May 21, 2007
Making History in Ontario
By now you've surely had a chance to read the complete, final report of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, right?
No? Ok, but you're at least familiar with what changes they've suggested we make to our provincial voting system, yes?
Or, maybe you have no idea what any of this is about? Ok, let's start there. Because last Tuesday, Toronto witnessed the end of one process and the beginning of another that could make history by changing the way we elect our representatives to Queen's Park. And on October 10th of this year, you'll be asked to vote if you support the change: yes or no.
Over the past few months, a randomly selected group of 103 Ontarians have been meeting in north Toronto to study our voting system, other voting systems, and whether or not they think we should change ours. They weren't beholden to political parties, governments, or special interests. They're just ordinary people who, after extensive learning, public consultation, and deliberation phases, are now the most knowledgeable people in the province on the subject of voting systems.
And here's the thing: they think we should change ours. From their final report:
We, the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, recommend a new way to vote that builds on the province’s traditions and reflects the values that we believe are important to Ontarians. The Assembly recommends that Ontario adopt a Mixed Member Proportional system, specifically designed to meet the unique needs of Ontario.
Ok, so what is Mixed Member Proportional? Basically, MMP is a "best of both worlds" voting system, that retains what works about our current system, while adding some extra features to make election results more fair and give voters more choice. It's also "best of both worlds" in the sense that it's already successfully used in other countries like Germany and New Zealand (so we know it works), but this specific MMP proposal was designed by Ontarians, for Ontario (so we know it's right for us).
Here's how it would work:
- Two votes, one ballot. Voters have more choice, because they get to vote twice: once for a party, and once for a local candidate. That way, you don't have to vote for a local candidate you don't like just because that person is running for a party you want to support, or vice versa.
- Local candidates are elected the same way they are now: whoever gets the most votes, wins.
- After we know who won the local seats, a second group of seats are assigned based on the percentage of the party vote that each party received. This ensures fairness, because it means that the percentage of the vote that a party gets will closely resemble the percentage of representatives they elect. (That's different than what happens under our current system, where parties can win less than 40% of the vote but get more than 50% of the seats, and 100% power.)
- The list candidates are nominated by the parties, just as local candidates are currently nominated by parties. However, parties will be required to not only disclose who is on their lists before the election, but also how the list was chosen. That way, voters get to decide if they think the party has chosen their list in a fair way, and if it represents the diversity of Ontario's population.
A little confused? That's fair. Let's try an example, from the report:
Imagine a legislature with 100 seats. If a party receives 25% of the party vote, it is entitled to about 25 seats. If it elects only 20 local members, the top 5 members from its list are elected to bring its total share of seats in the legislature up to 25%.
This system respects a number of things that we value in our voting system:
Voter Choice. Voters can, for example, split their vote to indicate a preference for one party overall, while supporting a local candidate from a different party. Or, they can vote for a candidate from the same party as their party vote. Also, they can vote for only a party or only a candidate without spoiling their ballot.
Simplicity and Practicality. By building on the system we already use, this voting system will be easy for voters to grasp.
Accountability. Local candidates are still accountable to their local ridings. Parties are also held accountable for not only the performance of their list candidates, but also how they select their list candidates. Voters get to vote based not only on if they think those members have done (or will do) a good job, but also on if they approve of the way that party chose its list members. (Under our current system, we often don't know how candidates are chosen, nor do we get to express an opinion about it one way or another.
Fairness of Representation. This new system is more fair, since the percentage of a party's vote will be close to the percentage of seats they receive. Also, proportional voting systems like MMP tend to elect more women, people of colour, and other under-represented groups (as opposed to our current system, which is super-awesome at electing white men).
Stable and Effective Government. Some people will try and tell you this system leads to unstable governments, but that hasn't been true in other countries. Germany, for example, has had the same number of elections as Ontario has in the past 60 years. In fact, MMP tends to lead to "majority coalition" governments, which means that parties have to be more productive and cooperative instead of just snipping at each other all the time. Bonus!
That being said, you'll also hear some "no" arguments. Make sure you analyze them carefully. For example, someone might tell you we don't know enough about this system or haven't studied it enough. Well, if you've read this far, you know that's not true. This system is being recommended to us by our peers, and is already tried, tested, and true in other countries around the world.
