Giving a Voice to ’s Regions Simplicity, Accountability, Choice and Regional Representation

REVISED MODEL January 2007

GREGORY D. MORROW BScArch, BArch (McGill); SMArchS, MCP (MIT); PhD Candidate (UCLA)

USA CANADA School of Public Affairs c/o John Olson University of California, Los Angeles 45 Florence St. 3250 Public Policy Building Kingston, ON Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656 K7M 1Y5 [email protected] [email protected] 1-323-551-7539 1-323-551-7539

To save paper, this document is set up to be printed double-sided.

Giving a Voice to Ontario’s Regions Simplicity, Accountability, Choice and Regional Representation

REVISED MODEL January 2007

GREGORY D. MORROW BScArch, BArch (McGill); SMArchS, MCP (MIT); PhD Candidate (UCLA)

Contents 1. Responsive Electoral System Design ...... 2 2. What Principles are Most Important? ...... 2 3. Ontario’s Our Current Electoral System? ...... 2 4. Keep or Change its Electoral System? ...... 3 5. System Characteristics ...... 4 A. Parliament Size ...... 4 B. Local-Regional Split ...... 4 C. Number/Size of Regions ...... 5 D. Regions - Counties/School Boards ...... 6 E. The North: An Exception ...... 8 F. Population and Representation ...... 8 G. Testing It: 2003 Simulation/Re-Calculation ...... 9 About the Author Born and raised in rural Eastern Ontario (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox & H. Voting/Ballot Structure ...... 11 Addington), Gregory D. Morrow is currently completing his PhD at the School of 6. Technical Details ...... 13 Public Affairs, University of California, Los Angeles. An architect, urban planner, A. List Sizes ...... 13 and scholar, Greg was most recently a Lecturer in Urban Studies & Planning at B. Dual-Candidacy ...... 13 MIT. He has a forthcoming book on the history of zoning and urban regulations in C. Calculation Method ...... 14 . His current research focuses on the intersection of political institutions and regional disparities, with special focus on Ontario and Southern California. D. Thresholds ...... 17 He is also founder and President of DemocraticSPACE, whose website is one of E. Nominations ...... 17 Canada’s leading sources of election news and analysis. Appendix: Maps of Regions ...... 18

Website: http://democraticSPACE.com. Comments: [email protected] GIVING A VOICE TO ONTARIO’S REGIONS SIMPLICITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, CHOICE AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATION

1. Responsive Electoral System Design 4. Should Ontario keep its current system or change? On 9 December 2006, we submitted a proposal for a mixed- Given that our first-past-the-post system cannot ensure fair member proportional system (OCA submission #1122, along regional/province-wide representation or deliver real voter choice, with interpretation bulletins #1138 and #1218), which was we believe that the Citizens’ Assembly must recommend based on discussions with readers at DemocraticSPACE (http:// change. The key question then becomes: change to what? democraticSPACE.com). All 103 Citizens’ Assembly members were Listening to the Assembly consultations, its own deliberations, sent a little blue book that outlined the proposal, “Giving a Voice to and our own discussions with people across Ontario, we believe Ontario’s Regions.” that a mixed-member proportional system clearly represents the best system for Ontario. While the most adamant PR supporters Since that time, the Assembly has held dozens of consultation endorse List PR and STV, we cannot recommend either for meetings, documented on the Assembly website and through Ontario. Consultations suggest that the elimination of all local TV Ontario’s video coverage. Advocacy groups such as Fair Vote ridings -- which pure List PR and STV systems do -- would not be Canada/Fair Vote Ontario have also become involved, setting up well received (and perhaps compromise local representation and a website to debate various proposals. And we continue to have accountability). Secondly, we believe that plurality, majoritarian debates on DemocraticSPACE about electoral reform. The great and other non-proportional systems do not address the problems advantage of these democratic processes, facilitated by technology, of voter choice and fair representation, principles that Ontarians is that it allow us to generate real-time alternatives that respond value (based on consultations). These other alternatives have to the questions and concerns of Assembly members and the only local representation (providing accountability but sacrificing Ontarians at large. It is in that spirit that we submit our final, proportionality and voter choice) or only regional representation revised model for your consideration. (providing proportionality and choice but sacrificing accountability). Mixed-member proportional is the only system that combines 2. What electoral system principles are most important? local and regional representation and balances simplicity/ This model is based on 4 key principles, in addition to legitimacy accountability with voter choice and proportionality. As such, (which all democratic systems must have): 1) simplicity and MMP represents the best balance of old and new. practicality, 2) fair representation for regions and province- wide, 3) accountability, and 4) voter choice. We feel that all four In what follows, then, we offer a revised model based on the principles must be balanced to achieve a system that represents all feedback we have heard during consultation meetings, the OCA’s Ontarians. deliberations, Fair Vote Ontario’s reviews and discussions, and direct input from our readers at DemocraticSPACE. We feel this 3. Ontario’s Our Current Electoral System? model represents the best balance of the various trade-offs We believe that our current first-past-the-post system scores well (legislature size, number of regions, district magnitude, local/ on simplicity/practicality and accountability, but does so at an regional mix, etc). We think it represents a compromise that all unacceptable expense of fair regional/province-wide representation Assembly members, and indeed all Ontarians, could endorse. As and genuine voter choice. such, we feel it forms a starting point upon which a mixed-member system could be based, should the Citizens’ Assembly go that route. 2 3 GIVING A VOICE TO ONTARIO’S REGIONS SIMPLICITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, CHOICE AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATION

Summary of Proposed System of local seats, giving us 88 local seats and 51 regional seats 1. Family Type MMP (keeping 85% of local ridings). This works out to a ratio of 63.3% 2. Size of Legislature 139 Total MPPs local and 36.7% regional seats. This split retains the maximum 3. Local/Regional Split 63.3% Local (88 MPPs) number of local seats, while still ensuring proportional results. 36.7% Regional (51 MPPs) C. Number/Size of Regions 4. No. of Regions 9 Regions The size and therefore number of regions must balance: a) natural 5. Ave People per MPP 1 per 85,500 people (2001 pop.) regional affinities, b) the geographic size of regions, c) the overall 6. Average Region 10 Local + 6 Regional = 16 Total population of regions, d) the size of the regional ballot, and e) regional proportionality. Too many small regions and the regional 7. How MPPs Are Elected Local MPPs: First-Past-the-Post Regional MPPs: Proportional ballots are too small to achieve proportionality or give sufficient opportunities for women, visible minorities, and aboriginals 8. Regional Ballot Open-List (research shows that lists of 5 or greater are desirable). Too 9. Calculation Method Province-wide, highest remainder few large regions and the regional ballots are too cumbersome, don’t reflect natural affinities and create regions too large to be 10. Minimum Threshold 2% province-wide adequately served by regional MPPs. After mapping and testing 11. Dual-Candidacy Allowed dozens of scenarios, we have concluded that 9 regions would provide best balance the above factors (which is not to say there aren’t sub-regions within these regions -- in fact, all regions have 5. System Characteristics distinct sub-regions as well). The breakdown of the regions are as A. Parliament Size follows. We recommend that Ontario restore the seats removed from the legislature after 1999 (based on 1996 legislation), and adjust Breakdown of the Regions by Local, Regional, and Total MPPs for population. In 1996, Ontario had 130 MPPs and a population of 11.1 million -- a ratio of roughly 1 per 85,500. So adjusting for LOCAL REGIONAL TOTAL 2001 population of 11.9 million yields a parliament with 139 seats. 1 NORTHERN 11 3 14 2 -EAST 8 5 13 B. Local/Regional Split 3 LIMESTONE-QUINTE-KAWARTHA 6 4 10 If the “right-sized” legislature is 139 seats and we retain all 107 4 SIMCOE-UPPER GRAND-HURON 10 6 16 local ridings, we would have just 32 regional seats or 23%. Of all 5 SOUTHWESTERN 9 5 14 the MMP systems in the world, the smallest share of regional seats 6 HAMILTON-NIAGARA 8 5 13 7 YORK-DURHAM 9 6 15 is 33%, which is what most agree is the minimum proportion 8 PEEL-HALTON 10 6 16 necessary to ensure proportional results. As such, retaining all 107 9 TORONTO 17 11 28 ridings would fail to achieve the proportionality that Ontarians want. TOTAL 88 51 139 Therefore, we recommend a modest reduction in the number 4 5 GIVING A VOICE TO ONTARIO’S REGIONS SIMPLICITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, CHOICE AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATION REGIONS 1. Northern D. Regions - Counties and School Board Districts 2. Ottawa-East All regions follow existing Counties, Districts and Regional 3. Limestone-Quinte-Kawartha Municipalities (“Counties etc.” below) and school board districts (a 4. Simcoe-Upper Grand-Huron 5. Southwestern portion of those with * lie outside of the region). 1 6. Hamilton-Niagara 7. York-Durham Region Counties etc. School Boards 8. Peel-Halton 1. Northern Algoma, Cochrane, Algoma, Keewatin- 9. Toronto Greater Sudbury, Patricia, Lakehead, Southern Ontario Kenora, Manitoulin, Near North, Ontario Muskoka, Nipissing, North East, Rainbow, Parry Sound, Rainy River, Rainy River, Superior- Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Greenstone Timiskaming 2. Ottawa-East Ottawa, Prescott-Russell, Ottawa-Carleton, Renfrew Renfrew, Stormont- County, Upper Canada* Southern Ontario Dundas-Glengarry 3. Limestone-Quinte Frontenac, Haliburton, Hastings and Prince -Kawartha Hastings, Lanark, Edward, Kawartha Pine Leeds-Grenville, Ridge*, Limestone, Kawartha Lakes, Trillium Lakelands* 2 Lennox-Addington, Northumberland, Peterborough, Prince 3 Edward 4. Simcoe-Upper Bruce, Dufferin, Grey, Avon Maitland, Grand-Huron Huron, Perth, Simcoe, Bluewater, Upper Grand, Waterloo, Wellington Simcoe County, Waterloo 7 Region 5. Southwestern 4 9 Chatham-Kent, Elgin, Greater Essex County, 8 Essex, Lambton, Lambton Kent, Thames Middlesex, Oxford Valley 6 6. Hamilton-Niagara Brant, Haldimand- Grand Erie, Hamilton- Norfolk, Hamilton, Wentworth, Niagara 5 Niagara 7. York-Durham Durham, York Durham, York Region 8. Peel-Halton Halton, Peel Halton, Peel 9. Toronto Toronto Toronto 6 7 GIVING A VOICE TO ONTARIO’S REGIONS SIMPLICITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, CHOICE AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATION

