Screwed Up System Almost Screws Ontarians

Well we seem to have dodged a bullet, but just barely. The first past the post system did its usual magic and almost produced a majority of seats with less than 38% of the vote. In fact, thanks to the magic of splits, the Liberals with 2% more of the popular vote than the Conservatives go 14 more seats. It is criminal. Add to this, the fact that voter turnout was a pathetic 47.6% and you have to ask yourself whether the whole exercise was even legitimate.

The fact is, this is just another in a long line of phony exercises in kabuki democracy, where the voters know that their votes will be wasted if they back a party other than the two biggest ones and so gave the exercise a pass. It is long past time when we realize that our system of voting is suited to a bygone era of binary politics. We need electoral reform.

Dalton McGuinty is now faced with a minority situation. He has already signaled that he is going to do a Harper and rule like he has a majority and dare the opposition to bring him down. This is unwise for two reasons. First, if he was serious about the need for stability for the province during an economic crisis, he would make a deal with one of the other parties to provide this stability. Second, unlike Harper, McGuinty was just slapped by the voters. It is clear that patience with McGuinty is quite limited and if he pushes the voters, he will not like the answer he receives from them.

My fear is that instead of having a government of give and take and compromise, Ontario will be faced by years of phony confrontations, proroguing and threats of elections. This is the main "feature" of first past the post politics, where a shift of 2% of popular vote yields massive majorities. It is a feature our democracy can no longer afford.

Recommend this Post

Yippee I Got To Vote (Now If It Only Meant Something)

I just got back from voting. The polling clerks had a real ritual they had to go through this time. It was like kabuki without the white makeup. I had to show my registration card, my driver's license, confirm my address without looking at the registration card, mark my ballots and then reconfirm my name when I gave the ballot over to the clerk before putting in the box. It seemed quite overboard if you ask me and it lent an air of mistrust to what had previously been a lighthearted, greet the neighbors kind of event. I suspect all this new concern for security will do is suppress the vote even more. Speaking of which, I talked to one of the other clerks and she said the turnout was down from 2004. It will be interesting to see the final numbers.

Recommend this Post

Does Louise Ervin Know?

I was flipping through the local paper and came across this letter:

Be smart -- vote Liberal

PETER HUGHES

In 2003, the Kitchener-Waterloo riding race was so tight that if four per cent of the Progressive Conservative voters chose Liberal or if 20 per cent of the NDP/Green voters chose Liberal, we would have elected a Liberal MPP.

In the Kitchener-Waterloo riding every vote for NDP/Green is effectively a vote for the Progressive Conservatives. Since the NDP/Green vote is so small, they should vote strategically by voting Liberal.

Since 2003, as an opposition member, Elizabeth Witmer had no voice and no access to the Liberal cabinet -- she was hardly working for us. All recent Ontario government announcements in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding were because of Liberal party decisions and had nothing to do with any influence from our local Progressive Conservative member.

Witmer supports the Progressive Conservative policy to extend school funding to the 90-plus religions in Ontario. Traditional Progressive Conservative voters in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding have a great opportunity to tell Witmer and her party what they really think of this -- by voting Liberal and not Progressive Conservative.

Another reason to vote Liberal in this election is because the Progressive Conservatives are in power in Ottawa.

Voters in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding should prove they're the world's smartest community by electing an MPP who works with the party that will form the government -- the Liberals.

Peter Hughes
Kitchener

I have so many questions it is hard to know where to start. Is this Peter Hughes, this Peter Hughes? I also wonder if he was the "Peter" who pushed this line at last week's all candidates meeting?

Also, I am wondering whether Louise Ervin agrees that "All recent Ontario government announcements in the Kitchener-Waterloo riding were because of Liberal party decisions and had nothing to do with any influence from our local Progressive Conservative member"? Does she buy into the idea that is the job of unelected, local party functionaries of the governing party to make decisions for the government, rather than the elected representatives of the people? Does her campaign support this position?

This kind of patron/client politics is slowly seeping into our electoral system. The idea that we as citizens can only depend on our government if we "back the right horse", is a cancer eating away at our democracy. That both the provincial Liberals and the Federal Tories are both pushing this nonsense means, the rot has spread far and wide.

Update: Yet another instance of threats of government retaliation for failing to vote the "right way" -- this time in Nova Scotia. This is becoming a trend.

Recommend this Post

Kitchener Waterloo All Candidates Meeting

So, I went to the all candidates meeting last night. The room was packed, with people of all ages (but let's face it mostly middle aged and up). It was a pretty tame affair overall, in a question and answer format. There was no debate as such. I will give you my impressions as dispassionately as I am able.

Liz Witmer (PC), the incumbent, is an old pro at these things. She is the most polished performer and most accomplished at sounding positive, but saying little. She had little trouble with the format and she had a good rapport with the audience. It is easy to see why she is successful. She is a good retail politician. Ms. Witmer, also did not have to defend government policy (although she did have to defend funding religious schools), which was the Liberal candidate's problem.