Someone else might tell you that this system gives the parties too much power, since they get to choose the make-up of the list. But the fact is that parties already choose which candidates they'll field; at least under the new system they have to tell us how they do it. Also, parties tend to balance their lists with men and women and people with diverse backgrounds, which helps increase fair representation in the legislature.
Others will complain that this creates "more politicians," and, of course, we don't want that, right? What's important to note here is that even though this plan would increase the number of MPPs slightly to 129, that's still fewer politicians than Ontario had before Mike Harris cut it down, and it's also still fewer politicians per person than any other province in Canada. Under the new system, therefore, we'll actually have more representation, and have our voices better heard by our governments and political parties.
In other words, on the whole it makes sense to vote YES in the October 10th referendum that's happening concurrently with the next provincial election. And, if you really want this to pass, you'd better tell all of your friends as well, because the government has imposed a 60% threshold for the vote to succeed.
That's high, but not impossible. British Columbia voted 57% in favour of an electoral reform proposal in their last election, so it failed by just 3%. Let's not let that happen in Ontario.
For more information, visit the official website of the Citizens' Assembly, where you can read their report, or, instead, watch a mildly amusing flash animation summary.
Chris Tindal is a member of the Vote Yes campaign team, and is the Democratic Reform Advocate for the Green Party of Canada.
|
I presume that Torontoist will be giving equal space to a member of the NO committee?
i'm glad that torontoist is taking an unequivocal stand on a no-brainer issue. why on earth would we NOT want to change a parliamentary system that was imposed on Ontarians during a less democratic time, a system designed to maximize the likelihood of continued rule by elites? it would be pretty sweet to have a more representative democracy, i hope that we hit 60%!
Why not read Thomas Walkom's piece "Political left should be careful what it wishes for" in the May 19 edition of the Star? That'll give you a few reasons why maybe even anti-elite progressives might want to think twice about voting in favour of reform.
Two put it another way: If the issue is such a slam dunk, what harm could come from Torontoist allowing a NO voice? Or don't you trust the people, Dave?
I thought Torontoist had no stands, rather its contributors do.
Sorry for the bad spelling above. Two/to, hard to keep straight on a long weekend.
Anyway, here's the Gothamist policy on conflicts of interest (below). It seems clear to me that Chris Tindal is in a clear conflict of interest twice over, given his place on both the Yes campaign and with the Green party, which stands to benefit quite nicely from the switch to MMP. And while it is good of Chris to acknowledge his roles, I wonder if Torontoist indeed "discouraged" him from writing about this. If it didn't, why not? It seems to me that, at the very least, Torontoist should mitigate this lack of discouragement by giving equal space and opportunity to a member of the No campaign.
***************************
Other conflicts of interest
Individual bloggers for the Gothamist families are discouraged from writing about things related to their professional lives (e.g., writing about a new Virgin MegaStore offer if the blogger pulls in a pay check from Virgin), but sometimes editorial interest may cause occasional overlaps. If that becomes the case, the blogger has an obligation to disclose the professional relationship.
Chris Tindall's piece is excellent. For hat it's worth, I've lived in New Zealand for 24 years, including the last 11 years under MMP. I've read the Walkom piece in the Star and sent Mr. Walkom a long and detailed commentary on his analysis. I can forward it to anyone interested. For example, he is flatly incorrect in saying that MMP has not more responsive to voter feedback. I could think of several major examples in the past year alone off the top of my head, including the Fart Tax debate and the Public Access debate. Recently, we saw the new leader of the National Party drop that party's longstanding opposition to Kyoto in response to public opinion AND to then seek common cause with the Labour-lead government in responding to climate change! The two major parties working together on a major issue! It took a decade to evolve to this point, but it looks like NZ has finally arrived. MMP is FAR better than First Past the Post. I've lived it for the past 11 years.
Very good! The case for MMP is so clearly a no-brainer, I can't imagine why the Torontoist would not allow a member of the No campaign to make a case for the unresponsive, less democratic, and elitist first past the post system.
I would also be interested in seeing the Torontoist editors offer a clarification of the Gothamist conflict-of-interest guidelines for contributors, with particular reference to Chris Tindal's apparent conflicts.
