Commentary
Electoral
Reform Referendum in Ontario
In response to
low and declining voter turnout in elections, proposals for changing the
electoral system have been put before the electorate in several provinces. So
far, none have been accepted. The most recent proposed change was presented to
voters in a referendum during the Ontario provincial election on October 10.
Voters were asked to make a choice between preserving the existing First Past
the Post electoral system or adopting an alternative
based on Mixed Member Proportional representation.
The defenders of
the existing system criticized the proposed alternative as a recipe for
perpetual minority or coalition governments, for the creation of a group of
elected representatives who are not accountable to any constituents, and for
the appointment of candidates by political party leaders. For their part, the
defenders of the alternative system claimed that the Mixed Member Proportional
system would be more representative and democratic.
In the existing
First Past the Post system voters get one vote to choose which candidate they
feel should win a seat in the legislative assembly. One
ballot. One vote. The candidate with the most
votes wins and becomes the representative for the electoral district in the
provincial legislature or in the federal parliament. After the election the
political party that has won the most electoral districts is asked to form a
government.
Under this
electoral system a political party can win a majority of seats and form the
government even though it did not win a majority of the popular vote. On the
other hand, some political parties that receive a share of the popular vote,
but not enough in any constituency or riding to win a seat, do not get any
representation in the legislature or parliament. In other words, "winner
takes all" in the First Past the Post system. It is this distribution of
seats, a distribution that does not reflect the popular vote,
that critics of the existing system call unrepresentative.
However, an alternative
distribution of seats among political parties based on the popular vote,
although an issue for the political parties, will not solve the problem of the
marginalization and de facto disenfranchisement of the majority of
people from the political process. In the First Past the Post system the aim of
each political party is to get political power. The electors are merely voting
cattle. After they cast their ballot the vast majority of people play no role
in the political process.
In Canada, the
origins of this political system date back to the nineteenth century. At that
time the only eligible voters were white males who were property owners and
British citizens. Members of political parties came from the rich minority; the
right to vote was restricted to that minority and both the governing party and
opposition party in parliament served this minority and its interests. In other
words, the political parties, the electoral system and the political process
served the interests of the electorate as it was defined at that time. Today,
this is no longer the case.
One of the
struggles waged by the people against the rich minority and their political
parties was for the right to vote. This was an important struggle. It was not
only a demand for equal political rights but also an expression of the demand
that all citizens should have a say in the running of the country. By having
the right to vote people hoped that they could influence the affairs of state
in their favour. It seemed logical that if the majority had the right to vote
then political parties and governments would have to listen to the majority and
serve their interests.
However, this is not what happened. Political
parties, once they got power and despite what they might have said to get
votes, continued to enact policies contrary to the wishes of the vast majority
of the electorate. They continued to serve the rich minority while the
electorate, which now included all of the citizens and not just the rich
minority, still had no say in the affairs of the state. Their role was
restricted to casting a ballot every four or five years for one or another
political party. This is how things stand today. So clearly something more than
the franchise is needed to empower the people and ensure that politicians and
governments really serve the interests of the electorate.
In an attempt to
counteract people’s cynicism about the electoral process and increase voter
participation, the Citizens Assembly for Electoral Reform recommended to the
Ontario government that a Mixed Member Proportional system could help. The
government describes this alternative as a "mixed system" because it
is a combination of two voting systems – First Past the Post and Proportional
Representation.
If this
alternative system had not been defeated in the referendum, Ontario voters
would have voted twice in future elections. One vote would have been used to
elect "local members" using the First Past the Post system. The
candidate with the most votes in an electoral district would have won. The
other vote, based on proportional representation, would have determined the
number of "list members" each party would receive. The "list
members" would have been divided among the political parties based on
their proportion of the popular vote. The Ontario legislative assembly would
have been expanded to 90 "local members" and 39 "list
members".
However, such a
new distribution of seats among political parties in the legislature would not
have led to the empowerment of the electorate. It might not even have lessened
people’s disillusionment with the political process and may even have had the
opposite effect. Voters would quickly have realized that their votes under a
Mixed Member Proportional system have as little influence on what the governing
political party does as under the First Past the Post system. This is because
the Mixed Member Proportional system does not diminish the power of the
political parties, politicians and governments; nor does it increase the power
of the electorate. Rather, as before, the governing political party remains a
force over and above the electorate.
In other words,
it is this party system that really stands in the way of the empowerment of the
citizenry and the establishment of a democracy consistent with needs of today’s
electorate. It is no accident that the guidelines developed for the Citizens’
Assembly for Electoral Reform in Ontario by the multi-party committee,
consisting of Liberal, Conservative and NDP members of the provincial
parliament (MPPs), forbade any reform that would have undermined the party
system and done away with the process of political parties assuming political
power.
What the
Canadian people want is a political process that is truly democratic and serves
today's electorate. They want a system where they will have a decisive say in
the affairs of state and in which the cabinet, ministers and legislature are
subordinate to the wishes of the electorate rather than being unaccountable.
The current system is such that voters hand all power over to the cabinet of
the governing political party immediately after they cast their ballots. Within
a truly democratic system the electorate would share power with their elected
representatives rather than just handing power over to them. They would share
the responsibility with their elected representatives for initiating and
approving legislation and would also have the right to recall any individual
representative or an entire government that was not fulfilling its
responsibilities.
The Canadian
people also want a government that is non-partisan. They want a government that
serves the majority rather than the interests of a particular ruling political
party and its backers. Such a government would only be possible if it was
comprised of all the elected representatives. In other words, the government
would not be formed by any political party, coalition of political parties, or
any other special interest group. It would not be political parties that assume
political power. Rather, the elected representatives would work for the
electorate and not for a particular political party or special interest group.
The cabinet and the ministers would have no powers over and above the
legislature or parliament. They would be chosen by all of the elected
representatives and would be subject to recall by the elected representatives
and by the electorate.
Clearly, such a
new political process would require a new electoral system. It would be a
system in which only the electorate, not political parties, would have the
right to select and elect candidates in each electoral district. Furthermore,
the playing field for all candidates would be level, allowing any eligible
voter to stand for selection and election, regardless of means, occupation or
any other criteria and each representative would be elected by a majority. At
the same time, political parties would assume a new role. Instead of seeking
power for themselves, their purpose would be to enhance the capacity of the
citizens to govern themselves.
The Mixed Member
Proportional system that was put before voters in Ontario would not have
contributed to bringing about any of these reforms. While the First Past the
Post system is outdated, the Mixed Member Proportional system would not have
been step toward improving the electoral system and really empowering the
people. It would have been just another way for the political and economic
elite in Canada to preserve an outdated political arrangement that serves the
minority and marginalizes the majority.