E. The North: An Exception G. Testing It: Simulation/Re-Calculation of 2003 Election Due to its low (and declining) population and vast geography, The 2003 election saw the Liberals win 70% of the seats on 47% we feel the North deserves special attention. Election law allows of the vote, while the PCs won just 23% of the seats on 35% of the for up to 25% variation in representation, unless “exceptional vote, the NDP won just 7% of the seats on 15% of the vote, and the circumstances” warrant a larger variation. Our province-wide remaining 4.1% didn’t translate into any seats. Under our proposed average of 1 MPP per 85,500 people means a minimum of 1 MPP MMP system, however (recognizing that we are not accounting for per 64,125. This would normally yield 13 MPPs for the North in a changes in voter behaviour due to the change in electoral system), 139-seat legislature, based on 2001 population. However, we feel each party would have received its fair share of seats, comparable “exceptional circumstances” in the far North (Kenora, James Bay) to the very best proportional systems in the world (the only warrant the addition of 1 extra Northern seat. Moreover, 14 seats unsuccessful votes being the 1.3% who voted for very small parties would ensure that the North maintains its current 10% share of and independents). the legislature. While 14 seats should be split 9 local/5 regional, we recognize that 9 local ridings would be too large given the vast Breakdown of the Actual 2003 Election Results geography; so, we recommend that Northern Ontario retain its 11 local ridings exactly as today, and be granted 3 regional seats. All regions in Southern Ontario, however, have the same local/regional LIBERAL PC NDP GREEN OTHER mix (i.e. approx. 62% local, 38% regional, +/- 2%). LOCAL 72 24 7 0 0 REGIONAL ----- TOTAL 72 24 7 0 0 F. Population and Representation % VOTES 46.5% 34.7% 14.7% 2.8% 1.3% All regions in Southern Ontario are +/- 8.5% of the provincial % SEATS 69.9% 23.3% 6.8% 0.0% 0.0% average population per seat. At 13 seats, the North has a 21.2% variation (allowing for 1 additional seat brings this to 26.7%). Breakdown of the Caucuses from the Actual 2003 Election Breakdown of the Regions by Population and People per Seat

