Rolling Ontario provincial election thread 2007

I'm following the election from a distance, but based on what I've been reading and hearing from people back home, the referendum doesn't seem to be getting the kind of attention that it (IMHO) deserves.

I thought that the Liberals might have been in a bit of trouble this time around if the Conservatives just hammered away on their credibility, and then Tory went and put his foot in it with faith-based schooling.

is there any potential outcome other than a reduced liberal majority? i can't see anyone but mcguinty winning.

Liberal minority perhaps? The whole affair is somewhat lacking in drama this time around. There's no real hero to root for, or villain to root against.

the referendum doesn't seem to be getting the kind of attention that it (IMHO) deserves.

No shit! I didn't even really know about it until this week. I mean, this has the possibility to be one of the most radical things to happen to our political system since the Constitution, doesn't it??

You're absolutely OTM on your second point too, j-rock. It seems like a bizarre thing for Tory to throw his support behind, especially from a conservative point of view.

Maybe I need to read up some more but it appears to me so far that the provincial NDP is running on a ridiculous platform again. McGuinty's been all right, all things considered, but I would like to see a credile progressive alternative. I guess I'll check out the Green Party platform but it looks like I'll be casting an unenthusiastic Liberal vote again.

I'm a little surprised that even McG's proposing to raise the minimum wage to over $10 by 2010. I don't know that much about economics but is that a practical thing to do? (It's great if it is!)

I know i remember reading a street poll the Star did and abt 1 in 20 people knew about the referendum. I don't think either of the big 2 parties want it (for obv reasons) so we might now hear too much about it either. :(

it would be good tho, if it passed.

Proportional representation is for suckers.

If there are more than two parties or candidates, then it's better to hold a runoff election with whoever earns more than, say, 10% of the vote. Not the best system, but better than proportional representation (but then again just about anything is).

I still don't get your hatred for proportional representation, dude.

what you're saying is that if voters can't throw their complex political beliefs behind one of two parties then it's no good? *makes face*

Um, yeah, could you elaborate, Barry? (Argument for seems pretty self-evident: The current system is fundamentally undemocratic, allowing parties to win majorities with less than a majority of the vote, sometimes less than 40%, and shutting out some parties who do appeal to enough voters to deserve representation. My vote, for example, will likely be more or less worthless since the Tories own my parents' riding [though the Grits are running a strong candidate this time around]. And generally distorts results, e.g. allowing the Bloc to win several times as many seats federally as the NDP even when they receive the same number of votes overall. The first-past-the-post system would be all right if party discipline weren't enforced so strictly in our system [which would allow local reps to actually be, like, local reps.] PR, while possbily placing too much importance on parties over individuals, does at least allow for a more democratic representation of the full spectrum of the public's political views. Also, instability is underrated. Mind you, the Idealistic Pragmatist gives a long argument for why PR wouldn't necessarily result in instability here. I haven't read all of it but it looks good;). She gives a pretty good PR FAQ here.)

iirc Barry's main beef is that there will never again be a strong majority and nothing will ever get done ever again since the days of elected dictators, like Chretien , will be dead and over. (sorry barry if I'm misremembering but it's been a while and you didn't make sense to me at the time either)

anyways I think that's total bs. it's under our current version of democracy that makes that scenario seem likely. with admittedly less stable governments we'll see less of the arrogant and combative nature of parties and government and more discussion revolving around issues and goals as opposed to the "omg look what awful libruls be doing" & "arg conservatives are fuk" partisan fueled debates we're bogged down with now. again - i'm not sure if that addresses Barry's beef or not, but it's an argument i heard a lot against RP.

man - do i know how to party on a friday night or what!

haha. That argument was the main one IP tackled (quite convincingly, I thought) in the first link. Even if it did lead to more minority govts (which may actually be less likely, I tend to agree with her), I don't totally buy the "minorities = instability/inactivity" argument. Pearson's minority govt, which last 5 years, was surely one of the most active and constructive govts (and probably the best one) we've ever had. Even Trudeau's relatively short-lived minority accomplished a lot. I agree with the rest of your points as well, Thermo.

Something worth keeping in mind is that executive and legislative powers are fused in the British parliamentary system. The US system blows goats in almost every way but at the very least, there are checks and balances between President and Congress and individual representatives have a fair amount of autonomy. In our system, a majority govt really does pretty much = a dictatorship, given party discipline. That's really problematic when, like, a majority of the population didn't actually vote for the ruling party. And the class war argument that I'm sure will win everyone over: Liberals and PCs/Conservatives are both backed heavily by big business and are able to dominate in part because of this funding. PR would at least give other voices some representation.

