MMP in Ontario: Vote the way academics tell you to
October 9, 2007 · By Aaron Unruh
Is anyone else slightly suspicious of the “Citizens Assembly” processes that led to the electoral reform proposals in Ontario and British Columbia? Yes, the idea of involving ordinary citizens in making such important decisions does lend the proposals a certain democratic aura. Yet one wonders if these assemblies were forums that only felt democratic to the participants where “ordinary citizens” were facilitated by people much smarter than they into accepting certain views over others. John Robson (h/t) brings a healthy cynicism to these grand exercises in democracy:
The whole thing feels like one of those ghastly facilitated exercises where, without any sort of pressure at all, moderators with flip charts and soothing manners and information packages massage and re-educate you into a consensus on, of all things, exactly what the organizers had in mind when they summoned you to the facility. How many of the participants came in thinking we really should keep electing 90 MPPs in ridings, but have parties that get at least three per cent of the vote appoint, in total, 39 more MPPs to bring their share in the legislature up to their share of the popular vote? Why would they?
One wonders what kind of outrage would have greeted the announcement that the assembly members in B.C. and Ontario had met, been educated by academics on electoral system matters, and concluded that the existing SMP system was in fact the best system and that there would be no referendum. One could imagine the sneering responses of the academics themselves. “How foolish to have left such an important question to mere citizens!” As it is, those citizens, with just a little help from the academics themselves, have come to the correct decision and are therefore the toast of political science departments from Victoria to Saint Johns.
That having been accomplished, the small matter of convincing the voting population as a whole remains. Right on cue, we have very smart people telling us that Utopia waits just around the corner from a “Yes” vote and that sticking with SMP would be the worst possible thing that could happen to Ontario. Professor Dennis Pilon, PhD, breathlessly invites us to “imagine!“:
Imagine more accurate election tallies, a more competitive political environment where every vote would count for something, and better representation of Ontario’s diversity. These are not hypothetical possibilities, but the actual experience of countries similar to Canada that have proportional representation, as documented in a considerable body of academic research.
(h/t)
I’ve been wondering how I would vote in this referendum if (God forbid) I was a resident of the province of Ontario. Thank goodness that I’ve cleared that question up. With so many respectable, sophisticated, enlightened people supporting the proposal, the choice is clear. Vote no.
MMP in <b>Ontario</b>: Vote the way academics tell you to<b>Ontario</b> election and referendum on MMP <b>Ontario's</b> big decision Top Links EDITORIAL: say yes to MMP
So, it’s a BAD thing that 152 political scientists have endorsed the recommendations of the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform?
Brock University:
Larry Savage
Juris Dreifelds
Timothy Heinmiller
Garth Stevenson
Carol Baar
Carleton University:
Rianne Mahon
Jill Vickers
Radha Jhappan
Peter Andree
Randall Germain
Jon Pammett
James Meadowcroft
Pauline Rankin
Bill Cross
Katherine Graham
Rand Dyck
Laura Macdonald
Frances Abele
University of Guelph:
Byron Sheldrick
Patrick Boyer
Judith McKenzie
Candace Johnson
John Hiemstra, King’s University College
Stephen Phillips, Langara College (past Prez. BC Poli Sci Assoc)
John Peters, Laurentian
Max Nemni, Laval
Vincent Lemieux, Laval
McMaster University:
Don Wells
William D.Coleman
Robert O’Brien
Stefania Szlek Miller
Karen Bird
Peter Graefe
Lana Wylie
Greg McElligott
Peter Nyers
Wayne Lewchuk
Michael Stein (Emeritus)
Queens University:
Janet Hiebert
Grant Amyot
Tom Kent
Hugh Thorburn
John Meisel
Abigail Bakan
Andrew Lister
Eleanor MacDonald
Keith Banting
Alan Whitehorn
Susanne Soederberg
David Koyzis, Redeemer University College
Christian Leuprecht, Royal Military College of Canada
Ryerson University:
Neil Thomlinson
John Shields
Bryan Evans
Mike Burke
Tuna Baskoy
Colin Moores
Carla Cassidy
Grace-Edward Galabuzi
Aparna Sundar
C. Camcastle, Simon Fraser
Trent University:
Robert Paehlke
Feyzi Baban
Christy Gombay
Gavin Fridell
Nadine Changfoot
Doug Torgerson
Elaine Stavro
Jim Driscoll
University of Ottawa:
Serge Denis
Caroline Andrew
Stephen Brown
Nathalie Des Rosiers
John Trent
David Cashaback
Michael Orsini
Marie-Josie Massicotte
Dimitrios Karmis
Kathryn Trevenen
Matthew Paterson
Martin Papillon
Claude Denis
Luc Julliet
Linda Cardinal
University of Toronto:
Joseph H. Carens
Edward Andrew
Sylvia Bakshevkin
Sylvia Ostry
Meyer Brownstone
Ursula Franklin
Lawrence LeDuc
Peter Russell
Lorne Sossin
Melissa Williams
Thomas Homer Dixon
David Rayside
Graham White
Simone Chambers
University of Victoria:
Norman Ruff
Scott Watson