POP. SEATS POP./SEAT LIBERAL PC NDP GREEN OTHER 1 NORTHERN 876,700 14 62,600 NORTHERN 71300 2 OTTAWA-EAST 1,100,200 13 84,600 OTTAWA-EAST 73000 3 LIMESTONE-QUINTE-KAWARTHA 807,000 10 80,700 LIMESTONE-QUINTE-KAWARTHA 52000 4 SIMCOE-UPPER GRAND-HURON 1,393,200 16 87,100 SIMCOE-UPPER GRAND-HURON 48000 5 SOUTHWESTERN 1,244,000 14 88,900 SOUTHWESTERN 10 1000 6 HAMILTON-NIAGARA 1,175,000 13 90,400 HAMILTON-NIAGARA 82100 7 YORK-DURHAM 1,286,300 15 85,800 YORK-DURHAM 55000 8 PEEL-HALTON 1,422,400 16 88,900 PEEL-HALTON 82000 9 TORONTO 2,592,500 28 92,600 TORONTO 18 0300 TOTAL 11,897,300 139 85,500 TOTAL 72 24 7 0 0

8 9 GIVING A VOICE TO ONTARIO’S REGIONS SIMPLICITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, CHOICE AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATION As you can see from the simulation/re-calculation below, our the PCs receive double the share of Northern MPPs, from 11% proposed MMP system results not only in overall proportionality, to 21%, commensurate with its 20% share of Northern votes. but also in party caucuses that are vastly more balanced across Similarly, the PCs receive 28% of the seats in Southwestern all regions, reflecting the true distribution of support across Ontario, on par with its 26% of votes, as opposed to the 11% it the province, instead of artificially polarizing one region against won under FPTP. Instead of being shut out in 6 of 9 regions, the another. Remarkably, all 3 major parties have representation in NDP gains representation in all 9 regions. Despite 1 in 6 people all 9 regions. The governing Liberal caucus has better balance, in Southwestern Ontario voting NDP, it was shut out; under MMP, with fewer MPPs from Toronto and Southwestern Ontario, but more the NDP would win 3 of 14 seats. The Greens also win their fair in areas where they were under-represented, such as the Simcoe- share of votes gaining 4 of 139 seats. In other words, moving to Upper Grand-Huron area. The offi cial opposition is also more MMP gives every party its fair share of seats in Queen’s Park, and balanced. Instead of being shut out in Toronto despite gaining 29% ensures that every region gets the representatives they asked for. of the votes, the PC caucus would have 8 Toronto MPPs. Likewise, Unlike FPTP, which exacerbates regional differences and often leads parties to cater to some regions over others, MMP ensures Breakdown of the Results under MMP (2003 Simulation/Re-Calculation) that all regions are well-represented within the caucuses, ensuring that all regions are treated fairly by all parties.

LIBERAL PC NDP GREEN OTHER H. Voting/Ballot Structure LOCAL 57 24 7 0 0 Since the proposed system is purely open-list on regional vote, REGIONAL 8 25 14 4 0 voting is the same as the local vote -- that is, you simply mark an TOTAL 65 49 21 4 0 X next to your preferred regional candidate. The only differences % VOTES 46.5% 34.7% 14.7% 2.8% 1.3% % SEATS 46.8% 35.3% 15.1% 2.9% 0.0% are that a) there is more than one candidate per party -- people simply vote for the person they like best of their preferred party, b) regional votes count also as votes for parties, and c) the number of Breakdown of the Caucuses under MMP (2003 Simulation/Re-Calculation) total seats each party receives in a given region is determined by a party’s regional vote share. The local vote is exactly like today.

LIBERAL PC NDP GREEN OTHER The ballot under this system is very simple. On the left side is NORTHERN 73400 the regional/party vote and the right side is the local vote. Voters OTTAWA-EAST 65110 cast two votes, one on each side, by marking an X beside their LIMESTONE-QUINTE-KAWARTHA 54100 preferred candidate. The regional candidates (left-side) are grouped SIMCOE-UPPER GRAND-HURON 67210 SOUTHWESTERN 84200 alphabetically by party (each candidate is also listed alphabetically HAMILTON-NIAGARA 64300 within their party list). The local candidates (right side) for each YORK-DURHAM 67200 party are aligned beside the regional party list, but here there PEEL-HALTON 77110 is just one candidate per party (since there is only one local TORONTO 14 8510 representative). See sample ballot below. TOTAL 65 49 21 4 0