When it comes to checks and balances what Canada does have is some pretty powerful provincial governments. Not that they can dictate foreign policy or anything like that but on domestic issues they can exercise a good amount of sway.

iirc Barry's main beef is that there will never again be a strong majority and nothing will ever get done ever again since the days of elected dictators, like Chretien , will be dead and over. (sorry barry if I'm misremembering but it's been a while and you didn't make sense to me at the time either)

I have no philosophical beef with minority govts composed of competing parties having to (gasp) work together to agree on policy. The issue is how the composition of the govt is chosen, i.e. how to award the seats between the parties, and as far as that is concerned, prop. rep. is fundamentally unfair, IMO.

Sundar, I think your views are idealistic to the extreme. First of all, this statement is madness: "In our system, a majority govt really does pretty much = a dictatorship, given party discipline". If Candidate A beats B by a 60%-40% vote, then would you say that A is now a dictator? Or do you think that the fair outcome is for A to govern 60% of the time, and B 40% of the time? The meaning of an election is the process of asking a large public body to select a person (or people) who are most qualified to make decisions on behalf of everybody. This is not a dictatorship! That's what an election is. Furthermore, the decision-making of an elected person/body should be more strongly affected by the voting body (i.e. people who voted for them, plus the people who didn't who they are still responsible for governing), NOT by other parties with competing interests.

I also think it's naive to suggest that big parties are backed by big businesses and small parties are immune to this. Sure, they're largely immune right now because they can't earn seats in parliament -- this is an effect, not a cause. With more parties represented, the money and influence will quickly find its way to all parties, big or small.

The only people in favour of prop. rep. are fringe parties because they stand to gain the most from such a system. I'm more concerned with what the mainstream opinion, since that is what reflects the views of most voters. It's like the example, I used above, if A beats B by a 60-40 vote, then it tells me that A has received a mandate to govern and make decisions -- it doesn't tell me that the election isn't fair unless B holds 40% of the decision-making power. If the vote was A 55%, B 40%, C 5%, then it tells me that most people's views are in line with A and B, whereas C is insignificant for the most part.

I think I made this point on a different thread ... but prop. rep. also wipes out any influence of geographical distribution patterns. The total number of votes is important, but where those votes come from is not important. For instance, if the federal parliament was proportional, then the Bloc would hold about 7% of the seats. This doesn't reflect the actual voter distribution at all (or the will of the Bloc voters). The Bloc do NOT pull 7% of the national vote, they pull 35-40% of the vote in Quebec and 0% everywhere else, and the difference is profound in terms of how Quebec wants to be governed.

I mean, suppose you live in an area that strongly supports the NDP. Under the current system, that riding elects an NDP candidate who is uniquely sensitive to the particular needs of his/her constituents. For instance, the MPP for Trinity-Spadina is Rosario Marchese, who understands that he represents a large student population voter base (also large Asian, Italian populations). He fights for education reform, takes on U of T's Governing Council, and earns a lot of student votes for doing so. In a prop. rep. system, Rosario Marchese doesn't represent 100% of Trinity-Spadina, he represents 20% of it (or whatever %age of the total provincial vote that the NDP gets), along with every other NDP candidate (since nobody is tied to any particular riding). If the Libs get 40% and the Cons get 30%, then they also represent 40% and 30% of Trinity-Spadina, respectively. Parliament can't govern according to the needs and wants of these sub-populations, because riding-by-riding voter data doesn't factor into choosing the parliament.

Also, the "my vote doesn't matter" argument that always gets raised by people supporting minor parties is bullshit. Only the losers claim their vote didn't matter -- because they lost. That's how elections work. If 20 000 people vote for A and 10 000 vote for B, then you can't say that a vote for B didn't matter. It mattered, and B lost. If one of B's voters had chosen to stay at home because they were convinced that their vote didn't matter, then the vote would have been 20 000 - 9 999. That's a different result. Either way, more people voted for A. Each vote is the same. By the same argument, I could argue that my vote for A didn't matter because A would have won with or without my vote, but nobody every does because only the losers make these sorts of complaints. It's a stupid line of reasoning.

