Vote NO on the Referendum

In a feeble attempt to balance the extreme bias that will present itself later on, I shall begin with an attempt at an unbiased explanation of what our referendum is all about. For a much better explanation, see http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/mmp1.aspx .

If you're unaware, our current electoral system is one called "First-Past-The-Post", in which we all elect MPPs to represent our constituency (riding) in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. The candidate with the most votes in a constituency represents that constituency, and the party with the most representatives elected forms the government. The main problem with this system can be aptly demonstrated by the 1990 Ontario Election, in which the NDP only received 37.6% of the popular vote, yet formed a staggering majority with 74 of 130 seats, 38 more than the second place party. The problem is that if a party receives 51% of the vote in 100% of the constituencies, they receive 100% of parliament.

The proposed new electoral system, titled "Mixed Member Proportional", would solve that problem. Under the new system, we would be voting twice; once for a representative for one's constituency, and once for a party. there would be only 90 MPPs elected to represent constituencies (which means larger ridings), and an additional 39 members drawn from lists made by the parties, who are put in parliament in order to balance the difference between the ratio of MPPs elected to parliament from each party, and the ratio the actual vote percentage demands. Don't quite follow yet? In the case of the 1990 election, the NDP would not be given any "list MPPs", while the other parties would be, in order to ensure that exactly 37.6% (or as close as can be managed without having 6/10 of a person) of Parliament is NDP.After giving this idea a lot of thought, I have decided that I do not believe this change to be the best idea.

My explanation begins, as do many of my explanations, in Rome.In 509 BCE (or possibly 510), Roman nobles got a bit ticked off with the monarchy and threw the king out of the city. In fact, they were so ticked off with the monarchy, that they vowed never again to let a single person hold power in Rome. To do this, they divided up the king's power (imperium) among two consuls, and eight praetors. They were all elected annually, and the two consuls would take turns possessing supreme imperium. About a hundred years later, the general public got equally ticked off with the aristocratic government, and demanded to be able to elect tribunes, who would be given the ability to veto any government decision. The tribunes could also veto each other. The praetors could all veto each other, and the consuls could all veto each other.

What am I getting at? The Roman government succeeded in not allowing any one person to possess too much power, but went too far with the vetoing, and left a system where no one had any power. After five hundred years, the system collapsed. Extreme constitutional reform was needed (for reasons I won't go into here), but every time a do-gooder tried to bring in the very necessary reforms, they were vetoed. The government needed to change, but because the system presented things from happening, change was impossible democratically. But the change needed to happen. Three men tried to change it democratically: two were assassinated, one simply failed. Then along came Sulla. He stormed his troops into Rome, and politically ripped the constitution to shreds, forcing the necessary changes. However, Rome reacted violently and spit out the dictator, remembering the taste of monarchy. Then came Caesar. Then came Augustus. And thus it was proved that a government with power was needed. Augustus seized the power out of the void Caesar left, and Rome finally knew its reform, and saw peace in the areas that had seen all this unrest. The Roman Republic fell to dictatorship because its government was unable to act.

This brings up a philosophical question. As most philosophical questions can be, we can show this question on a line. On one side of the line we have governments with the ability to act, but unfortunately act very undemocratically. On the other side, we have governments which cannot make decisions or act, but the few things that are done are agreed upon by all. So, what is more valuable? Democracy, or action?

My point is probably showing through already, but let me show you why I believe this new system will be so destructive toward the action of a government. If you recall my explanation of the proposed new electoral system, you will remember that it means the amount of MPPs representing each party in parliament will be exactly proportionate to the number of votes each party received. The problem is that we will likely never again have a majority government. I looked back myself, and the last time in an Ontario election a single party received more than 50% of the vote, was 1934. If we had been using the proposed system, we would not have had a majority government since 1937, the year end of the 1934 term. And by the way, the only reason the Liberal party received 51% of the vote that year was because it was actually a temporary coalition of three liberal parties!

So why not form more coalitions? This is the biggest plus of the proposed new systerm. It will force parties to work together. But there are certain issues that parties will never agree upon. All legislature currently in place over controversial issues will never change, because the parties will never agree on a change. Many aspects of our law will remain unchanged until Kingdom come. The government will be unable to act, because it cannot act without nearly everyone agreeing with each other, which rarely happens. It is the exact reason the Roman democracy ended. This does not mean our democracy will collapse, because our system would not be quite as paralyzed as the Roman one, but it would cause a lot of serious problems.

There are other reasons not to vote yes in the coming referendum. For one, it will mean constituencies will be enlarged. Chatham-Essex-Kent will presumably grow to include Windsor as well. That is not better representation at all. That means farmers and city-slickers will be voting for the same MPP, and their sharp disagreement will hardly be made up for by the existence of "List MPPs". This new system will severely damage local representation, though it seems that it would strengthen it.In talking to my Uncle, who has lived around the James Bay area for a while, his concern was the under-representation of the North. Northern constituencies are already huge, and would become much bigger. Meanwhile, they are Ontario's largest source of revenue. How is that fair? That's about as fair as the fact that Ontario decides Canada's election result, while our money comes from Alberta.

Third, if we want to have more fair representation in government, there are much better ways of doing it. How about a referendum once in a while? I know that sounds hypocritical given the current discussion, but the only reason this went to referendum is because it's illegal to change the constitution without one. We never usually have referendums. Switzerland usually has two a year. The U.S. usually has referendums with every election. We only have referendums when we absolutely have to, and when someone wants to split. We can't have a more fair democracy without having a more direct democracy. This new proposal is a common example of the Canadian laziness to self-govern. Democracy is a wonderful thing, but we cannot improve democracy without improving the rule of the people, which means referendums.

So, the pros:
-Government make-up will better represent the popular vote
-Small parties get representation (Green party will be bequeathed a seat)
-Parties must agree on legislation to pass
-We get to vote twice, so we can vote for a nice person and a nice party

And the cons:
-No more majority governments
-Governing process slowed and in some ways paralyzed
-Larger constituencies means poorer representation
-Better ways of improving democracy available

For me, the cons outweigh the pros. But, it's up to you to decide. And please do.