Chris isn't in a conflict, and his affiliations are clearly stated in the article and in his staff page profile. Many of Torontoist's writers were brought on board specifically because they have expertise in certain areas—in Chris's case, he's our Environment Editor and he has first-hand experience as a politician and therefore is an important and authoritative voice. As for opposing viewpoints, that's what the comment section in each article is for, and as you've likely noticed, they're being well-used for opposing points of view.
Torontoist also tries to present views that may not necessarily get much mainstream media attention, and as we've mentioned before, the opinions are those of the individual writers.
Also note that we are a blog—not the New York Times—and while we try to be accurate and informative, we have no policy or particular journalistic duty to be neutral in our articles. We like dialogue, dissent and alternative viewpoints, even if it's sometimes polarizing.
Marc,
Thanks for this, very helpful. A few points, then I'll let the matter drop.
First, I never said anything about Torontoist having to be neutral, that's a total red herring. What I was suggesting was that, since Chris's piece was clearly not neutral, perhaps Torontoist would be interested in giving an opportunity to the No campaign to give their non-neutral views as well. Since the case for MMP is so clear-cut, I didn't thank that was such a crazy suggestion. Apparently it is.
Second, I have to disagree with your claim that Chris is not in a conflict. Again, you offer a red herring, since simply declaring your affiliations -- that is, confessing to a conflict -- does not eliminate the conflict, it merely acknowledges it. Your own policy, under "Other Conflicts," says:
"Individual bloggers for the Gothamist families are discouraged from writing about things related to their professional lives (e.g., writing about a new Virgin MegaStore offer if the blogger pulls in a pay check from Virgin)."
But that is exactly what Tindal did. That's a conflict by your own definition. Furthermore, pointing to Chris's political experience doesn't help you. The fact that he has a partisan interest in this issue is precisely what it means to be in a conflict of interest.
***
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying Tindal should not have written the piece, nor am I saying that Torontoist should be neutral on this or any other topic. I'm merely suggesting that a) given the writer's conflict of interest, and b) given the importance of the subject to all Torontonians, and c) given your mission to serve all Torontonians regardless of political views, then perhaps Torontoist might consider giving an airing, in its main blogspace and not just in the comments, to some of the arguments in favour of the No campaign.
Guess that's too much to ask.
I like this idea. Our current system is based on a 19th century model. Which was useful in the 19th century. But now we live in the 21st century.
A quick question about the mechanics: What happens when more local representatives are elected than percentage for their party?
Example: Party A has 30 (out of 100 seats) local representatives elected but received only 25% of the vote for their party.
Andrew, the editors are pretty defensive about what they believe, so taking a view that they don't agree with is often just asking for further and varied justifications of their positions.
Good luck, though, in getting the No side its airing also (I have no opinion as of yet).
[Torontoist doesn't have to, and shouldn't be expected to, provide an opposing view on this (or any other) issue. If there is a Torontoist contributor who wants to cover the No side, I'm sure he or she is free to do so. I think this issue is important enough that Torontoist should consider running a poll.]
Paul - I was wondering that myself. I would think it goes by the higher number of the two, or you're denying voters the representation they elected.
I'll be voting Yes in October. While I don't think MMP is the most-bestest voting system ever (I'd rather vote on issues directly, but that's another issue entirely) it is fairer than what we have now. As I see it:
• Voters are currently penalized if their party of choice isn't running someone in their riding. You might as well not vote. Just because you've moved across the province or your party of choice isn't that big doesn't mean you should have to lose all of your options.
• You may hate a party but support the local candidate, or vice versa. Now you wouldn't have to compromise your vote.
• Coalition/alliance governments are more likely (from what I understand of the New Zealand experience) which means more people are more accurately represented on key issues.
I don't think the Torontist has refused to post anything from the "no" campaign (if there is one), so what's the fuss about?
I'm really dissapointed with the lack of discussion this issue is generating. Every single person I've talked to about this, who is on the yes side, is adament that to think therwise is just wrong. There are serious problems with this system.
1. It will result in the introduction of a LOT more small political parites which play to only a small portion of society. The current parties are forced to be 'big tents'. Instead we will get a fractured party system and no single person looking out for the 'big picture'.
