Bill's Bulletin Board
By Bill Rea

Next Wednesday (Oct. 10), we're all going to have some influence on how future provincial governments are composed, although note the word "some."

When you go to the polls next week (assuming you haven't already voted at advance polls), you will find yourself staring at a referendum question, asking you to pass judgement on something called a Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) voting system. This was developed earlier this year by an outfit called the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform, a group of people representing each riding in the province who got together, tried to gather public input and figure out if there was a better way of electing a provincial assembly at Queen's Park.

I'm one of many who believe there is a lot of room for improvement to our parliamentary system of government, both in terms of how the individual members get their jobs, and how they are expected to behave once they get there.

Is MMP the answer? I've been flipping coins in my head for the last couple of months, and as of this writing, I'm probably going to vote against it. But with more than a week to go before election day, there's plenty of time and even more jelly in my resolve to rule out a change of heart.

First, a brief explanation of what MMP is.

Assuming this system is implemented in Ontario (and in the form that's been presented) we'll get two votes in future elections - one for the actual person we want to be MPP and another for the party we want forming the government.

"The provincial legislature will have 90 riding MPPs and 39 at-large MPPs," explains a Web site called http://voteformmp.ca (no prizes for guessing how the people who have put this site together want you to vote). "If after the 90 riding seats are filled, a party has fewer seats than its portion of the party vote, that party wins some of the additional 39 provincial (or at-large) seats to ensure it has its fair share of the total seats. These at-large representatives are elected from provincial lists of candidates nominated by each party in advance of the election. Voters can judge these at-large candidates, as well as local candidates, and vote accordingly."

The result, in theory, is that party structures in the legislature will more closely represent the expressed will of the electorate, at least the members of the electorate who have the good common sense to get out and vote.

That Web site delves into other perceived advantages of MMP, arguing it's beneficial for women, ethnic groups, etc.

But there's another Web site, the other side, called http://www.nommp.ca (representing the other side of the issue), that points to what its originators see as a major flaw; "To achieve the single goal of proportionality, the proposed MMP system shifts power from the local voter in ridings across Ontario to the power brokers at Queen's Park."

In other words, it will be the power brokers in the party head offices who decide which names will get on the list, or "39 politicians chosen by other politicians . . . not you."

Actually, I recommend you consult both these sites.

I do believe we need electoral reform, but I think we need parliamentary reform more. There are a lot of people who agree with that, and numerous governments have heard them. But alas, there is a big difference between hearing and taking positive action.

Mike Harris reduced the number of seats in the legislature and called it parliamentary reform. Dalton McGuinty fixed election dates to fall at four-year intervals and indicated that was parliamentary reform too. In both cases, these socalled reforms were little more than cosmetic, solving problems that were perceived at best and offering nothing concrete to make people think their government was being responsive to their needs and desires.

How does setting dates for the next 12 elections make my MPP more accountable to me? How does giving my MPP more constituents help?

What we really need is a system in which the people we elected to Queen's Park (and Ottawa too) are able to go there as our representatives.

The way things work now, parties nominate candidates, announce their platforms, and we're expected to vote for the one we like the best (or maybe dislike the least). In the end, we have a representative of at least one party installed as our MPP. What ever the people in charge of that party decides after that is okay with that MPP.

The reason for that is the perception that the party hierarchies really run things in government, with individual MPPs arriving for their first caucus meetings, receiving congratulations on their elections and then being told to sit down, shut up and to do as they are told, lest they want to be bounced from the caucus. We've been seeing that scenario played out for the last year in Ottawa and political journey of Garth Turner.

One thing we really need is a system that allows members to actively and openly represent their constituents, free from undue fetters of party discipline. That would mean more free votes in parliament, but the problem is we've been promised that lots of times, because it sounds sweet and sexy at election time, but nothing ever comes of it.

I have also long maintained that it should be harder to topple a government, especially in a minority parliament.

For example, if a budget fails to pass in the House, that is seen as a matter of confidence in the government, as Joe Clark had to acknowledge about 28 years ago. No one has ever explained to me why it must be necessary for government to fall in a case like this. Why is it not possible to take a bit of time to do some fine tuning that might bring more members (possibly of different parties) on side. If that ends up not working, then let's have the non-confidence vote and go happily off to the polls.

Empowering members is something I would really like to see.

And when it comes to electing them, I will agree that MMP offers a number of advantages to the status quo, but still not enough to sell me.

The problem is I am not a great fan of proportional representation, and I look at MMP as sort of a watered down version of that. In this case, it will mean that 39 MPPs are going to draw full salaries and enjoy the other perks and privileges, and be accountable to none of the voters. They will be answerable only to a bunch of back room folks.

How will an arrangement like that ever empower an MPP?

A much better system would be what is known as "preferential ballot." In that scenario, people would cast their first three choices when voting, and as the counting progresses after the polls close, the candidate finishing last would be dropped from consideration, but the second and eventually third choices on his or her ballots would be apportioned accordingly, until someone has a clear majority of the votes. While it would be a nightmare to organize, especially in the first couple of elections, it would enable people to cast their votes for the real preferences, secure they can still have some impact if their candidate doesn't win. I have to wonder how many votes Green candidates have lost over the years because people thought it was pointless. A system like this could help fight that perception.

On the other hand, I can think of one great reason for voting "yes" in the referendum. I can see how the big party bosses at Queen's Park are going to view the results if the "no" side wins. They will say people are happy with the status quo and electoral reform will be shelved for a couple of decades.

So no, I don't really like MMP, but I don't really hate it either, and I do believe we can do a lot better. I don't really like the status quo, and am concerned this might be the last time in a long time we get a chance to do anything about it.

And I continue to flip coins in my head.