Which way will you Ontarians vote on the referendum?

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 6:32 pm

For information on the referendum this year in Ontario on October 10, check this out.

http://www.yourbigdecision.ca/en_ca/default.aspx

-istp

Dash-Ate · Post by **Dash-Ate** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:04 pm

effin crooks will win anyway

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:39 pm

Only if you vote for them... or don't vote for anyone.

C-GGGQ · Post by **C-GGGQ** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:09 pm

old way makes sense, why make it more complex? waste of time if you ask me

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Tue Aug 21, 2007 8:20 pm

old way makes sense,

Errmm, no, not really..If you look at the results of any of the last few federal elections (or indeed, the polling results leading up to them) there's always quotes that party X needs ~45% of the popular vote to get a majority government.
So how, when less than 50% of us support a party, does it manage to get a majority? Another very good example of this is the BC Provincial Election of 2001, when the Liberal party had ~57% of the popular vote, yet won 77 out of 79 seats in the legislature?? STV is one of any number of ways designed to remedy this curiosity of democracy..

C-GGGQ · Post by **C-GGGQ** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 5:50 am

well according to the site with the information, what ontario does right now (which is the same as where i live) is vote for the person in your riding, whoever gets the most votes gets the seat, whoever gets the most seats gets the governement. The new way includes voting for a person to get a regular seat, and then voting a second time for a party who will get a different kind of seat, etc. etc. sounds more complicated to me.

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:51 am

GQ, you are correct, sir - that is how it works, but there is a certain unfairness inherent in that system. The idea, I believe, is that in a democracy, everyone's (informed, hopefully) voice is taken into consideration when decisions are made. Now getting all of us to participate in all decisions of the government would be very costly, not to mention unwieldy, so we've designed a system that allows us to delegate our voice to another, who speaks it (hopefully) in the halls of power. However, in doing so, we also manage to disenfranchise a certain, large portion of the populace.
Take the last Ontario Election in 2003.
Liberals 46%,Cons 34%, NDP 15%, (Popular vote) leading to 72 seats for the Libs (out of 102 seats, or 70.5% of the seats in the Leg) 24 for the Cons (23% of the seats) and 7 for the NDP (7% of the seats) So if I was one of the majority that didn't vote for the Liberals, then why is it fair that they get a strong majority, able to win every vote in the Leg. by sheer weight of numbers, quite contrary to what might be the will of the people - which is the whole point of the exercise, isn't it?
Now, you might argue that it is unlikely that the Conservatives and the NDP would find common ground (apart from voting, along party lines, against the Government as part of their job as the Opposition) when more likely political bedfellows would be the NDP and the Libs. So, together, they got 61% of the popular vote, and 76% seats, again a gross distortion of "what the population wants." In that situation, what about the 34% of the population who wanted a more conservative agenda?

On an individual riding basis, (I'm going federal here, but only because I'm familiar with the riding - I'm sure that there are similarities to be found somewhere in Ontario.) look at Saanich-Gulf Islands. It has gone to the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives since 1993. Over the last two elections, the conservatives have persisted in running (and winning) with an unpopular candidate, Gary Lunn. 2004 gave him 34% of the vote, and 2006 37%. What about the 64% who didn't want him?

Ok, so there are a few examples of how our current First-past-the-post system distorts the 'will of the people.' Why not try to figure out a better way, one that allows people's voices to be heard? If it means that people have to be a little more informed, and think about their franchise prior to exercising it, because the system is more complicated, then all the better for our society, IMHO.

C-GGGQ · Post by **C-GGGQ** » Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:33 am

fair enough

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:01 pm

BUMP (because it's important)

C-GGGQ · Post by **C-GGGQ** » Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:20 pm

the problem with your reasoning north shore is that with more than two parties the vote will always be split in such a way that the person who got the most votes out of all the candidates will not have gotten the majority of the votes.

Floats · Post by **Floats** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:08 am

North Shore"] The idea, I believe, is that in a democracy, everyone's (informed, hopefully) voice is taken into consideration when decisions are made.

I think thats the problem right there, the majority of voters are not informed. They vote for a person/party based on whether the person looks scary or not, or one single election promise made on TV. In order for Democracy to work, everyone needs to know what they are voting for.

I would support a system, that required you to pass a test on knowledge of each party/person before being allowed to vote.

the problem with your reasoning north shore is that with more than two parties the vote will always be split in such a way that the person who got the most votes out of all the candidates will not have gotten the majority of the votes.

