What do you think of the upcoming referendum in Ontario?

Question

I was on holiday, then came back to a notice that I can vote. Only thing is I have no idea what it's about and don't have the time to find out elsewhere.

My vote will be based on your answers.

Thanks.

Answer 1

Im voting yes to the MMP election method.
I think that like, 60-70 percent of people in ontario don't even know we're having a referendum, much less what it's about. So Im trying to spread the word, telling everyone to get informed about it.

Its basicaly asking whether or not we should change the way elections are carried out in Ontario. Under the new method (MMP) the number of seats that a party holds is representative of the number of votes they got. It's a lot fairer, especially for the smaller parties that have a lot of followers, but always come in second or third.

Go here:
http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/default.aspx
It lists the method we have now (first past the post) and the new one (mixed member proportional) and what they're about.

Or here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_electoral_reform_referendum,_2007
Most candidates/parties are supporting the new way.

Answer 2

Apparently, it is a choice between the current system (first past the post) and the type of system used in Wales and Scotland (for the regional parliaments) and Germany.

In the current system, all members of the provincial parliament are elected from ridings. In each riding, the candidate with the most votes is elected.

In the new system (mixed member proportional), there would still be members elected from individual ridings (90 of them). As such, there would be a member of the provincial parliament who was your representative. There would also be 39 members elected province wide on a proportional basis. As in Germany, Scotland, and Wales, these members would be elected on the basis of a second ballot that you would cast at the same time as you voted for the member from your riding. In this second ballot, you would vote for a poltiical party. These ballots would be used to determine how many total members each party should have in the parliament. Any party that got more than 3% of the total vote would be eligible for these proportional members. The 39 seats would be used to "top up" the parties.

For example, assume that in the next election, the Liberals won 50 of the 90 ridings, the Conservatives won 30, and the NDP won 10. Assume that on the second ballot, Liberals got 40%, Conservatives got 35% and NDP got 25% (with any other parties getting less than 1% total). Out of 129 total members of Parliament, the 40% would translate into 52 members for the Liberals. Since they already had 50 members from the ridings, they would get 2 members from the party list. The 35% would translate into 45 members for the Conservatives. Since they already had 30 from the ridings they would get 15 from the party list. The 25% would translate into 32 members for the NDP. Since they only had 10 from the ridings, they would get 22 from the party list.

Basically, MMP translates into better representation for the parties that finish in second and third in the balloting -- equivalent to the actual strength in the province. It makes it harder for the first party to get a majority without actually receinving a majority of the votes. Unlike strict proportional representation (which just uses the party list), MMP does leave you with a personal representative from your riding.

That is essentially the pro and con of MMP. It gives you more accurate representation at the expense of making coalition and minority governments more likely.

Answer 3

I support the current electoral system. The option you are being given would substantially increase the number of MPPs. There would be a number of MPPs that owe there allegiance exclusively to the party, and not to a local riding. These additional MPPs would be made up of people who failed to get elected or political patronage.

Since many elections are decided with the winner getting about 40% of the votes this would mean minority goverments most of time, and frequent elections.

Funny how the Liberals are asking our opinion on electorial reform, yet they decided to implement a fixed election date, and required the autor general to review the books prior to an election, without asking us if we wanted those changes.

Answer 4

Not much

Answer 5

Sorry, haven't heard a thing about it....