In a prop. rep. system, Rosario Marchese doesn't represent 100% of Trinity-Spadina, he represents 20% of it (or whatever %age of the total provincial vote that the NDP gets)

But this isn't what we're planning on doing in Ontario, brah. We're looking at a mixed system where I'll still be represented by Marchese but we'll also have (i don't remember the exact numbers here) roughly 1/3 of Ontario's house made up of a proportional reflection of the entire province's vote. Alot of your argument here revolves around the deficiencies of a 100% proportional system - which is not - and I don't think ever will be - considered here. I do agree that geographical representation is vital and we're still going to have that as the majority of our house.

Only the losers claim their vote didn't matter -- because they lost.

I call bullshit on this! When I go vote for Marchese - I know he's going to win my riding. And judging by the posters, easily too. So what's the point of me voting? Everyone else is voting for him so i might aswell stay home and play guitar hero, then? even winners can waste their vote in our system.

The only people in favour of prop. rep. are fringe parties

I really feel this is wrong, but don't have the time to research all the Libs/dippers etc that might support PR right now.

When I go vote for Marchese - I know he's going to win my riding.

I addressed that in my last post. It's also a b.s. argument, but I still claim it's not one that anybody really uses. Although Americans seem to bother themselves with the "my vote doesn't matter" stuff more than we do, probably because of the people who convince themselves that votes don't matter if you're not living in a swing state (basic refutation: the same states aren't always swing states in every election).

I know I used an all-or-nothing argument, but it's a slippery slope. It starts with roughly 1/3 prop rep, but that number will surely be tweaked with subsequent elections. And which parties will want to push it higher? The smaller parties, of course, who will have more clout behind them because they will have more representation in parliament.

And no matter how you look at it, Marchese's power in govt is reduced (and therefore his power to influence policy that will help his riding) because he has to face off against proportionally "elected" MPP's who are there because of the "global" vote. The Lib and Cons voters in Trinity-Spadina directly helped to elect some of these proportional representatives. So, his electoral win carries less influence because he still has to compete with non-NDP MPP's who were elected, in part, by the people in his own riding.

^^^^ hypothetically speaking for possible future elections, of course

Thermo OTM. The "slippery slope" argument doesn't strike me as strong at all. I don't see at all how it logically follows that if we start with 1/3 proportional rep now that that guarantees the number will increase in future. Any such decisions will still need to be debated and voted on (likely in another referendum.) I don't really follow your argument about why a riding-rep MPP will have reduced power under the MMP system. He'll still have the same vote he had before. We'd still be preserving local representation but just adding some elements of PR to balance out some of the problems with the FPTP system.

First of all, this statement is madness: "In our system, a majority govt really does pretty much = a dictatorship, given party discipline". If Candidate A beats B by a 60%-40% vote, then would you say that A is now a dictator? Or do you think that the fair outcome is for A to govern 60% of the time, and B 40% of the time?

First, parties that win majority govts don't do so because they won a majority of the total vote, in almost every case. And once a party wins a majority, the party leader (who, even by your own logic, was only elected by his own constituents, not by the country as a whole) and his chosen cabinet are more or less free to pass whatever legislation they choose. Individual MPs or MPPs are bound to toe the party line when it comes to voting unless an issue is specifically designated for a free vote. "Dictatorship" was probably melodramatic but I do think this leads to a concentration of power that is fundamentally undemocratic.

I also think it's naive to suggest that big parties are backed by big businesses and small parties are immune to this. Sure, they're largely immune right now because they can't earn seats in parliament -- this is an effect, not a cause. With more parties represented, the money and influence will quickly find its way to all parties, big or small.

I think it's an effect and a cause. You're right that big business backs big parties over small parties because they're more strongly represented in Parliament. But, at the same time, how do big parties become big parties? Is it because most voters study the issues and the platforms of every party and the majority conclude that a couple of parties are the best options? Or is it also because some parties are able to get their messages across more easily because of support from other powerful institutions in society? And that perhaps these parties are chosen because they hold views that are favourable towards those interests?

Your point about the "my vote doesn't matter" argument is a good one though.

The Bloc do NOT pull 7% of the national vote, they pull 35-40% of the vote in Quebec and 0% everywhere else, and the difference is profound in terms of how Quebec wants to be governed.

