Oct. 10 is General Election and Referendum

Well, with the election coming up, I have to find some time that I don't have to comment on it - bringing this blog into a realm on which it has not yet tread.

I was going to save the most important for last, but in case you should become bored with my musings, I need to talk about the referendum first. It is more important than the general election, because quite simply the general election means very little. In Ontario, we don't really have democracy. In the referendum on Oct. 10 we have the opportunity to replace the current first past the post system to a mixed member proportional system for electing our legislative members.

What does this mean?

The current system of first past the post is deeply flawed. It does not give a voice to a significant cross section of the population. In Ontario there are 103 seats to which are elected members of provincial parliament (MPPs) from regional ridings around the province. This means that there is one MPP for about 100 000 citizens or around 50 000 votes. In the last election the Green Party received 126 000 votes which should be good for at least two MPPs, but instead was good for a big fat zero. That's the entire city of Waterloo with out a voice in our legislature. It happens because the votes are spread out and there is not enough to elect an MPP in any one riding. In fact there are several cases in recent history (such as in New Brunswick) where a party won 100% of the seats, gaining %100 of the power, with only 60% of the populations votes. This system is WRONG!

The Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform was selected - one ordinary person from each riding in the province - to decide if a better alternative is available. They have unanimously put forward the alternative Mixed Member Proportional system. In this system, there would a few less ridings (about 15% less) from which MPPs would be elected as they currently are. This ensures that strong regional representation remains intact. Then, there are 39 list members - MPPs that are selected from lists published by the parties before the election - to balance out the make up of the legislature so that each party is represented according to the votes received. Another problem with the old system is that we are forced to vote for a candidate and the party he is part of at the same time. Electors are frequently faced with a dilemma because they like a particular candidate, but don't like his party. In the new system we vote twice: once for the local candidate, and once for the party. People say this is more complicated: they are right - it's exactly twice as complicated - and makes our voting decision twice as relevant and meaningful.

Other objections to the new system:
1. It allows parties to put on their list and presumably get elected ideological candidates that would never be voted in directly. These are candidates who the party apparently owes a favour and they can sneak them in under the new system.
A) WHAT AN INSULT TO MY INTELLIGENCE as a voter! If the parties put candidates you don't like on their list, don't vote for the party. Look, if we want to have democracy, let's have democracy. It's our choice who ends up getting elected off these lists.
2. It allows fringe and special interest groups to gain undue influence by assigning them seats too easily.
A) The new system specifies that a party must have 3% of the popular vote before they will be assigned seats in the legislature. This prevents special interest groups from hijacking power (one whole seat of it, that is). If more than 3% of the population votes for something, I think they deserve seats even if they are a special interest. Again, if we want democracy, let's have democracy.
3. It will result in minority governments.
A) Good. It is terrible that parties can get into power with a majority and do whatever they want for four years no matter what they promised. There is no accountability, and no balance in a majority government. We hold them to account every four years with our single vote? That doesn't cut it for me. If the parties know they are going to be in minority situation and that they always will be, they will forced to compromise and make it work. It might even foster a sense of consensus building.

Well, I could comment a lot more on this topic, because I think this is the most important decision that people in this province have been given the opportunity to make in my life time. But I'll leave it at that. I point you here for more information.
Vote for MMP!

Now, about the general election.

I attended an all candidates debate for my riding last week even though I was already pretty sure how I would vote. I think it's important for citizens in a democracy to attend such events and not blindly vote with the partisan habits that they may have developed over time. Here is a run down of what I experienced at the event:

Conservatives:
-trying desperately to put distance between themselves and their former leader/premier Mike Harris. I'm really not convinced. The candidate was way too vague and just kept repeating that John Tory is not Mike Harris.
[Quick Interlude] Why is Mike Harris so reviled? Mostly because of massive cuts to important social services ... but get this: An OISE prof in one of my classes told us last week that in '99 she was on a committee developing the Ontario Curriculum for Media Studies. They got a note from the Ministry (Mike Harris et al.) to can it. They found out from a Ministry insider that the edict had come from above that they didn't want students taking media studies because "they might question what they hear in the media". Wow - Sinister, eh?

NDP:
-trying desperately to paint the liberals as liars. Okay, fine, but what about you? I can't stand it when politicians get riveted on the shortcomings of their opponents and don't tell you what they would do different. I'm a left leaning kind of person, but the provincial NDPs have never appealed to me.

Liberals:
-Currently in power
-Broke promises
-But overall I think they've done the right thing most of the time over the past four years. I think it's more important to do the right thing than to stubbornly keep an ill-advised promise. Admit it if you are wrong, and do the right thing. Their biggest mistake was to make the kind of promises they did in the last election in the first place.
-I like the local candidate

Given these options, I would vote Liberal if I was a mainstream kind of guy. But, wait, there are fringe options:

Communist:
-If this guy was running for any other party, I would vote for him. He just told it like it is, with out layers of political shells. This is what I love about fringe parties - I just can't go with this one.

Green:
-I want to see the Greens have a voice in our political system. I'm not voting for the local candidate. I'm voting for the party to send what ever tiny little message I can given our current electoral system that I don't like the mainline parties and that this one is closely aligned with my values and ideas for a more sustainable future.

For the two or so people reading my blog, my final and most important message is, on Oct. 10, get out and vote!