Ontario voters, on October 10th, will be faced with a question of enormous significance, yet the matter has received scant media attention. Even seasoned observers of provincial politics are unaware of the coming referendum and its implications. It’s not about religious schools or global warming or health care reform or any of the other issues which have become somewhat mundane due to over-exposure. It is about proposed reform that would end over a century and half of representative democracy in the province and replace an elected assembly with one that is 30% appointed by political party bosses. Down with local representation say the reformers and up with party hacks.
Kudos,then, to the National Post for publishing Mary Villis’ piece on Ontario’s elections reform proposal yesterday. It’s the first serious discussion of the referendum question I have seen in the major media. If there have been others, I regret my oversight.
Mary Vallis makes it very clear this is no minor reform. It will be sad, if pass or fail, the referendum does not get an informed and thorough discussion in the media. To her credit, Vallis does not take sides and notes the referendum proposal for mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting has supporters on both the left and right.
My observation of people who are modestly aware of the proposed reform, whether supportive or not, is that they are blissfully unaware of the most insidious part of the plan, i.e. that it’s a top-up proposal which could give seats to parties that cannot win local contests while denying seats to parties that won 40% or more of the vote. Its as if the proposal was designed to reward failure.
I have written about the referendum question and my views are posted here. Vallis points out something I overlooked and which is particularly insidious; namely, that someone could run for two seats in the legislature, once for a local MPP and once for an appointed seat. Of course this eases entry to the legislature for party leaders and their lieutenants who can’t convince local riding voters to elect them but can sail into the legislature – self appointed MPPs – merely by garnering 3% of the popular vote. And, once appointed, they will enjoy totally disproportionate influence by reason of their potential to save from or defeat the inevitable minority governments that will be the rule rather than the exception.
In 1837, William Lyon Mackenzie led a rebellion in Upper Canada against the appointed Legislative Council. In 2007 are we really contemplating a return to appointed legislators? It’s a shameful scenario to which all Ontario voters should respond with a resounding “NO” on October 10.
Kudos,then, to the National Post for publishing Mary Villis’ piece on Ontario’s elections reform proposal yesterday. It’s the first serious discussion of the referendum question I have seen in the major media. If there have been others, I regret my oversight.
Mary Vallis makes it very clear this is no minor reform. It will be sad, if pass or fail, the referendum does not get an informed and thorough discussion in the media. To her credit, Vallis does not take sides and notes the referendum proposal for mixed-member proportional (MMP) voting has supporters on both the left and right.
My observation of people who are modestly aware of the proposed reform, whether supportive or not, is that they are blissfully unaware of the most insidious part of the plan, i.e. that it’s a top-up proposal which could give seats to parties that cannot win local contests while denying seats to parties that won 40% or more of the vote. Its as if the proposal was designed to reward failure.
I have written about the referendum question and my views are posted here. Vallis points out something I overlooked and which is particularly insidious; namely, that someone could run for two seats in the legislature, once for a local MPP and once for an appointed seat. Of course this eases entry to the legislature for party leaders and their lieutenants who can’t convince local riding voters to elect them but can sail into the legislature – self appointed MPPs – merely by garnering 3% of the popular vote. And, once appointed, they will enjoy totally disproportionate influence by reason of their potential to save from or defeat the inevitable minority governments that will be the rule rather than the exception.
In 1837, William Lyon Mackenzie led a rebellion in Upper Canada against the appointed Legislative Council. In 2007 are we really contemplating a return to appointed legislators? It’s a shameful scenario to which all Ontario voters should respond with a resounding “NO” on October 10.