This doesn't convince me that geographically concentrated support for one party should count for that much more than more widespread support for another party that's not concentrated enough to win a lot of seats. At least, I would say it should be balanced a little bit with some recognition of the value of the latter, which is all that MMP would do. (Nor does it convince that a party that wins 35-40% of the vote in a province should win over 70% of the seats in that province.)

FWIW, according to Wikipedia, the NDP (whom I'm guessing you wouldn't consider a fringe party?) officially supports MMP. The only party that officially opposes it is the Freedom Party, which is a fringe party.

The party leader was elected to the House by his own constituents, to be clear. Obviously he was elected as party leader by delegates at his party's convention.

(I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with FPTP [first-past-the-post] if individual MPs and MPPs had the freedom to vote however they want on any issue.

Are there any democracies that don't have political parties?)

Ya - the slipper slope argument is ridiculous. Being able to call up your representative, in your riding, if you have an issue with something; is fundamental to our system - I can't see that ever going away. And I see no problem augmenting it with a form of representation that, as a part of the house, represents the overall will of the people of Ontario. Personally i think a 50/50 split would be perfect.

And anyways - if RP is so dumb, why would we be in such danger of it taking over our entire system?

What's so hard to understand about the slippery slope argument? Once the law comes into effect, eventually some parties will want to tweak it. And they won't want to tweak the %age any lower, only higher. And any way you compare it, current system = constituents of a riding elect one MPP from one party, proposed system = constituents elect one MPP and indirectly elect other MPP's from other parties -> the power given to that MPP by the voters has partly been dissipated amongst other parties. Sure, your MPP still gets exactly one vote in parliament, just like he or she always did, but that vote means less because part of the opposition is now composed of MPP's that were elected (via PR) in that MPP's very own riding! In other words, MPP's no longer speak for all their constituents in parliament, and you can bet that voting decisions will be affected by this.

First, parties that win majority govts don't do so because they won a majority of the total vote, in almost every case. And once a party wins a majority, the party leader (who, even by your own logic, was only elected by his own constituents, not by the country as a whole)

Come on, this is disingenuous. It's not like we elect MPs and MPPs and once the election is over, it's all "Surprise! We decided that Dalton McGuinty is going to be the premier." Everyone knows who the party leaders are and can take that into account when casting a vote.

Getting a majority of the vote isn't the same as having a clear mandate to govern. Say you have a four party system and the vote is 45-25-20-10. Typical majority govt outcome ... you say that the mandate of the party with 45% of the vote is cheapened because they didn't get half the vote. I say that they dominated the vote in most ridings (getting twice as many votes as any other party) and are therefore the first choice of most voters.

Now, I'm obviously making an inference there, which is necessarily the case in any election involving more than two possible outcomes. This is a very interesting problem, and one that concerns me a lot more than parties not getting seat representation despite having 7% of the vote. What about all the elections where the riding votes, say, 35% C, 30% NDP, 25% LIB, 10% other. A situation like this *did* occur in many ridings in the last two federal elections (particularly in BC), but I infer that the liberal (small "l") vote was split and let the Conservative guy through. In a second, runoff election between the top two candidates, the Conservative candidate probably gets smoked. This is a much fairer way of deciding elections, but the logistics of it (costs, time, having to vote twice, unfairness associated with the results of non-runoff elections already being known to the runoff voters) means that it'd be very difficult to implement.

As for the current parties supporting PR, I guess they figure that in the long run they'll wield more power. Currently, if you form a majority govt then you run the show, so you're happy. But if you're not, then you have very little power. With PR, you have a better chance at wielding some power nearly all the time, even at the expense of having less power if your party is leading the government. This is actually an interesting mathematical problem and I'm fairly sure all the major parties have modeled this (including what the ideal %age of PR-elected seats needs to be to maximize their long-term benefits).

Sundar, what riding are you 'in'? Is it Barrhaven?

My official residence is in Barrhaven, which is in the Nepean-Carleton riding.

I think I'm officially in the same riding. I haven't been really following it, though, because I'm in the process of switching to my MTL riding... I missed it last time, and the guy I wanted to vote for lost by about 200 votes, and he was the only guy in his party who was even close to winning. That stung.

Come on, this is disingenuous. It's not like we elect MPs and MPPs and once the election is over, it's all "Surprise! We decided that Dalton McGuinty is going to be the premier." Everyone knows who the party leaders are and can take that into account when casting a vote.