10 11 GIVING A VOICE TO ONTARIO’S REGIONS SIMPLICITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, CHOICE AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATION YOU HAVE TWO VOTES 6. TECHNICAL DETAILS REGIONAL VOTE LOCAL VOTE A. List Sizes This vote elects regional representatives for This vote elects a local representative for NORTHERN ONTARIO THUNDER BAY- SUPERIOR NORTH Parties may wish to have a regional list longer than the number of seats available, in order to offer voters maximum choice. This Explanation: Explanation: This vote determines the share of seats each This vote determines your local representative desire must be balanced with the need to have manageable sized party receives in your region. A vote for a in the legislature. The candidate with the most candidate also counts as a vote for his/her X X votes is elected. regional ballots. So, we recommend that regional lists be at least party. Candidate(s) with the most votes are elected. 1.5 times (rounded up to the nearest whole number) the number of VOTE FOR ONLY ONE CANDIDATE VOTE FOR ONLY ONE CANDIDATE Vote Here Vote Here regional seats available, and no more than the maximum number Darpreet BAINS LUCY CHEUNG Green Party of Ontario of total seats in a region. This ensures that all regional ballots Lucy CHEUNG Green Party of Ontario have at least 5 candidates, which improves the likelihood of parties Jack MUMFORD running women, visible minorities, and aboriginal candidates. Thus,

GREEN Green Party of Ontario Tony RICCIO the party lists for each party by region are as follows: Green Party of Ontario Edward WANG Green Party of Ontario MIN. MAX. Joe BAYBAHMAHGEWABE Erika JANSSEN of Ontario New Democratic Party of Ontario Northern 5 14 Jacques CARON New Democratic Party of Ontario Ottawa-East 8 13 Monia HUSSEIN NDP New Democratic Party of Ontario Limestone-Quinte-Kawartha 6 10 Erika JANSSEN New Democratic Party of Ontario Simcoe-Upper Grand-Huron 9 16 Valeri WONG New Democratic Party of Ontario Southwestern 8 14

Joseph BEAUPRE Norm MADJIGIJIK Hamilton-Niagara 8 13 Ontario Liberal Party Ruth KLEIN York-Durham 9 15 Ontario Liberal Party Norm MADJIGIJIK Peel-Halton 9 16

LIBERAL Ontario Liberal Party Cindy OLSON Toronto 17 28 Ontario Liberal Party Barbara SMITH Ontario Liberal Party B. Dual Candidacy Andrzej GORSKI John LUCAS Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Parties may wish to run some of their local candidates on the Christine HISE Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario regional ballot, particularly if they are unlikely to win local seats.

PC Dana KAY To ensure that there are sufficient number of unique candidates Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario John LUCAS on the regional ballot (i.e. enough left even if all dual-listed Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Nathan TURNER candidates win local seats), we recommend that parties have at Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario least as many unique candidates (i.e. not dual-listed) as there Jack BAIRD Jack BAIRD Independent Independent are regional seats available. So, for example, if a party in York- Peter JONES Peter JONES No Affiliation No Affiliation Durham wanted to run all 9 local candidates on the regional ballot, they would have a list of 15 in order to ensure there are 6 unique candidates. If they chose to run only 6 local candidates on the regional ballot, then they would have up to 9 unique candidates. 12 13 GIVING A VOICE TO ONTARIO’S REGIONS SIMPLICITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, CHOICE AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATION

C. Calculation Method Limestone-Quinte-Kawartha Local Regional Total To illustrate how votes are translated into seats, we will run Liberal 4.66 5 seats 4 1 5 through a simulation/re-calculation of the 2003 election. The 5- PC 3.71 4 2 2 4 step procedure is as follows: NDP 1.22 1 0 1 1 1. Local votes are tallied as per usual to determine local Green 0.41 0 0 0 0 winners. Here, the Liberals won 57, the PCs 24 and the NDP 7. Simcoe-Upper Grand-Huron Local Regional Total 2. Next, the total regional/party votes in the province are Liberal 6.16 6 seats 3 3 6 tallied and quotients* calculated for all parties earning more PC 7.24 7 7 0 7 than the minimum 2% threshold. Four parties were above the NDP 1.89 2 0 2 2 threshold: Liberal, PC, NDP and Green, as follows: Green 0.72 1 0 1 1 Liberal 65.48 65 seats Southwestern Local Regional Total PC 48.85 49 Liberal 6.83 7 seats 8 0 8 * NDP 20.70 21 PC 4.03 4 1 3 4 Green 3.97 4 NDP 2.69 3 0 2 2 * Green 0.46 0 0 0 0 We check to ensure the total matches the 139 total seats Hamilton-Niagara Local Regional Total (if its too low, the party that lost the highest fraction of a seat Liberal 5.91 6 seats 5 1 6 is rounded up, and if its too high, the party that earned the PC 4.03 4 2 2 4 lowest fraction of a seat is rounded down to ensure we get 139 NDP 2.71 3 1 2 3 total seats). The difference between overall and local seats Green 0.35 0 0 0 0 determines a party’s regional seats: Liberal 8, PC 25, NDP 14, York-Durham Local Regional Total Green 4. Liberal 6.65 7 seats 4 2 6 * 3. Next, regional quotients for the qualifying parties are PC 6.53 7 5 2 7 calculated (standard rounding rules apply). The results are NDP 1.45 1 0 2 2 * summarized below. Green 0.37 0 0 0 0