Judy Greenwood-Spears (Green), is a character. She is tough as nails and would be a formidable MMP. She made a bit of a connection with the crowd as the in-your-face, straight-talking, anti-politician. She had a little trouble keeping her answers to the time alloted.

Catherine Fife (NDP) is young, articulate and knows the issues. She presented herself as the "change" candidate. She is very, very charismatic in a situation like the one last night and I would say the audience liked her the best (whether they would vote for her is another question) at a gut level.

Louise Ervin (Liberal) is another old political pro. She, like Liz Witmer, has spent years in local school board politics. Unlike Witmer, she seemed ill at ease with the format. I suspect it was partly because she had to defend Dalton McGuinty most of the evening (an unenviable task). I would say, of the four, Ervin made the least connection with the room.

I won't go into too much detail about the questions, as they were your standard audience questions about the coal-fired electrical plant closure, taxes, abortion, and deadbeat parents. I do want to talk about how the candidates dealt with electoral reform and the election itself.

The question of the referendum came up a couple of times. One of the media representatives (who were there during the first hour), ask how each candidate was going to vote. Not surprisingly, Catherine Fife and Judy Greenwood-Spears were the most supportive of the MMP side.

Louise Ervin gave what could only be described as a train wreck of an answer. She started by saying she had educated herself on the issue and then proceeded to tell the audience that MMP would reduce the number of MPP's who are responsible to the people and increase the number of MPP's "appointed" by parties. She also claimed that MMP would hurt rural areas and the North. In other words, it looks to me like her "education" was limited to visiting the NOMMP website. Sadly, with this format, she went unchallenged, as there was no way to rebut her nonsense. This answer would however come back to haunt her later in the evening.

Liz Witmer gave a most interesting answer to the question. She said that the question of the referendum was coming up all over the riding as she knocked on doors. She then sidestepped how she was going to vote on the question herself. Her tone suggested to me however, that she had the feeling that MMP was popular and she did not want to alienate voters by condemning it. Her non-answer gave me some hope.

The issue of voting came up a couple of more times. Once, Louise Ervin flat out said that a vote for the NDP was a vote for "funding religious schools", i.e. a vote for Liz Witmer. Then, a Liberal plant got up and again, quite brazenly, asked the Green and NDP candidates why anyone would vote for them as they would be "wasting their vote" if they wanted to get rid of Liz Witmer. He then went on to describe the glories of strategic voting (the life's blood of the Liberal Party). Judy Greenwood-Spears gave him a poisonous look and said something to the effect that her goal was to get every vote in the riding and win. In other words, she was no protest candidate. Louise Ervin, to her credit, did not take the bait and advocate strategic voting. Even she could see that that message wasn't going to fly in this room.

Finally, a gentleman from Fair Vote Ontario made an opening remark about how we had three candidates who think the referendum is a good thing and one (Ervin) who didn't know anything about how list candidates were elected. That got a laugh from the audience (you had to be there, this guy was good). He then asked the candidates why the education campaign around the referendum has been so terrible. The opposition candidates agreed it was awful (and it is) and Louise Ervin gave a rambling answer about personal responsibility when it comes to referendum education.

That's it really. It was an interesting evening and from a partisan point of view (since I intend to vote NDP in this election), I would say that Catherine Fife did very, very well. Does she have a chance against Liz Witmer? Wow, that is going to be a pretty tall order. Witmer is an institution in this riding. However, the religious schools question, mixed with a desire for change, could give Fife an opportunity (since Ervin is most definitely not a "change" candidate). It is a long shot, but I wouldn't say it is impossible.

Recommend this Post

Does This Mean We Can Count On Your Support, Warren?

Warren Kinsella brings up another case of "vote against your party to save the children":

September 17, 2007 – Oh really? And it isn't, um, because it's becoming the ballot question, Howie, and because NDP voters are recognizing that the only party that can stop the Conservative scheme to fund private religious schools is the Ontario Liberals? It couldn't be that, could it, Howie?

Anyway, for NDP folks who worried about the Tory plan, Howie has just signaled that he doesn't think it's a big deal. We're saving that quote, pal.

...

Focus education debate on funding formula, not faith based schools
NDP (Elxn-Ont-NDP)
Source: The Canadian Press
Sep 17, 2007 11:08

…"It may take time, but I think by the end of this campaign people will grow tired of talking about a more philosophical issue and return to what I think is the practical issue for most parents," [Hampton] said…” (emphasis mine)

Now Warren knows this is only true because we have a terrible electoral system, which forces people to vote against their own preferences in order to stop someone else. If we adopt the Citizen Assembly's new plan, such strategic voting will become unnecessary. Since he obviously recognizes that, can we now count on him to support electoral reform?

Recommend this Post

Don't Get Mad, Get Orange

Probably the best tag line, ever.



Update: Apparently, the ad struck a nerve. The party has sent its house organ after those rude NDP types. The gall of those lefties, questioning this "progressive" government.

Recommend this Post