Yeah, so people are voting for party leaders and parties and not only for local reps. Incorporating some element of PR takes this into account better than a FPTP parliamentary system does IMO. However you slice it, people only elect the prime minister or premier in an indirect way currently. (This aspect might not change that much under the MMP system, I'll grant.)

There might be pressure to increase the number of 'proportionally elected' MPPs in the future if this goes through. That doesn't mean it will have to happen. Those will be future decisions that will still need to be voted on.

Anyway, we could argue this all day and night. These are two ways of making a legislature or parliament representative of the public. Both have worked, in the sense of being the basis of functioning democracies, in different countries.

Sure, your MPP still gets exactly one vote in parliament, just like he or she always did, but that vote means less because part of the opposition is now composed of MPP's that were elected (via PR) in that MPP's very own riding!

This is boggling my mind right now. You will still have 1 representative responsible for your riding. This does not change. agreed. So what you're saying is that PR is terrible because there will be other people voting - *not* representing your riding? thus taking away somehow from your local MPP??? I'm really not sure what your trying to get at that's so terrible with this. and your agument is also assuming that each riding is going to be responsible for voting opposition representatives - that's true even if 1% of the vote in a riding goes towards, say the Consrvatives in a lIberal (or other) riding; you're still ignoring the fact that people have the power to not only vote for their local MPP but for a proportinal representative of their party of choice aswell! WHY IS THIS BAD??? If your argument is that their vote means less with PR - due to additional members - then that's just, well dumb! Would you argue against ever expanding the house because of population fluctuation, then? And also as I said, having the ability for people to help select a proportional representative of their choosing gives voters the option of helping to vote someone in who might be from the same party - who just might vote WITH your MPP!

And your slipper slope beef is still pretty weak. I could understand if there were indications some evil, shadowy party wanted 100% PR but this is really not the case at all. you could use the "slipper slope" against almost any sensible law, too - like the "slippery slope" argument used by conservatives against gay marriage (slippery slope = soon a cactus will be allowed to marry a small group of gay men). it doesn't hold water without any evidence that anyone wants to do this.

A recent poll seems to show the Green Party almost tied with the NDP! At this point, I think their platform might actually be more credible (though it still seems a little irresponsible to not vote Liberal.)

(Outremont by any chance, Will?)

you don't owe the libruls anything, sundar!

I can't claim to follow politics extremely closely, but I have read that the NDP platform is actually more Green than the Green party's. :P

And the NDP offers blog templates: http://www.ndp.ca/page/5246
I love it.

I'm not Outremont, I am... Plateau Mont-Royal, I think. The vote I'm referring to was a few months ago, and I planned to vote for this guy.

Apparently the riding I'm in is called Mercier. Who knew?

In reference to last's nights vote, I stupidly paid ABSOLUTELY no attention, even to the fact that pictures were going up all over my neighborhood, of the candidates; however, I likely would have voted for Thomas Mulcair, and he won, so there's that.

Unless, of course, I wasn't in that riding. I think the division line is about a block away from me, but I have no idea. Ooooh, this is bugging me now. Research time, I suppose...

Upon further examination, I am hopelessly trapped in Gilles Duceppe territory.

I have read that the NDP platform is actually more Green than the Green party's.

This may well be true of Jack Layton's federal party, whom I do generally support. The provincial party is another story, though.

CFS weighs in. This makes my near-definite Liberal vote painful.

well... fingers crossed etc.

The results/predictions from the CBC so far: Lib 62, PC 25, NDP 14. Almost the same results as 2003 with the NDP improving a bit. They're not even mentioning the referendum! I wish the NDP had campaigned a bit harder on the tuition issue. It didn't come up as much as it should have. Interesting: J. Tory's own seat in peril.

lol at Tory.
As far as Conservatives go he wasn't that bad; but he picked a hard fight in that riding and failed. c'est la vie.
looks like the dippers gained a few seats and aside from that we had the '99 election all over again :/
And too bad i'll most like have to wait until tomorrow morning to find that MMP failed.

Yeah, looks like we're getting demolished on that front. Right now, it looks like the NDP is only picking up 2 more seats anyway (<pedant>from 2003 not 1999!</pedant>) Their popular vote increased though.

by, like 1%, no? the greens and family coalition (!!!OMGWTF) did better on that front than the dippers.
Hampton's crazy popular in his riding (the first riding called i think) but i'm not sure if we'll be seeing him lead this party much longer.

lol at ont having a referendum