Dennis Pilon
University of Western Ontario:
Elizabeth Riddell
Jacquetta Newman
Caroline Dick
Peter Langille
Andrew Sancton
Paul Nesbitt-Larking
Neil Bradford
Henry Milner, Vanier College
Gerard Boychuk, Waterloo
Wilfrid Laurier University:
Barry Kay,
Brian Tanguay
David Docherty
Loren King
University of Windsor:
Timothy Donais
Heather MacIvor
York University:
Bruce Smardon
Greg Albo
David P. Shugarman
Judy Hellman
Esteve Morera
Martin Thomas
Stephanie Ross
Robert R. Albritton
George C. Comnimel
Fred Fletcher
S. Ronald Ellis, Q.C
Robert MacDermid
Dennis Raphael
Nicola Short
Scott Forsyth
Robert Drummond
Ann Porter
Gerald Kernerman
Carolyn Bassett
Steve Hellman
Leah Vosko
Barbara Cameron
Ray Bazowski
Asher Horowitz
Roger Keil
Leo Panitch
Richard Saunders
John Saul
Roddy Loeppky
Fred Fletcher
Daniel Drache
James Laxer
Terry Maley
David McNally
Willem Maas
Geez Wayne, what’s with the two identical posts of lists? Shouldn’t your first post have names of scholars and the second post just list Universities so that I can choose which scholar and institution I choose to support?
Actually, Aaron, political scientists looked in shock (and some dismay) at the BC Citizens Assembly decision to endorse the single transferable vote. Overall, MMP is a favorite for many political scientists, so the BC Assembly’s decision was surprising. It’s a bit simplistic to say that these things are stage-managed. And, is it so hard to believe that if people have the time to take a good hard look at things and see the alternatives, they might actually decide on their own that MMP is better?
What logic brought you to that conclusion, Aaron? People who study and advance political science for a living think it’s a good idea – therefore it’s a bad idea.
Kind of like your mechanic telling you your sparkplugs should be replaced, therefore you obviously shouldn’t.
Not that I’m advocating that anyone simply take the word of the academics at face value – their credentials should give their opinions more weight than that of Joe Everyman, but everyone needs to make up their own mind.
I’m definitely in favour of MMP – but I’m OK that it won’t pass. Real democracy means sometimes you don’t get what you want.
MMP is anything but “real democracy”. Vote “no”.
“MMP is anything but “real democracyâ€Â. Vote “noâ€Â.”
Why is that? Further, what does a “real democracy” look like in your view?
“Actually, Aaron, political scientists looked in shock (and some dismay) at the BC Citizens Assembly decision to endorse the single transferable vote. Overall, MMP is a favorite for many political scientists, so the BC Assembly’s decision was surprising.”
Good point.
Thanks. I do share a bit of your skepticism about Citizens Assemblies, though, so I think your broader point is well taken.
Yeah….Be guided by your ignorance and / or prejudices. Who cares what the facts are?
Vote no.
Oh man, now even the help desk guy is lecturing me on the mechanics of electoral systems.
I know this post was months ago but I thought I’d add somehting , maybe someone might read it.
To answer the questions stated above:
To me democracy is direct representation of citizens through there elected representatives. With strict lobbying laws to prevent the Plutocracy (aka corprotocracy) we currently see in the US and Canada (transitioning) and historically in Asian, Russia, Itali and in Pinochets Chili. A system strong in free market and weak on civil and political rights. In a plutocracy
the state determines which organizations will be recognized as legitimate and partners with them on policy and regulation, thus avoiding public input on important issues.
Now how does this apply to the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system debate. The proposed MMP in Ontario sought to increase the district boundaries to reduce the number of districts and elected representatives in the house of commons. It then sought to increase the number of unelected or party appointed seats in the house of commons. Thus increasing the ratio of unelected to elected representatives. This further distances the people from the House of Commons by limiting its representative voice. We can also see, with the increase in appointed seat, an increase in control over the house by the party system. As independent representatives, individually are not counted in the proportional part and therefore see a decrease in there ability to represent there constituents due to an increase in the number of seat of all other parties. This also excludes small and/or regional parties.
So as far as I can see, MMP would move us further from Democracy and closer to a Plutocracy.
If I lived in Ontario I would have voted no, as I encouraged all my Ontario friends and family to do.
Another word of note, notice there were only 2 options on the ballot. The current system or a worse system. They again limited the choices so that if a yes vote came they got the result they wanted and if a no vote came they were no worse off then they started. This would also legitimize the current system, and push off further discussion of political reform for a few years.