2. Perpetual minority goverments will result and many of these minority governments are not like what we are used to. They will involve parties which are small and have a single-focus.
3. We will create two classes of MPPs, one group chosen undemocratically on a list created by the parties.
4. Ridings will be larger and your local MPP will be that much less accessible.
I really do hope that an organized voice will appear to oppose this, so that we can have a proper debate.
Judging by experience in the places that actually use this system (Germany, New Zealand, Scotland, Wales), all of Stephen's concerns are groundless.
1. Lots of small parties: We already have a multi-party system in spite of a system that discourages it. I would certainly expect the Green Party to be able to elect people under the new system. Perhaps the Family Coalition could also muster enough voters to pass the proposed 3% threshold for winning list seats, but they are a long way away. As Thomas Walkom points out, the current parties could realign, but that only provides more choice for voters. PR encourages parties to take a principled stand.
2. Perpetual minority government: Although Canada has done very well under minority government, what actually tends to happen under PR is coalition governments that represent a true majority of the voters, unlike the phony-majority, single-party monopoly governments we have today.
3. Two classes of MPPs: The list MPPs are elected by the party votes of the 60% of us not lucky enough to vote for the winner in our riding. All MPPs are elected, they all have one vote in the Legislature, they will all have constituency offices, they will all be knocking on your door. In practice, voters do not distinguish between two classes of MPPs.
4. Ridings will be larger: Although your riding will be slightly larger, you will likely have several list MPPs from various parties with constituency offices in your region, all of whom will be happy to help you with your passport application. Every party will have reps in every region. With more MPPs overall, every voter will be better served.
To answer Paul's question, if one party wins more ridings than its total share of seats, then somebody else will have to go short.
The Citizens' Assembly's proposal is actually quite conservative. They recommended only a minimal 30% list seats because they didn't want to increase the size of the Legislature very much, and they didn't want to make the ridings much bigger.
Other jurisdictions have more list seats, and they also have mechanisms to correct for over-representation, but the CA left these out because they wanted to keep it simple.
Under this system, there is still a real possibility that we could get a phony majority government, but don't get me wrong—what they have recommended is quite a decent voting system, and vastly better than what we have now. We can tweak it later.
Has anyone tried submitting a "No" commentary to Torontoist themselves? Perhaps none of Torontoist's existing contributors feel they can speak adequately for that side. Isn't Torontoist open to guest contributors as well?
Has anyone tried submitting a "No" commentary to Torontoist themselves? Perhaps none of Torontoist's existing contributors feel they can speak adequately for that side. Isn't Torontoist open to guest contributors as well?
That was the gist of my original postings on this. Marc the editor did not seem open to this possibility. Given the obvious desire by Torontoist readers to debate this openly, Torontoist's position on this is bizarre.
Defensive is right.
I appreciate balance, but do most publications always offer both sides when presenting an opinion piece? Not likely. Newspapers often bring in people who work in a certain area to plead their case, without a rebuttal. I'm certainly not averse to someone offering the no side, but don't act like we're doing something out of the ordinary. Does MacLean's offer both sides of every column they publish?
Torontoist doesn't currently accept guest submissions, which in this case will likely bring the incorrect accusation of censorship. We do have a column, Torontoist vs. Torontoist, where two sides of an issue are debated, but it's up to the writers if they want to tackle a particular issue or school of thought. The "No" side is free to present their view in the comments, as usual, as with everyone else. That's the whole point of having the comments section follow each article.
We have no "position" on what political viewpoints we allow, Andrew, and Torontoist readers aren't being prevented from "debating this openly." So, relax.
If approved, would this be in force for the 2011 election?
This would be a great subject for Torontoist versus Torontoist. I am also in favour of letting an 'outsider' post if nobody from the Torontoist feels they can adequately represent the 'no' campaign.
Andrew is right.
The point of this blog, as opposed to mainstream media outlets in the city, was that it would be more interactive and representative of the readers, vis a vis reader comments/input. But by being defensive and unflexible in what is an undeniable conflict-of-interest - which, I might add, has been maligned by many commenters and even writers in the past - you are violating the spirit of the site.
What is the difference between Chris the partisan former (and future?) Green candidate writing about the Yes side/Green Party issues and a Rogers PR hack writing about the great new phone service from Rogers? Is there a difference? Isn't it all just marketing?
