CARDUS

Home | Media Coverage | Why Ontarians Should Vote for MMP

Why Ontarians Should Vote for MMP

September 1, 2007

On October 10th, the voters of Ontario will pass judgment not only on Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government; they will also vote on whether or not to change the way we vote. In many respects, this is more important than the election itself. Under our current system, variously labeled “single-member-plurality,” “winner-take-all,” and “first-past-the-post” (FPTP), the province is divided into 107 electoral districts or ridings, each of which sends a representative to the provincial legislature at Queen’s Park in Toronto. Electoral contests within each riding are settled on the basis of plurality – that is, on which candidate receives more votes than any other single candidate. It is not necessary for that candidate to have received an absolute majority (50 percent plus one) of the votes cast. This means that in a closely-contested, three-way race it is possible for a candidate to win an election over the opposition of up to two-thirds of the voters. Even where the parties are not evenly matched, it is hardly unusual for the “winning” candidate to receive well under a majority. In this respect Ontario has not had a true majority government elected since 1937. The Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform is proposing, not an outright abandonment of our current system, but its modification in a more representative direction. Under the mixed-member proportional system offered by the Assembly, Ontarians will have two votes, one for a party list and one for a local candidate. The province will be divided into 90 ridings, with up to 39 additional seats to be added to that number. The election for a single member to represent a riding will still be based on FPTP. But if, when the total votes are counted, a party remains under-represented, as the federal Progressive Conservatives were in 1993, its share of seats will be topped up from the party list side, ensuring that the partisan composition of the Legislature roughly reflects levels of support in the electorate. If a party does not receive at least 3 percent of the total vote, it will receive no seats from the party list. This is to ensure that there are not too many small parties in the Legislature, especially those that might represent fringe groups. What are the benefits of MMP? To begin with, it treats an election, not as a horse race with winners and losers, but as a means of measuring support for parties and their programs. If, say, 20 percent of the electorate votes for the Green Party, it will receive roughly 20 percent of the seats in the Legislature. One opponent of MMP complained that it rewards a party that cannot win riding elections. That misses the point. Democracy is about representation, and our current system penalizes those parties with a genuine following but whose support is too geographically diffuse. Second, it combines the best features of two electoral systems: FPTP and a more unadulterated form of proportional representation (PR). Both the Netherlands and Israel have a straight party list system, in which voters cast their ballots for a list rather than a local candidate. Most Canadians would agree that this would be inappropriate for a country like Canada, with its huge expanse of territory and diverse population. Ontario itself is scarcely less diverse than Canada as a whole. A member of the Citizens’ Assembly with whom I recently spoke observed that most people they consulted were strongly in favour of retaining local representation in the Legislature. This they did not wish to give up. Under MMP they will not have to. But they will have the added benefit of knowing that, if their favoured candidate loses the riding, their party list votes will nevertheless count. Third, MMP is likely to boost voter turnout, as PR has done in a number of democracies around the world. This is not just an educated guess; the relationship between electoral systems and voter turnout has been demonstrated empirically by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) in Stockholm (http://www.idea.int/vt/survey/index.cfm). This organization maintains a continually updated database of election results since 1945 in 171 states. These data indicate a positive correlation between PR and a high voter turnout. Where voters’ choices are limited and where their votes are regularly wasted on losing candidates, the incentive to vote at all is weak. On the other hand, where there is some expectation that one’s vote really will count for something, people are more likely to go to the polls. (See my “Voter Turnout and Competitive Politics” http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$509). Fourth, MMP is likely to break the monopoly of the two major parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, which have become used to relying on the distortions of FPTP to cling to power. New parties will almost certainly arise and minor parties will become stronger. If they have sufficient support to overcome the 3 percent hurdle, they will send MPPs to the Legislature. Likely beneficiaries will be the New Democratic Party, the Greens and the Family Coalition Party. Fifth, contrary to some expectations, MMP will not entail permanent minority government. Because single-party majority governments will become increasingly unlikely, parties will have to form coalition governments, which will be made up of more than one party. The closest we came to this in Ontario was the two-year accord between the Liberal and New Democratic Parties in 1985, the difference being that there were no New Democrats in David Peterson’s cabinet. Here is what MMP will not do: it will not cure all the ills of democracy. It will not end political corruption, which is rooted in the rebellious human heart. It will not bring about perfect justice. However, it will help to empower previously under-represented voices and give them a hearing in the corridors of political power. It will also offer a potent check on the power of the premier, whose position will be dependent on more than just leadership over his own party. Ontarians would do well to vote, not to get rid of FPTP, but to modify it so as to represent better the diversity of the province’s population. Vote for MMP on October 10th. David Koyzis is the Professor of Political Science at Redeemer University College in Ancaster, Ontario.