Ontario Referendum On Voting System

[koan]

On Oct. 10th, 2007, Ontario residents in Canada will cast a vote on how they want to vote in the future. The two options are 1) to continue with the current system of voting for a local candidate and the winner gains a seat in the legislature or 2) voting for a local member and a party separately. if the party votes exceed elected members then "list members" will take the extra seats.

I'm currently looking for the summary of what this all means. At the moment it appears that we would end up with more politicians on public payroll and some of the legislature members would be chosen by politicians not the public.

The dedicated, impartial site is http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/

[Richard Bell]

I'm inclined at this point to reject it.

I think Dalton McGinty is a lying sack of sh!t anyway, so I have an aversion to anything touted by his regime.

Our system isn't perfect, but it works pretty well. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.

Anyway, I'm voting NDP, because they are the only party that voted against the huge pay increase the MPPs voted for themselves. Since I'm voting for an NDP MPP, and voting for the party on general principles, it doesn't interest me that I could vote for a party and an MPP.

It looks to me that this idea could lead to an Italian style parliament, where chaos and ineffectuality reign supreme.

[spot]

It depends on whether you want the electorate to be able to dent the system when they're unhappy.

First Past The Post amplifies voter opinion and generally avoids coalitions. This is a Good Thing, since one party running matters gives a coherent focused agenda which hasn't offended so many people as to be unacceptable.

Party Lists utterly insulate the politicians from rejection and rejecting individual politicians is the best entertainment going. It satisfies the electorate and it purges powerful magnates from their posts. Long may it continue. You'll not have heard of Norman Lamont, Malcolm Rifkind, David Mellor, Michael Portillo, William Waldegrave or Chris Patten but their downfalls heartened a generation.

[gmc]

On Oct. 10th, 2007, Ontario residents in Canada will cast a vote on how they want to vote in the future. The two options are 1) to continue with the current system of voting for a local candidate and the winner gains a seat in the legislature or 2) voting for a local member and a party separately. if the party votes exceed elected members then "list members" will take the extra seats.

I'm currently looking for the summary of what this all means. At the moment it appears that we would end up with more politicians on public payroll and some of the legislature members would be chosen by politicians not the public.

The dedicated, impartial site is http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/

Sounds similar to the system introduced in Scotland. Don't know about canada but here the first things parties do when they get elected is gerrymander the electoral boundaries to make sure they get elected again. First past the post means you often end up with parties in control that have a low percentage of the overall vote but have managed to win the most seats by rearranging the wards, effectively disenfranchising most of the voters.

First past the post means you end up with situation like in the Uk where over 2/3rds of the voters didn't vote labour but we have a labour govt. Same with Maggie Thatcher, At no time did the majority of voters support her yet we got stuck with her. next to Tony Blair she must be one of the most hated prime ministers we have ever had.

In scotland for fifty years labour have ruled the roost now they no longer do so and are losing their grip on local councils as well, thanks to the list system. poor dears don't know what has hit them. Without it we would still have labour despite the massive opposition to them.

Main parties tend not to like PR because it means they can't rule the roost any more and actually have to listen to people.

posted by spot

It depends on whether you want the electorate to be able to dent the system when they're unhappy.

Oh yeah like TB got dented at the last election.

posted by spot

First Past The Post amplifies voter opinion and generally avoids coalitions. This is a Good Thing, since one party running matters gives a coherent focused agenda which hasn't offended so many people as to be unacceptable.

This is a bad thing, when you amplify something it can also be distorted as happens in our system. The number of votes cast for a party in general elections under FPTP is not accurately reflected in the number of seats won. Under PR the number of seats more accurately reflects the number of votes cast for each party.

posted by spot

Party Lists utterly insulate the politicians from rejection and rejecting individual politicians is the best entertainment going. It satisfies the electorate and it purges powerful magnates from their posts. Long may it continue. You'll not have heard of Norman Lamont, Malcolm Rifkind, David Mellor, Michael Portillo, William Waldegrave or Chris Patten but their downfalls heartened a generation.

They also scare the **** out of them as has happened up here. For the first time in ages it's no longer a waste of time voting.

posted by Richard Bell

It looks to me that this idea could lead to an Italian style parliament, where chaos and ineffectuality reign supreme.

That's not the system that's due to the italians. Germany uses the same system, like italy PR was imposed after ww2 because PR prevents one party gaining total power without having support from at least a majority of the populace. (as has happened here with New Labour ) The argument that it gives small parties undue influence is a spurious one. No offence but you have to gave a very strange way of looking at things if you believe an electoral system that gives the majority of seats and therefore political power to a party that 2/3rds of the voters reject is a fair one.

Both labour and the Tories are on record as saying they oppose PR. Scots Tories on the other hand think it's wonderful as without it, despite getting 18% of the vote they would have no seats at all.

[koan]

It's very difficult to decide what it will all mean in real results.

One of the most unnerving aspects is that no one is really talking about it. My family keeps fairly well informed and none of us can talk intelligently about this particular subject... and the vote is in a month!

That's some good info here though. At least a starting point to research from.

[koan]

My father's opinion includes that most of the politicians are against it so there has to be something good about the new system idea

One question I'm still unsure of... with PR, would the local dude still be the local representative if his party didn't win enough seats for him/her to go to legislature?

[koan]

Proportional Representation - Party List system
is what Ontario is voting on.

I think the better article was on the main page
Proportional Representation



After reading those articles and the one on First Past The Post, I've made my decision. The scary part is that I wouldn't have voted for PR after reading the Ontario government's official info site about it. It was sketchy as to what exactly they meant. Now that I have more information it's very exciting. What gmc said rings incredibly true for me "For the first time in ages it's no longer a waste of time voting."

[gmc]

Proportional Representation - Party List system
is what Ontario is voting on.

I think the better article was on the main page
Proportional Representation



After reading those articles and the one on First Past The Post, I've made my decision. The scary part is that I wouldn't have voted for PR after reading the Ontario government's official info site about it. It was sketchy as to what exactly they meant. Now that I have more information it's very exciting. What gmc said rings incredibly true for me "For the first time in ages it's no longer a waste of time voting."

You can see why the established parties don't like it can't you?

[koan]

You can see why the established parties don't like it can't you?

Yes. But I can also see what is being done about it.
60% of the vote is needed to change the electoral system and there has been almost no info about it. Much of what has been said focuses on the safety of sticking with the system we know.

[Nomad]

On Oct. 10th, 2007, Ontario residents in Canada will cast a vote on how they want to vote in the future. The two options are 1) to continue with the current system of voting for a local candidate and the winner gains a seat in the legislature or 2) voting for a local member and a party separately. if the party votes exceed elected members then "list members" will take the extra seats.

I'm currently looking for the summary of what this all means. At the moment it appears that we would end up with more politicians on public payroll and some of the legislature members would be chosen by politicians not the public.

The dedicated, impartial site is http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/

Really meaty stuff here koan.