Torontoist readers demand answers!
I dont think I'm being defensive at all (and unflexible?!) because I think it's pretty much a non-issue. I'm just explaining how we work.
There is a huge difference between Chris writing about his personal experiences as an environmentalist and politician and a Rogers PR hack dumping boilerplate into a blog post. Staff write about things that interest them in Toronto, whatever they may be, and if they have expertise in a certain area that can enhance their point and encourage discussion, then we're better for it. We are hardly the mouthpiece of corporate PR offices.
Thanks to everyone who's participated in this conversation so far. We certainly need as much discussion about this as possible, since it's hard to identify a political issue more important than the strength of our democracy. I've found that, in general, the more people know about MMP, the more likely they are to support it. (Witness the extremely well-informed Citizens' Assembly voting over 90% in favour of adopting this new system over our current one.)
Of course it's easy to find flaws with MMP -- every voting system has advantages and disadvantages. The real question is: is this system better than the one we have now? The process the Citizens' Assembly followed was to decide what things they valued in a voting system (voter choice, accountability, fairness of representation, etc.) and decide which system best supported those values. MMP is what they came up with. No one's claiming it's perfect, but it's a helluva lot better than the antiquated system we've got now (which, by the way, has already been abandoned by 90% of the world's parliamentary democracies).
Proportional representation (of which MMP is a type) is supported by people from across the political spectrum, including Hugh Segal, Preston Manning, Ed Broadbent, my past Liberal opponent Bill Graham, and more.
The complaints about my "conflict" of interest is an interesting one (no pun intended). Of course, we all have interests and biases, and labels are easy to apply to people. For example, I also happen to be a white man. I should therefore oppose MMP, because our current system elects way more white men than MMP is likely to, right?
This isn't about which parties stand to gain or lose (as Walkom's Star piece points out, it's hard to predict what parties would win or lose under MMP). Rather, it's about what system is the most fair, and what system best serves voters, not politicians. That's why it's supported by people of principal from all parties.
You did not choose your skin colour, Tindal. You did, however, choose your political affiliations. This means that I don't care if you're white, I only care if you are advancing your partisan position, of which you are paid to advance or gain in some way for advancing, on a site that was originally intended to be free of that. If readers wanted to read about the Green Party or Yes campaign talking points (or even TPSC talking points, but that's another matter), don't you think we'd go to the Green/Yes campaign sites and read there? Sure, Torontoist is not supposed to be neutral, but surely it's supposed to be independent of polical interferance!
Courage!
Torontoist was never "intended" to be free of a partisian position, nor does it officially support a particular party, even if its writers or readers do. I don't see you bitching about the Ontario PC Party ads that are running on the site now—surely that must mean that we are under the thumbs of the Conservatives!
I'd suggest there are larger political issues in our city more worth getting one's panties in a twist over besides a Torontoist post on a potential change in election balloting. Really, why so worked up over this issue? If you want journalistic neutrality, you won't find it on a blog, thank God.
I'm not bitching, I'm not worked up. It's called commenting. At one time, Torontoist bloggers invited comments.
I was simply using the comment feature to voice my displeasure in the shift from independent editorial content (this doesn't mean PC ads or whatever) to editorial content dependent on Toronto's many interest groups. These groups (TPSC, Green Party are most blatent) are hijacking this site to push their own agendas. And for what? Don't the Greens and TPSC have their own sites? TPSC has already taken over virtually all editorial content at Eye, shouldn't that be enough? And this guy Tindal is using Torontoist as a puppet to spread Green Party propaganda...with no room for dissent!
I'm not asking for journalistic neutrality (so stop bringing it up, please), I'm asking you to respect your readers and your own conflict-of-interest policies and give this site back to the people, dammit!
You know, I think I too am going to bitch needlessly over whether or not some blog is "transparent" or "democratic" enough and be angry that some complete strangers working for free should also be completely neutral in their blog posts.
How dare someone whose opinion differs from mine, and is thus too partisan for my liking, seek to democratically change an institution that favours politicians whose opinions are also similar to mine!
Why, there was even an article just recently published in the Star, that bastion of objectivity and clear, rational thinking, that extols my very own opinions! It can only be evident that the year long research the Citizen's Assembly poured into their report pales in comparison with that superb example of uninformed punditry.
