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) 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 Toronto. 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) 7. How MPPs Are Elected Local MPPs: First-Past-the-Post regional proportionality. Too many small regions and the regional 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, 10. Minimum Threshold 2% province-wide don’t reflect natural affinities and create regions too large to be 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 OTTAWA-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