Northern Local Regional Total Peel-Halton Local Regional Total Liberal 7.21 7 seats 7 0 7 Liberal 7.14 7 seats 5 2 7 PC 2.77 3 1 2 3 PC 6.93 7 5 2 7 NDP 3.85 4 3 1 4 NDP 1.40 1 0 1 1 Green 0.17 0 0 0 0 Green 0.53 1 0 1 1

Ottawa-East Local Regional Total Toronto Local Regional Total Liberal 6.27 6 seats 6 0 6 Liberal 14.36 14 seats 14 0 14 PC 4.89 5 2 3 5 PC 8.11 8 0 8 8 NDP 1.33 1 0 1 1 NDP 4.59 5 3 2 5 Green 0.51 1 0 1 1 Green 1.22 1 0 1 1 14 15 GIVING A VOICE TO ONTARIO’S REGIONS SIMPLICITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, CHOICE AND REGIONAL REPRESENTATION

4. Next, we check for cases where a party wins more local seats D. Thresholds than its fair share of the regional vote. As you can see from We believe that a small province-wide threshold is necessary to the * lines, there was one instance (Southwestern) where the ensure that parties are broadly-based and speak on behalf of all Liberals earned more local seats than its share of the vote would regions (and to ensure an effective parliament that isn’t overly dictate (they won 8 of 9 local seats on only 49% of the vote). If this fractured into special interest groups). A high threshold, however, happens, parties keep their local seats, but they lose a regional limits voter choice (by excluding smaller parties) and creates seat from the region in which they earned the smallest fraction disproportional results. In balancing these competing concerns, we of a seat. In this case, that was in York-Durham where the Liberals recommend that a party must win 2% province-wide to qualify for earned a “rounding bonus” of 35/100th of a seat (they earned regional seats. This ensures maximum voter choice, but addresses 6.65, which rounded up to 7). So, adjusting for over-representation concerns about having an overly fractured parliament. The 2% in Southwestern Ontario, the Liberals would win 6 seats in York- threshold is the level required federally for parties to receive public Durham. The adjusted region, however, doesn’t lose a seat. That funding, so there is already a precedent for a 2% threshold. seat goes to the remaining party that lost the highest fraction of seat. In this case, it was the NDP, who lost 45/100th of a seat. E. Nominations As you can see, these adjustments are small, adjusting only for While outside of the mandate of the OCA, we believe that it is rounding fortunes -- here, the difference is just 20/100ths of a incumbent upon the OCA to express the will of Ontarians that seat (the difference between the Liberals’ 65/100th and the NDP’s nominations be held by a democratic process. We also feel it is 45/100th of a seat). As a result, each party’s share of the regional important that parties hear that Ontarians want a parliament that seats remains very close to its regional vote share -- in this case, all refl ects the diversity of the province. This necessitates better parties remain within 4% of their earned votes in York-Durham: representation for women, visible minorities, and aboriginals, all of which are under-represented at present. For example, despite % Votes % Seats representing 51% of the population, women make up only 24% of Liberal 44% 40% the legislature. Despite making up 22% of the population, visible PC 43% 47% minorities make up just 7% of the legislature. And the 2% aboriginal NDP 10% 13% population has no representation whosoever. But quotas aren’t the Green 2% 0% answer. We feel the proposed system provides opportunities for 5. Finally, the results are checked against each party’s overall parties to run a diverse slate of candidates. Research has shown seat totals to ensure it matches its fair share. If there still that with 5 or more regional candidates, parties will run diverse remains a discrepancy, the over-represented party once again loses slates. Our regional boundaries, coupled with the provision that a seat in a region in which it earned the lowest fraction of a seat regional lists be at least 1.5 times the number of regional seats and this goes to party that lost the highest fraction of a seat (and available, ensures that every party in every region will have a vice versa for under-represented parties). This process is repeated regional list with 5 or more regional candidates. We encourage until each party earns its fair share of the provincial vote. the OCA to convey in its report in the strongest language possible that Ontarians expect parties to take advantage of what the * Quotient is simply a party’s vote share multiplied by the number of seats available in the region. i.e. if a party gets 42.5% of the vote in a 10-seat region, it should receive 4.25 seats (its quotient). system offers, and run democratically-nominated, diverse slates Standard rounding rules apply, so it would receive 4 seats. of candidates. 16 17 APPENDIX: MAPS OF REGIONS APPENDIX: MAPS OF REGIONS 1 NORTHERN ONTARIO 2 OTTAWA-EAST