This lack of an outlet to maintain the status quo is an incredible injustice only comparable to not voicing the opinions of global warming denie--oops, skeptics!
*finishes break, goes back to work.
^^^ Makes no sense and is factually incorrect (bloggers get paid on this site, meaning Chris Tindal gets paid by Gothamist and the Green Party to put out the same message). But continue attacking me anyway.
The amount of opposition to MPP always confuses me. It is obviously the more democratic system in a very real sense, where the legislature is more closely aligned to people's choices.
I never understood the favouring of the phony majority; how is it ever excusable that the parties which have won the largest % of the vote have, realistically, absolutely NO say during the life of the current government?
If I had used this post in a partisan way, that would have been inappropriate. I didn't. Just because the Green Party (and the NDP, and members of the Liberal and Conservative parties) supports MMP doesn't automatically make all discussion about MMP partisan.
If I hadn't declared my interests I might have been in violation of this site's policies on the matter. But I did, and I'm not. Given that information, readers can make up their own minds about what they want to believe.
Complaining that there's "no room for dissent" while repeatedly posting your dissent is...well...
I fail to see how Chris Tindal's political ties disqualify him from posting on this issue.
Does membership in a political party ban someone from commenting on any issue that may be covered in their platform? Political participation should be a barrier to open speech?
I do not believe Torontoist has disrespected readers in any way. They have been upfront in his connections to the Green Party. Does any allegiance in ones life disqualify them from discussing an issue?
I kind of find the outrage here somewhat manufactured.
Sorry, have to step in again correct another factual error by Moe Real. I'm not, nor have I ever been, paid by any federal or provincial Green Party.
stupid.
If you don't like the MMP system please explain why. Rather than trying to discredit Torontoist or Chris Tindal.
I think you should refer to earlier comments by Andrew Potter, calling for equal space given to an opposite viewpoint - not out of some sort of urge for neutrality, rather to fully prove you are as you claim: using Torontoist as an interested and interesting citizen of Toronto, and not as a Green Party operative.
You're right, always taking the same position as your employers (as, say, a Virgin employee would on the subject of a new Virgin store) does not automatically mean you are a puppet, but I believe the onus is on you to prove that, not me.
Anyways, my issue has less to do with MMP and more to do with the overall direction of a website the caters to various interest groups and not its readers, which I think I've clearly explained.
Interesting that the responses to me and to Moe have routinely failed to address the only real issue here , which is Chris Tindal's manifest conflict of interest, which goes against the Torontoist's own conflict of interest policy.
Telling me to "relax" and Moe to "stop bitching" does not address the issue. Nor does complaining about the lack of neutrality at Maclean's, which is completely irrelevant, since I never complained that Tindal was not neutral. I complained that he had a conflict of interest. There's a difference.
So let me repeat what I've been trying to say:
GIVEN that Chris is in a conflict, I suggested that MAYBE Torontoist might deal with that by ALSO having someone from the NO campaign write a piece.
Again, I have seen no good argument, from the editors or from the comments, why there should not be such a contribution. If MMP is such a no-brainer, what are you all afraid of?
Chris is not in violation of our conflict-of-interest policy, and if somebody wants to present the "No" side, they can post comments just like anyone else.
Once again:
• Chris is not in violation of our policy.
• Torontoist isn't mandated to give "equal space" to opposing viewpoints.
• We do not discourage dissent from either our writers or our readership.
• We bring on writers who we think can offer interesting alternative viewpoints.
• We are a blog; not a newspaper of record.
• On October 10, you'll be able to vote on which balloting system you want.
"Chris is not in violation of our policy."
Explain, please.
I really, really, really dislike MMP as a voting system for Ontario.
While I wholeheartedly agree that our current system is flawed, I do not believe that adding another, non-directly-elected, class of politicians to our legislature is a reasonable approach. If a politician is near the top of a party's list, he or she has a fairly good chance of winning a seat, even if personally incompetent/disliked. Unless a list member is spectacularly unpopular, his or her presence on said list is unlikely to be enough to make people vote against the entire party en masse.
While this system does allow voices which are otherwise excluded into the legislature, it does so at the cost of dramatically strengthening political parties and weakening local representation. I do not find this acceptable in the least.