Exactly!

niss · Post by **niss** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:14 am

I try to vote for the lesser of two evils.

The Other Kind · Post by **The Other Kind** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 12:34 pm

I'll be voting for FPTP. The problem with MMP is that you will have 39 MPP's sitting in the Provincial Legislature that did not run in the election, do not represent any particular riding and are only accountable to the party leader that 'gave' them their seat. At least that's how I understand it - I'm still doing my homework. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

If you don't like FPTP, do your homework before you vote. Voting against something rather than voting FOR something can have drastic results, as was proven in the 1990 Provincial election.

JakeYYZ · Post by **JakeYYZ** » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:10 pm

Instead of electing MPPs in 107 ridings, as we do now, we will elect MPPs in just 90.

(Good. We'll save money. Fewer ridings. Fewer MPPs at the trough.)

Bullsh*t. Queen's Park will actually balloon to 129 MPPs.

(Howzat?)

Well, another 39 MPs will be appointed.

(Holy cow! Without us voting for them?)

Amazing, eh?

See, in addition to picking our local fave, we will vote separately for a party.

The pool of 39 MPs will be divvied up among the parties according to the percentage of those votes.

It's like the bonus spin on The Price Is Right.
Yup... I was just thinking you can never have too many of those guys on the payroll...

2R · Post by 2R » Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:29 am

They should try and get it down to 62 MPPs

That would save a lot of money that could be spent on wages for people who actually make a difference .

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:47 am

From the website at the top of this thread.

‘List Members’ are candidates from any registered political party. Before an election each political party prepares an ordered list of candidates they would like considered as ‘List Members’.

These lists, and the way they are created, would be made public well in advance of any election in a Mixed Member Proportional system.

So it seems to me, that if you don't like the way the party picks people on the list ex. they're appointed, they're the leaders' cousins, you don't have to vote for them. You could pick a party that has a more democratic way of choosing its list members. Of course this will require the masses to do their homework before voting. Something they are loathe to do.

IMHO, the difference of a few MPPs in the legislature doesn't mean SFA monetarily, in an 85 billion dollar budget. If a little bit of cash makes us more democratic, I'm hip to that.

-istp

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 6:51 pm

...and I'm gonna keep bumping this till election day!

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:16 pm

The Other Kind wrote:I'll be voting for FPTP. The problem with MMP is that you will have 39 MPP's sitting in the Provincial Legislature that did not run in the election, do not represent any particular riding and are only accountable to the party leader that 'gave' them their seat. At least that's how I understand it - I'm still doing my homework. That doesn't sound very democratic to me.

My view as well.

w squared · Post by **w squared** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 6:51 am

My vote is for a no-holds-barred steel cage match.

oldncold · Post by **oldncold** » Sun Sep 30, 2007 7:07 pm

139 mpp's at 110,000 k a yr

= 15,290,000.00 of your hard work

and them being politicain give a raise every yr 40% well keep workn cuz

we do not need any more gov't less is better

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Mon Oct 01, 2007 6:15 am

MMP will give the Greens seats and the NDP more seats. Seeing as the Greens are a 1 issue party, unless the debate is about the environment you have no idea what their position is and are in essence pissing that vote away. The NDP likes to tax people and then spend ad nauseum. Some academic came up with MMP a few years and it's been on lots of peoples tongues since. Any system you choose will have advantages and disadvantages. The US system with a President and Congress is in the same boat. I know with MMP the major consequence will be the extreme left and right wingers showing up more in government. Now everyone it entitled to their opinion, but I don't want to pay for it. And with more "fringe" politicians, the back room deals will get very interesting with lots of coalitions forming to get a majority of votes in the legislature.

Someone help me if my understanding is wrong.

MMP is just a way for the Greens to finally get a seat in government. They are one of the lobby groups pushing for it. So are the NDP.

2R · Post by 2R » Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:29 pm

MMP smakes of something the marxists would want as that way they can seize power without ever needing a revolution .Why wage war if you can steal it from those to lazy to vote .
All the single issue special interest groups will finally get a tool to hold government to ransom .

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:53 pm

2 hours of voting left. I'm bumping this!

niss · Post by **niss** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:03 pm

w squared wrote:My vote is for a no-holds-barred steel cage match.

Everyones voice matters......except for yours.

Which way will you Ontarians vote on the referendum?

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?

Which way will you Ontarians vote on the referendum?

more tax