CDRH- Clarington Durham Region Humanists

Ontario Referendum Day – October 10, 2007.

Present Plurality system v. Mixed Member Proportional system

by John Manuel

The October 10 provincial election includes a referendum on continuing the present system of casting single votes for local candidates; or a “mixed member proportional” system whereby each voter casts two votes, one for the local candidate of choice and another for a slate of appointees presented by each party.

Present system – 107 seats, one elected from each riding.
Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) – 90 elected riding seats and 39 un-elected “list” members.

The referendum results from recommendations of the “Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform,” comprising 103 citizens from all parts of Ontario, plus Chairman, George Thomson, who was appointed by the government.  Mr. Thomson’s qualifications can be found at the following link: http://www.democraticrenewal.gov.on.ca/english/news/20060327_chair_bg.asp

The final report, entitled “One Ballot, Two Votes” can be found here:
www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/One%20Ballot,%20Two%20Votes.pdf

In this paper, extracts from the Citizens' Assembly report of May 15, 2007 are in italics, with page number references to that report.

“The share of seats in the legislature is roughly equal to the share of the popular vote (p2 & 5).”
           
There will be 90 ridings, each electing one member to the house, similar to what happens now.  Under the new system (if approved), voters would cast a second vote for a party.  The percentage of “popular vote” each party receives in this second vote will determine the number of seats the party should receive in the “finished” 129-seat parliament.  If a party received fewer than their entitlement in the 90 local seats, that party would be entitled to nominate, from a pre-determined list, additional members to make up their entitlement.  A total of 39 additional seats would be available to be allotted in this fashion.

Page 13 of the report explains this further.  (See also the appendix to this summary)

“The system produces strong, stable governments (p4).”

            The report does not explain how the new system will provide strong, stable governments.  In fact, many believe that the new system will produce more minority governments.  Did the committee believe that minority governments are strong and stable?  The report contains no explanation.

“Rarely is a majority government elected with a majority of voter support – this has not happened [in Ontario] since 1937 (p6).”
           
            Actual analysis of prior governments indicates that since 1937 reveals that of 17 elections held, 13 were majority government holding an average of 45.0% of the popular vote, and 4 were minorities, holding an average of 37.1%.

            The number of seats held averaged 67.2% for majorities and 42.8% for minorities.  Since only 50.1% is required for a majority, the difference is small between 45% popular vote and the 51% required to form a majority government.

            A clear intention of the report is to more closely reflect the popular vote.  Thus, there would have been no majority governments in Ontario since 1937.  One must decide whether a preponderance of minority governments is good for Ontario.

“Local members and list members together make up 129 seats … by adding 22 seats (p2).”

            Presumably, these 39 seats would require office space and staff, in addition to local offices in the geographic area from which they originate.  Presumably, there are costs associated, including travel to and from their home area, plus accommodation in Toronto while attending parliament.

            The report reminds us that between 1987 and 1999, there were 130 seats, while there are now only 103 in the most recent redistribution.

“The system encourages more people to vote (p5).”

It is believed that many people do not vote because the person representing their party is not their favoured choice.  MMP will permit a second vote to the party of choice.  This, it is believed, could encourage more voter participation.

“There will be 90 local members (70% of the legislature) and 39 list members (30%) (p10).”

            Is it reasonable that 30% of parliament will not be elected?

“The recommendations … will help ensure that the list members include more women and other citizens currently underrepresented in the legislature (p9).”

            This is a clearly stated objective of the committee.  There is no indication in the report as to the kinds of citizens they felt are presently underrepresented.  30% of the new government would comprise such people by appointment, yet there is no indication of what groups they could be drawn from.

We hope these brief notes help you in deciding how to vote on the referendum.  Please refer above to the internet links for further information.

We would also be happy to receive phone calls and additional comments.

Appendix – Proportional Seating:

Imagine that an MMP produced the following results:

                 1st ballot      2nd ballot    Seats          List members
                    seats               %        awarded         allowed        

Party A           42           44.7              60                 18
Party B           29           31.8              42                 13
Party C           19           16.4              22                   3
Party D            0            3.8                5                   5
Party E             0            2.3                 0                    
Others            0            1.0                0                    
                                                              
Totals              90         100.0%         129                 39

Parties need at least 3.0% to participate.  Dropping the last two groups, who together obtained 3.3% of the popular vote, leaves 96.7% to be applied.

Party A is entitled to 129 x 44.7 / 96.7 = 60   seats
Party B is entitled to 129 x 31.8 / 96.7 = 42   seats
Party C (similar calculation)                    21   seats
Party D                                                       5   seats

The entitlement is based solely on the second ballot, which alone determines the final make-up of the seating.  Seats entitled, minus seats won on first ballot determines the number of list members to be appointed for each party.  The math appears complex, but the principle is simple: the final seating should approximate the popular vote as expressed on the second ballot.

The final composition of the seating in this example is:

A         60 seats            46.5%
B          42 seats            32.6%
C         22 seats            17.0%
D           5 seats              3.9%

            Total              100.0%

These final percentages more closely approximate the percentages of popular vote obtained on the second ballot.

Note that the “winning” party, having a majority of 42 out of 90 local constituency seats, ends up with a minority government, comprising 60 seats out of 129 (46.5 %).

These calculations, of course, are examples only.  The final formula will depend upon whatever enabling legislation is brought forward should the referendum indicate a preference for the new system.