A much better solution would be some form of preferential balloting in multi-member ridings. The Single Transferable Vote system has been used successfully in Ireland for the better part of a century now, as well as in many other countries. Closer to home, it's also the method that B.C.'s citizen assembly recommended.
In an STV system, instead of choosing only one candidate, voters would rank a number of their preferred candidates. Ridings would be a little larger than ours are at present and would each elect multiple MPPs. When tallying votes, the least popular candidate would be dropped and their supporters' second-choice votes distributed to the remaining candidates. This continues until enough candidates have sufficient votes to fill all the seats in a riding.
This would ensure that all MPPs still have constituents to whom they are directly responsible. By minimizing wasted votes, it also provides results wherein the number of a party's MPPs closely match the proportion of the total vote won by said party.
Moe Real: Explain, please.
Sigh. Andrew already posted it in comment #5, but here it is again
You know, maybe the reason that there hasn't been an editorial from the NO side is that nobody goddamn well cares enough to write one? I know I couldn't do it -- pretty much all of my faith in first-past-the-post disappeared in a puff of smoke on October 13, 1987, but my passion for electoral reform is still close to zero.
However, in order to make Andrew Potter happy, I'm sure someone could pretend to care enough about preserving the status quo to write one. I know that I might do it at the bargain rate of eighty cents a word. And really, isn't that a small price to pay for the privilege of seeing Marc Lostracco, uh, do something or other that I'm still not clear about?
Welcome to Torontoist, where conflicts of interest are permitted as long as it advances an agenda the editor approves of.
Why the *sigh* Marc? We're being quite patient with you...
I presume that Torontoist will be giving equal space to a member of the NO committee?
Sure they will, Andrew. Right after Macleans balances out its stable of conservative and liberal pundits by adding a socialist to the lineup.
Hey John -- Thanks for commenting about MMP.
As you may know, STV is one of the systems that the Assembly considered for Ontario. They even started to envision what a custom system for STV might look like, but then decided that MMP better served the values that they and Ontarians (in consultations held across the province and through online submissions) had identified as being most important in a voting system. One of the main disadvantages is that STV doesn't work to address the under-representation of women and minorities as well as MMP does, nor does it achieve the same level of proportionality (the principal that says that if a party gets X% of the vote, they deserve X% of the seats).
I appreciate your concerns about the list. In fact, I expressed similar concerns to the Assembly during my oral presentation (on behalf of myself, not my party). However, I think it's too strong to claim that list members are not directly elected or that list seats will belong to a separate "class." Voters will still know who they're voting for, and, not only that, they'll know how the list was created. I do believe voters are smart enough to make decisions based on this information.
Either way, this is the recommendation we've got, and it's unlikely we're going to get another chance to reform our voting system anytime soon (this is the first opportunity we've had in...well...ever). In the BC example, there were some who voted against STV because they wanted MMP instead, even though they agreed both were better than the status quo. I hope we don't make that mistake in Ontario.
Neither myself nor my co-editor David Topping have an agenda other than presenting articles about Torontoey things that are interesting and worth talking about, controversial or not. I don't necessarily agree with stances often taken by staff, nor do the staff necessarily always agree with each other. But our writers are passionate about what they have to say, and that's a good thing in a city where mediocrity too often rises to the top because people feel helpless or frustrated to implement any real change.
You've got a bee in your bonnet for what is a non-issue, and you're wasting your energy manufacturing controversy about some Torontoist political agenda where none exists. Nor is anybody stopping you from creating your own blog, where you are also free to write what you wish.
Marc: I realize you've permitted a Green Party parrot to mimic all the Green Party talking points on this website, and I realize it's within your provoince to do so. That's what we've been talking about here, right? What I want to know is WHY! Explain why you have you settled this case of a conflict-of-interest? Of what benefit is it to your readers!
Chris Tindal being in the employ of the Green Party and writing about Green Party issues is the analagous to a Virgin employee writing about a new Virgin store or whatever is the Gothamist example. This can be overlooked at the editor's discretion, yes. But shouldn't the editor have to explain that to devoted readers who are simply asking WHY?
To be fair, it is buried in the obscure location of right on the goddamn page you're looking at.