Ontarians on October 10th will make an important choice between the existing first-pastthe post (FPTP) electoral system and the proposed replacement, MMP (mixed -member proportional). It has been said that FPTP has problems. We are democratic reformers, but the proposed system is more flawed and will create even more problems.

How we cast votes and elect politicians are more than technicalities. Election rules reflect significant values and create incentives for politicians. Changing an electoral system requires us to think about what we value. What incentive system do we really want?

Ontario's FPTP system appeals to those who desire stability, accountability, effectiveness and simplicity. MMP appeals to those who seek proportionality and power-sharing.

Politics requires ideals. But good design is essential. When asked to change a fundamental institution such as our electoral system we must consider issues of both values and design.

With MMP, we will cast two votes. One, as now, will be for our local MPP (but with a total of 90 instead of the current 107). The other will be for our preferred party, leading, after complicated calculations, to the election of 39 "party list" parliamentarians. In theory, we will have a legislature reflecting the votes for parties (proportionality), and, it as assumed, more women and visibility minority MPPs.

Proportionality will mean the end of majority governments and create a legislature composed of many parties preoccupied with power-bargaining and gaining short-term advantage. Parties will find it hard to plan.

Consider the threshold for the election of party-list MPPs. A party needs three percent of the total vote to win a seat, a threshold at the low end of the range for MMP systems: most are at five per cent. Our concern is MMP - in such a diverse and large province as Ontario - creates an incentive for people to form new parties in order to advance their interests. Political entrepreneurs will see that they can win seats without making a heavy effort to appeal to many voters. A multiparty legislature means that small and single-issue parties will be more important than their voting strength would otherwise warrant. The minority governments of the future will be much different from the ones of the past.

In terms of promoting diversity, there are two fatal flaws in the party list idea. First, where people are placed on the list is crucial: placed first means election, last means defeat. So, having 30 women on the list is meaningless if the top nine are men.

Second, Ontario is one constituency for the party-list candidates; parties are not required to list people from Ontario's various regions. It is entirely possible for most party-list MPPs to hail from one region. This is great news for people living in, say, the GTA, but bad news for rural residents or Northern Ontarians.

There should have been provision for regional party-list elections so no region is seriously under-represented in the legislature. As it is, the proposed MMP system may encourage the formation of regional parties.

The MMP proposal contains a new theory of representation. Instead of having MPPs in Queen's Park who are locally elected and expected to represent their district's concerns there will be 39 MPPs who have no direct connection with or accountability to electors. This creates two classes of representatives, one known and responsible to their electors, the other answerable to party leaders who place people on the list and their ranking.

Party leaders are very powerful in our parliamentary system and it is unfortunate that the MMP designers did not require that party members (in regional conventions) choose the party list candidates. Citizens would have an incentive to join parties, thus invigorating an important part of our society.

What are the party-list parliamentarians doing? Political science literature suggests the following: Constituency MPPs will be busy with local issues and dealing with concerns of constituents; party-list MPPs will be preoccupied with the legislature, doing party work, and meeting with interest groups.

MMP's new theory of representation will radically change politics in Ontario. Perhaps it is a good idea that Queen's Park has one group of MPPs who are directly connected to constituencies and other MPPs passing laws and imposing taxes who do not have to worry about personal re-election or even being re-nominated by local party members. For our part, we oppose a system of "representation without location."

Have we adequately debated the issue? We believe that the referendum process is flawed. The Citizens' Assembly's Report was released on May 15th. With two months lost during summer, we will make a monumental decision in too short a time, and when we are pre-occupied with the provincial election.

MMP advocates point to New Zealand as an example of a parliamentary system that has adopted MMP. They do not mention the lengthy decision-making process: a Royal Commission reported, followed by a referendum on electoral systems, then a second referendum on MMP. We should have had the same opportunity to learn, reflect, and decide.

We urge Ontarians to retain FPTP knowing that it has provided for stable, effective, and accountable government since before Confederation. The voting process is simple and the counting of votes is straightforward. And the electoral system is responsive to new issues, ideas, and parties, leading to governments being formed and being defeated. Peter Woolstencroft, University

of Waterloo,

Rob Leone, Wilfrid Laurier University, Mark

Yaniszewski, University of

Western Ontario

- - o- -

How should we vote in the referendum?

Introducing a new method of electing and appointing members to the Ontario Provincial Legislature - for the alleged purpose of correcting small imperfections - is surely undemocratic.

Instead of electing all the members of the Provincial Government in the next election, namely the 90 members allowed (reduced from 107 citizens that citizens can vote for directly in this present election), we would have a second vote for political parties who would, it seems, appoint another 39 members to sit in the same legislature with them. This would constitute almost one-third of the total.

This is tantamount to allowing political parties to appoint people, rather like the senators of the unelected portion of government in Ottawa, who largely review legislation, rather than initiate it, into the Provincial Legislature.

If this is what is being proposed as Mixed Member Proportional, it should be rejected. Vote "NO" to this type of provincial government.

D. Baller

Orangeville

- - o- -

October 10, 2007 will be Ontario's most important election, and referendum, day in its history. The referendum will require the approval by the electorate of what is a political proposal to adopt a two-tier form of government, ostensibly to dispose of the "First-pastthe post" system currently in place which creates an imbalance in representation in our legislature

The Mixed Member Proportional proposal (MMP) harbours the real potential for exchanging our system to one far less democratic than the current one which has served us throughout our history.

This MMP proposal will reduce our number of elected members from the present 103 to 90 and the number of ridings will be reduce by 17. This will weaken the capacity of elected members to represent his/her constituents and thus access to government by the people.

Thirty-nine new seats will be created and that increases the size of the legislature to 129. These new seats will be occupied by political hacks appointed by the political parties and none will have received approval or will have been elected democratically. Consequently these appointees will be beholden only to the political party that selected them and it's a fair bet that they will come from the ranks of those who have served the party well.

With the recent salary increase our politicians awarded themselves a backbencher receives $112,990 per annum plus a rich tax right-off and extras for certain functions. This translates into a minimum financial hit on the Ontario taxpayer of $3,389,700 while representation and access to government is heavily and negatively impacted.

Thirty-nine additional unelected politicians in the legislature represents close to 50% of elected members. Democracy will inevitably fracture following such an undemocratic system.

The Citizens Assembly and Election Reform committee, which cost taxpayers millions, was composed of randomly selected people we are told. If Ontario chooses to adopt this MMP process it will be interesting to see how many of that "randomly" selected body are chosen to sit in the legislature.

Ontarians don't want a government that reflects the Senate where everyone sits, and sometimes rants, but are there only because they served their political party faithfully and ignored all contentious issues that could affect their constituents. Loyalty to the party takes priority over service to the electorate.

Don't be fooled by this crafty move to take from us all the freedoms and rights to vote for whomsoever we choose to represent us Should we lose that freedom recovery will be virtually impossible. So you must read and evaluate this MMP proposal and decide for yourselves; is it the best we can do to preserve our democracy? Democracy cannot hope to survive if the legislative chambers are comprised of the friends of politicians.

Ken Hayward

Mono