when they have the majority but the fringe wants it because it gives them the legitimacy they crave.
The problem here is that 95% of the voters don't know what's being asked in this case.
Pardon my Forest Gump analogy here but,"stupid is as stupid does", particularly in a democracy where an ill informed public is the right kind of public. How else can you explain the candidates we have suffered through at the municipal, provincial or federal level.

[cldale]

Your right . The majors don't want to rock a system that works in their favour when they have the majority but the fringe wants it because it gives them the legitimacy they crave.
The problem here is that 95% of the voters don't know what's being asked in this case.
Pardon my Forest Gump analogy here but,"stupid is as stupid does", particularly in a democracy where an ill informed public is the right kind of public. How else can you explain the candidates we have suffered through at the municipal, provincial or federal level.

This isn't a hit on you Dekker, but I greatly dislike how I am always labelled "fringe" because I excercise independent judgement in choosing my political views and am not willing to be forced to choose either Dumb or Dumber in fear my vote "might not count".

I think that ideally, an MMP system would force the "main" parties to engage the "fringe" and would force more debate on issues. If 20% of the population votes NDP, I think the NDP should have SOME say in how things are run, even if I personally disagree with their viewpoints. And if 10% vote for green, I don't think the green party's ideas and policies can be ignored completely.

But the reality is that things don't change, and the liberals or pc will win because the majority of the population is too lazy or ignorant (or both) to actually think beyond the narrow choices being presented to them by these parties to see that much more rational, well thought out, and indeed, realistic choices are available.

</rant>

Every election frustrates me, then I try and ignore government until the next time I can get frustrated again :)

[dekker]

cldale,I think I am being misunderstood and perhaps I am not able to make my point clear. I am for the most part in agreement with you,and I also feel very strongly that the "fringe" should have a voice. Our present system does not take into account those outside the mainstream and thusly illustrates the shortcomings of FPTP.
I personally am fed up that in order to make my vote meaningful I have to choose between the Liberals and the Conservatives to get things done. The dearth of intelligence and integrity in either party has proven to be appalling. For all intents the NDP is electorally inconsequential,and only serves to split the vote and possibly create a minority government.

But as tigre hinted the major parties are content to let sleeping dogs lie.
The lack of readily available transparent info to the general public on this referendum is pathetic.
I am sure that most of the populace has no idea what is being asked.

[cldale]

Indeed, it would seem we agree on the bulk of arguments, I was just saying how its annoying that the media labels anyone who doesn't vote red/blue/orange a "fringe" voter (you just used the term, which is what triggered my rant).

I doubt MMP is going to get through though, most people just don't know what it is, and for anyone who votes liberal or pc there is no incentive to go that route.

cldale,I think I am being misunderstood and perhaps I am not able to make my point clear. I am for the most part in agreement with you,and I also feel very strongly that the "fringe" should have a voice. Our present system does not take into account those outside the mainstream and thusly illustrates the shortcomings of FPTP.
I personally am fed up that in order to make my vote meaningful I have to choose between the Liberals and the Conservatives to get things done. The dearth of intelligence and integrity in either party has proven to be appalling. For all intents the NDP is electorally inconsequential,and only serves to split the vote and possibly create a minority government.

But as tigre hinted the major parties are content to let sleeping dogs lie.
The lack of readily available transparent info to the general public on this referendum is pathetic.
I am sure that most of the populace has no idea what is being asked.

[Chambokl]

So the media says that if you don't vote for red/blue/orange you are a fringe voter.

cldale says that if you vote Red or blue you are either ignorant or lazy (or both).

Interesting...

[Golden Bear]

I'm going to suggest an opposite stance for those wanting to vote "no" to protest the lack of information being given.

Vote "yes" as a protest. The reason there is a lack of information is that the major parties don't want it to go through ... it's not in their best interest. MMP threatens their monopoly. What they want is for the public to vote "no" so that the next time the subject of electoral reform is brought up, they can say, "hey, we had a referendum and the public said they didn't want it."

And the media is guilty, too -- they really don't want MMP to go through because it would mean they'd have to pay more attention to other parties.

If anything, if you don't know enough about the issue, and don't want to look into it, simply don't vote at all. Leave it up to the people who have looked into it and have an opinion on the matter.

[duffer_devon]

I am curious why the NDP aren't all over this issue. They would get more seats, wouldn't they? Not that I am an NDP supporter and think the Bob Rae era in Ontario was the worst thing to happen to Ontario since.. since... you get my point.
I do not like the fact that there is little information on this referrendum issue and what information is out there is confusing and lawyer speak. It looks like my insurance policy.

[cldale]

So the media says that if you don't vote for red/blue/orange you are a fringe voter.

cldale says that if you vote Red or blue you are either ignorant or lazy (or both).

Interesting...

No, I don't think you are ignorant or lazy if you vote Red or Blue if you are aware of the issues and you honestly believe the policies of those parties are the most effective of the offerings.

But how many people out there can actually tell you what the policies are of the party they vote for? How about of the parties they DON'T vote for? Very few.

I don't think someone is stupid because they believe something different from me. I think someone is stupid if they cast a vote without informing themselves of what that vote means. We are lucky beyond measure that we live in a country that allows us the freedom to make decisions about our own futures... not following the issues and voting without knowlege makes a complete mockery of that system.