Apolitical Staples

I can’t fault people for being confused. That has been the strategy of the no side all along.

That attitude is why Ontario is heading for have not status in Canada. It’s becoming increasingly clear that the status quo is no longer working for Ontario, yet the biggest winner in this Ontario election AND referendum is the status quo.

Federal politics is now about convincing Quebec and the West that things will change for the best and convincing Ontario that nothing will change at all.

Gregs Levophilus and Staples, The people I speak to are not confused. They don’t like the idea of having two votes. Explain to me why again we can’t use the percentage popular vote for this? Giving voters two votes opens up other strategic voting patterns which you claim is a drawback of FPTP. Plaid, Ontario is heading for have-not status because our parties are mediocre, not the voting system. Our natural governing party as well as their blue clones have no cojones to institute real change. The Liberals provincially have always straddled the fence to get elected. Once there, the only thing they seem to be able to use their significant political capital for is increasing taxes. The difficult issues (like eliminating discrimination in education funding one way or the other) they just sweep forward and hope they go away. The answer: Citizens need to get involved and reform the parties. Some party leaders with passion would help too. Two votes per Ontarian is not the answer.

Pedro, I somewhat like that idea of having the single vote in the PR type system. MMP as presented looks awful to me and just allows for even more strategic voting. I am certainly voting no in this referendum and hopefully we can get can look at serious alternatives in the future.

Pedro, people are confused because the no side has been talking nonsense since the word go — bringing up Italy and Israel at every opportunity, hammering away at “appointed MPP’s” even though it isn’t true. No wonder people are confused. I was at an all candidates meeting and the Green candidate told of a senior citizen who told her she was voting against the “MMP party because someone told her it would raise her property taxes and she couldn’t afford it”. I am still hoping the people of Ontario can see past the bullshit and vote for MMP, but the odds have been stacked against that outcome since before the beginning.

MMP when first used in Germany had a one-vote model, and two German provinces still do. The other 11 provinces and their federal government changed to the two-vote model long ago. Why? To make local MPs personally accountable. Then the percentage popular vote for the party determines the outcome, making the party and government accountable, while the local MPP is elected separately. This doesn’t involve strategic voting as we know it today, because your Local Candidate Vote doesn’t affect the overall result. You can vote for the local candidate you prefer, without hurting your party even if you vote for a different party’s local candidate.

The Citizens’ Assembly discussed this and strongly preferred the Two-Vote model.

This has all been on the table since May 15th. Last-minute suggestions and objections are usually red herrings.

Wilf, So it’s take it or leave it? As I said, many of the people I’ve spoken to about this (and I do encourage them to read and learn all about the proposal) do not like the idea of two separate votes. The work of the Citizens’ Assembly did not have the profile you may believe it did. The fault of the media, the Assembly or the voters it matters not. They decided to put THIS proposal forward. If voters don’t like it, they will vote it down. Greg, none of the persons I’ve spoken to even know about the objections based on the Italy or Israel examples. Fer deities sake, even the pamphlet sent to voters to explain the issue has twice as much text about MMP than FPTP! Who has confused whom?