INCLUDES EXISTING RIDINGS OF: 11 LOCAL RIDING MPPs INCLUDES EXISTING RIDINGS OF: 8 LOCAL RIDING MPPs ALGOMA-MANITOULIN CARLETON-MISSISSIPPI MILLS KENORA-RAINY RIVER 3 REGIONAL AT-LARGE MPPs GLENGARRY-PRESCOTT-RUSSELL 5 REGIONAL AT-LARGE MPPs 14 TOTAL MPPs NEPEAN-CARLETON 13 TOTAL MPPs NIPISSING OTTAWA CENTRE PARRY SOUND-MUSKOKA OTTAWA-ORLEANS SAULT STE. MARIE SUDBURY OTTAWA-VANIER THUNDER BAY-ATIKOKAN THUNDER BAY-SUPERIOR NORTH RENFREW-NIPISSING-PEMBROKE TIMISKAMING-COCHRANE STORMONT-DUNDAS-S.GLENGARRY TIMMINS-JAMES BAY

MANITOBA

QUEBEC Hawkesbury GLENGARRY- Pembroke

Ottawa Renfrew KENORA-RAINY RIVER Moosonee NORTHERN OTTAWA Cornwall TIMMINS-JAMES BAY ONTARIO OTTAWA-EAST QUEBEC NORTHERN ONTARIO

THUNDER BAY- SUPERIOR NORTH Kapuskasing Cochrane Kenora Timmins THUNDER BAY- CENTRAL LIMESTONE-QUINTE-KAWARTHA ATIKOKANThunder Bay TIMISKAMING- ONTARIO ALGOMA- COCHRANE MANITOULIN NICKEL U.S.A. NORTHEASTBELT ONTARIO

SAULT-Sault Ste Marie SUDBURYSudbury STE. MARIE NorthNIPISSING U.S.A. Bay PARRY SOUND- MUSKOKA Parry Sound YORK-DURHAM LAKE ONTARIO 18 19 APPENDIX: MAPS OF REGIONS APPENDIX: MAPS OF REGIONS 3 LIMESTONE-QUINTE-KAWARTHA 4 SIMCOE-UPPER GRAND-HURON

INCLUDES EXISTING RIDINGS OF: 6 LOCAL RIDING MPPs INCLUDES EXISTING RIDINGS OF: 10 LOCAL RIDING MPPs HALIBURTON-KAWARTHA L-BROCK BARRIE KINGSTON & THE ISLANDS 4 REGIONAL AT-LARGE MPPs BRUCE–GREY–OWEN SOUND 6 REGIONAL AT-LARGE MPPs LANARK-FRONTENAC-L&A 10 TOTAL MPPs CAMBRIDGE 16 TOTAL MPPs LEEDS-GRENVILLE GUELPH NORTHUMBERLAND-QUINTE WEST HURON-BRUCE SIMCOE-GREY PETERBOROUGH SIMCOE-NORTH PRINCE EDWARD HASTINGS KITCHENER–CONESTOGA YORK-SIMCOE (SIMCOE PORTION) KITCHENER-WATERLOO DUFFERIN-CALEDON (DUFFERIN PORTION) PERTH-WELLINGTON WELLINGTON-HALTON HILLS (WELLINGTON PORTION)

Owen Sound Barrie

YORK- Shelburne DURHAM SIMCOE-UPPER GRAND-HURON TORONTO

PEEL- QUEBEC Goderich HALTON Guelph GLENGARRY- Waterloo Kitchener Cambridge Stratford

NORTHERN OTTAWA-EAST OTTAWA ONTARIO HAMILTON- NIAGARA

Perth Bancroft U.S.A. SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO Haliburton Brockville

CENTRAL ONTARIOLIMESTONE-QUINTE-KAWARTHA

Kingston U.S.A. Napanee Peterborough Lindsay Belleville

Brighton U.S.A.

