No Campaign Doesn't Have Faith in You!

The No campaign arguments are based in a lack of faith in Ontario voters to determine their own destiny.

I was on CHIN radio debating a Conservative party hack. I started off by saying that we needed to give creedence to the 94-8 near consensus of regular Ontarions who studied electoral systems and Ontario politics for 8 months. But the NO people are all of special insights, keener than the rest. But are they smarter than a 5th grader?

Lowell Green woke me up this morning on my clock radio with the bold statement that first past the post was the majority for democracies in the world. So I called him up. After being interrogated as to why I wasn't at work and having assured him that I pay taxes I was allowed to say something. I called him on the fact that the that 101 countries have PR and only 47 have the FPTP system. "But most western democracies have FPTP" said Lowell. Wrong again, only 4 do.

Anyway, back at CHIN radio, the first argument was that MMP is too hard to understand. It was accompanied by the critique that the message has not been communicated. I had to agree that the message didn't get out clearly or early enough. There's lots of improvement to be had in this campaign. That said, some of this is the government and media's fault. I pointed out that we just had a leader's debate, but nothing like a 2hr televised special for MMP.

The PC hack gave the argument that his grandmother couldn't understand MMP, and therefore it's too mysterious for us to accept. I was somewhat stunned by this and missed an opportunity that I'll take here. My grandmother likely doesn't understand public-private partnerships in health, or the funding formula for schools (how many people understand that?). Our job for our grandmother's, or the dumb blonde in the next office, or those too busy for politics, is to make it simple enough that the key points are understood.

You get a ballot. There's one vote for the party, one for the local candidate. The local candidate who gets the most votes wins. The party gets the percentage of seats at Queen's Park that's the same as the province-wide vote. 46% vote liberal, they get 46% of the seats (not 70!). Easy!

Then there's the thorny issue of more politicians. This really gets me. Ontario's the most underrepresented province, (Member to population) in the country. But to the NO side, politicians are just bad guys who cost too much. We want democracy but not politicians? How does that work? More politicians means more representation, and to a point more is better. These extra politicians are going to be representing all those voters who don't get representation for now. Half or more of people that vote in this system are represented by someone they didn't vote for. All those votes will be electing representativees in MMP.

A lot of this rides on the cynicism about politics. We can't forget that this cynicism was created in the current system. There's more to it that the voting system, and I don't think people and politics are as bad as the cynics say they are. People get more cynical when the feel they lack power. MMP gives you more power to chose, more ways to express your dissatisfaction or approval.

Some NO arguments are afraid of that power. I've replied to letters that stated a fear of fringe parties. There were worried about White Supremacists and Religious Parties. But, can they actually imagine 3 out of every 100 people at their neighbourhood poll voting for such radical ideas? Muslims, all of them together, make up 3% of the province, and I think they are the largest religious minority that is not Christian. Between Sunnis and Shias, moderates and fundamentalists, secular Muslims, gay Muslims, progressives, generational vs. new citizens - it's kind of insulting to think that all these people will wake up one day, form a party and having every single one of them vote for in order to get one seat!

Then they worry that the small party with one seat with hold the dreaded 'balance of power'. We forget the recent federal budget, where a single Independent MP held the balance of power and could have brought down the government. We survived.

The truth is 'balance of power' is an artifact of equivalence of power where two sides that disagree are almost equal. Democratically, the validity of either outcome is already roughly equal. The bringing down of government, democratically, was just as valid as letting it stand in that case. The outcomes are already democratically equal, and the main decision is between major parties view of issues that they have framed. These small number of seats have limited power, even when they hold the balance. In order to stop this, the NO people want us to shut out a good percentage, such as the Greens with say 10% of the population, from representation.

A party would be very irresponsible and likely voted out if they made unreasonable concessions to one or a small number of seats just to get win a vote in the Legislature. Concessions that would be outside their ideology, platforms or promises would not be accepted by voters. The small seats can only win concessions that the major parties can align themselves with.