YORK-DURHAM LAKE ONTARIO 20 21 APPENDIX: MAPS OF REGIONS APPENDIX: MAPS OF REGIONS 5 SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO 6 HAMILTON-NIAGARA

INCLUDES EXISTING RIDINGS OF: 9 LOCAL RIDING MPPs INCLUDES EXISTING RIDINGS OF: 8 LOCAL RIDING MPPs CHATHAM-KENT-ESSEX ANCASTER-DUNDAS-FLAMBOROUGH-WESTDALE ELGIN-MIDDLESEX-LONDON 5 REGIONAL AT-LARGE MPPs BRANT 5 REGIONAL AT-LARGE MPPs ESSEX 14 TOTAL MPPs HALDIMAND-NORFOLK 13 TOTAL MPPs OXFORD LAMBTON–KENT–MIDDLESEX HAMILTON EAST-STONEY CREEK LONDON-FANSHAWE NIAGARA FALLS -GLANBROOK SARNIA-LAMBTON ST. CATHARINES WINDSOR-TECUMSEH WELLAND

YORK- DURHAM PEEL-HALTON LAKE ONTARIO SIMCOE-UPPER GRAND-HURON TORONTO SIMCOE-UPPER GRAND-HURON PEEL- HALTON U.S.A. Dundas St.Catharines Hamilton

Niagara Falls

HAMILTON- Brantford Welland Woodstock NIAGARA HAMILTON-

HAMILTONNIAGARA MOUNTAIN London Dunnville Sarnia U.S.A. SOUTHWESTERN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO ONTARIO Simcoe Tillsonburg

Chatham LAKE ERIE

Windsor U.S.A. U.S.A.

22 23 APPENDIX: MAPS OF REGIONS APPENDIX: MAPS OF REGIONS 7 YORK-DURHAM 8 PEEL-HALTON

INCLUDES EXISTING RIDINGS OF: 9 LOCAL RIDING MPPs INCLUDES EXISTING RIDINGS OF: 10 LOCAL RIDING MPPs AJAX-PICKERING BRAMALEA-GORE-MALTON DURHAM 6 REGIONAL AT-LARGE MPPs -SPRINGDALE 6 REGIONAL AT-LARGE MPPs MARKHAM-UNIONVILLE 15 TOTAL MPPs 16 TOTAL MPPs NEWMARKET-AURORA BURLINGTON OAK RIDGES-MARKHAM DUFFERIN-CALEDON (CALEDON PORTION) OSHAWA HALTON PICKERING- (PICKERING PORTION) - RICHMOND HILL -COOKSVILLE THORNHILL MISSISSAUGA-ERINDALE VAUGHN MISSISSAUGA SOUTH WHITBY-OSHAWA MISSISSAUGA-STREETSVILLE YORK-SIMCOE (YORK PORTION) OAKVILLE WELLINGTON-HALTON HILLS (HALTON HILLS PORTION)

LIMESTONE-QUINTE- LIMESTONE-QUINTE- KAWARTHA KAWARTHA

Georgina

Uxbridge

SIMCOE-UPPER YORK- SIMCOE-UPPER YORK- GRAND-HURON GRANT-HURON Newmarket DURHAM Clarington DURHAM

Oshawa Markham Whitby Richmond Ajax Hill

Vaughn Thornhill Pickering Caledon TORONTO TORONTO Brampton LAKE LAKE PEEL- ONTARIO PEEL- ONTARIO HALTON HALTON Mississauga Halton Hills Oakville

U.S.A. U.S.A. Burlington 24 25 APPENDIX: MAPS OF REGIONS 9 TORONTO NOTES

INCLUDES EXISTING RIDINGS OF: 17 LOCAL RIDING MPPs BEACHES-EAST YORK TORONTO-DANFORTH- DAVENPORT TRINITY-SPADINA 11 REGIONAL AT-LARGE MPPs WILLOWDALE 28 TOTAL MPPs EGLINTON-LAWRENCE -WESTON CENTRE YORK CENTRE ETOBICOKE-LAKESHORE PARKDALE-HIGH PARK PICKERING-SCARBOROUGH EAST (SCARBOROUGH EAST PORTION) SCARBOROUGH-AGINCOURT SCARBOROUGH CENTRE SCARBOROUGH-GUILDWOOD SCARBOROUGH-ROUGE RIVER ST.PAUL’S

YORK-DURHAM

Scarborough

North York

TORONTO

East York

Etobicoke Toronto

LAKE ONTARIO PEEL- HALTON

26 to comment on this proposal please visit us at DemocraticSPACE: http://democraticSPACE.com/blog/ontario-electoral-reform democraticSPACE where democracy happens. ™