The NO side wants you to think that list candidates are automatically unaccountable and unelected. They are not unelected. You vote for them when you vote for a party. They get in in a slightly different way. If the local candidates were more popular than the province-wide vote, the list members won't get in. That's good, because in that case, the party wasn't stronger overall than the sum of their local members success. If the province-wide vote was better than performance in local ridings, these people are elected by those province-wide votes, including all those whose vote for a local candidate didn't elect them, all those votes that weren't represented before. In a sense, these people are elected by all those people who are represented now by people they didn't vote for.

You don't count the same as others in your riding right now and politicians know it. The NO side wants you to continue to be unequal. The NO side wants you to punish your local member who you like if their party didn't perform well. The NO side doens't want to give you the power to punish the party, especially if you're in a riding where that party's an easy winner. They complain that there are candidates being elected that you don't vote for directly. You won't be able to vote them out, because those annoying other people in the province vote for that party. Don't forget that you have absolutely no say in how 102 ridings vote for their members in this system. If the neighbouring riding's MPP is a tool and wins all the time because there a Liberal, nothing you can do, nor can you do anything about the Toronto MPP's who don't know that LFL&A exists! At least with MMP, you know that your vote will matter in the province-wide election of parties.

And this is where the NO people decieve you. Politicians are bad, but local politicians are great. Parties are horrible, but local party representatives are there for you all the time. Local representation is so great and accountable that you can get local MPP's to come and wash your dishes, even if you didn't vote for them! But I listened to the radio comments after the Leader's Debate. Everyone was deciding based on the leader and the party. They vote through their local candidate for the party. Only one person said they would consider the local candidate in about twenty calls. No wonder some ridings could elect a lamppost if they ran for right party, some seem to have come close. People vote for parties, and some care about the local candidate. Some people will just read up enough on the local candidate to make sure they fit, some people will go the polling station and read the name of the local candidate for the first time. Most people vote for parties, and in that case it seems like in this system, winners are demographic accidents.

The NO people worry about how the parties come up with their list, fearing back-room deals. Putting the cart before the horse! But the recommendation clearly states that the process must be fully transparent and stated before the writ drops. The list is stated before the writ drops. Now, as a voter I can take a look at that list. I can take a look at the slate of local candidates. I can take a look at what this party might look like. I look at their platforms and recall their past experience. Then I look at my local candidates. Which party do they belong to? What's their background and experience, what kind of person are they? Did I like them at the door? What's their position on local issues?

In our current system, if you even get past the first question, you might end up in conflict based on the answers to the other questions. The best candidate might not match your party. So now you have to choose whether to reward your party and vote for the lesser candidate, or vote against your party for the candidate you like.

There's all kinds of voters. Many are just habitually voting for the party that people around them vote for. Some are voting on particular issues. Some have changed parties because of a leader or a policy. Habitual voters will have new choices to consider in MMP. This might engage them more, or they may just vote for the same party on both ballots. Either way it's fairer to all of us and will invigorate politics, making local races more exciting and parties more accountable to all voters. Voters like those who work in the 'social' professions but in very Conservative ridings. Green voters everywhere. Conservatives in Toronto, NDP in the suburbs. Liberals wherever they come in last!

We should come to share province-wide concerns, and get a better sense of how they relate. I always worry about the North, in the system too little attention is given them. But today, the most politically marginalized must be voting minorities in the North who must feel their votes are cast into a vaccuum. The North must demand lists from every party with representation for the North. If they do, they'll get more than one member for their ridings. Rural areas do have concerns that are not addressed by Conservatives! In MMP, rural people will get representation from Liberals, Greens and NDP, those who voted for them are other 40-55% of people in the riding that didnt' vote Conservative. Instead of one cohort dominating the other, it will be balanced and proportional.

Parties and candidates can win and lose, voters shouldn't! Voting demands counting that vote. It demands accountability, it demands representation!