Public Consultation Reports

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports

February 2007 overview what we heard what we read special outreach focus groups ONTARIO CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY ON ELECTORAL REFORM CONSULTATION REPORTS overview

From October 2006 through January 2007, the Citizens’Assembly on Electoral Reform undertook consultations with Ontario citi- In addition, many Assembly members undertook out- zens to learn what they value in an electoral system. reach in their own communities to get the word out The Assembly began the process with the release of about the Assembly and to find out what people in its public consultation guide,“Citizens Talking to their ridings thought about electoral reform. Citizens.”The guide asked the public four questions: While people participated in the consultation in 1. Which electoral system principles are most different ways, they had at least one thing in common: important to you? Why? a concern for the future of Ontario and the shape • Are there other principles you think are of one of its most important political institutions. important? Why? Altogether, about 3,000 people shared their views 2. Does Ontario’s current electoral system reflect the with the Assembly.They were people who had principles that are important to you? If yes, why? studied electoral systems and people who had not; If no, why not? people who were young and not so young; individual citizens and representatives of organizations; and 3. Do you think Ontario should keep its current people diverse in occupation, political stripe, electoral system or change to a different one? culture, experience, and point of view.The • If you think Ontario should change to a participants were as diverse as the Assembly itself. different system, which one do The Consultation Phase was the second of three you prefer? Why? phases of the Assembly’s work. It was preceded by an • How does the system you prefer reflect intensive Learning Phase (fall 2006), during which the the principles that are important Assembly learned about Ontario’s current electoral to you? system and other systems. Following consultation, the 4. Do you have any other comments or recommen- Assembly will embark on its Deliberation Phase dations related to the Assembly’s mandate? (February to April 2007). Everything the Assembly The consultation process included three main heard in the consultation—from all sources—will help opportunities for input: public meetings across the the Assembly as it deliberates and makes a recom- province, written submissions, and special outreach mendation to the people and government of Ontario focus groups organized by the Social Planning whether to keep our current electoral system or Network of Ontario on behalf of the Citizens’ adopt a new one. Assembly Secretariat.This volume contains three Please visit the Citizens’Assembly website reports—one on each of these components.The www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca to view the reports reflect the range of thoughts expressed by consultation guide and these reports, and to find the people who participated. out more about electoral systems and the work of the Assembly. February 2007 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - Overview TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary Report on Special What We Heard 1 Outreach Focus Groups ...... 3

INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3-1

THOUGHTS ABOUT THOUGHTS ABOUT VOTING . . .3-2

PRINCIPLES ...... 1-2 THOUGHTS ABOUT THOUGHTS ABOUT ELECTORAL PRINCIPLES ...... 3-4

SYSTEMS ...... 1-8 VOTING FOR IMPORTANCE OF THE OTHER SYSTEMS AND PRINCIPLES: DOTMOCRACY . . .3-7

METHODS ...... 1-13 THOUGHTS ABOUT OTHER THOUGHTS ...... 1-13 ELECTORAL SYSTEMS ...... 3-11

CONCLUSION ...... 1-14 OTHER THOUGHTS ...... 3-11

PUBLIC CONSULTATION CONCLUSION ...... 3-12

MEETINGS ...... 1-15 APPENDIX ...... 3-13

Members of the What We Read 2 Citizens’ Assembly 4

INTRODUCTION ...... 2-1

A FEW STATISTICS ...... 2-2

KEEP THE CURRENT SYSTEM . . .2-3

CHANGE THE SYSTEM ...... 2-5 OTHER IDEAS ...... 2-11 DEMOGRAPHICS AND REPRESENTATION ...... 2-12

CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY PROCESS ...... 2-14 RELATED ISSUES ...... 2-14 CONCLUSION ...... 2-16

Ontario2-2 Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports What We Heard

A Report on the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Meetings

February 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 OTHER THOUGHTS ...... 1-13 Purpose of this Report ...... 1-1 Possible Referendum ...... 1-13 About the Assembly ...... 1-1 Size of the Legislature ...... 1-14 The Consultation Meetings ...... 1-1 Other Issues ...... 1-14 The Students’ Assembly ...... 1-2 Citizens’ Assembly Process ...... 1-14

THOUGHTS ABOUT PRINCIPLES 1-2 CONCLUSION ...... 1-14 Accountability ...... 1-2 PUBLIC CONSULTATION Effective Parliament ...... 1-3 MEETINGS ...... 1-15 Effective Parties ...... 1-3 Fairness of Representation ...... 1-4 Legitimacy ...... 1-5 Simplicity and Practicality ...... 1-5 Stable and Effective Government . . . .1-6 Stronger Voter Participation ...... 1-7 Voter Choice ...... 1-7

THOUGHTS ABOUT ELECTORAL SYSTEMS ...... 1-8 First Past the Post (Single Member Plurality) ...... 1-8 Alternative Vote ...... 1-9 Two-Round System ...... 1-10 Proportional Representation Systems (General) & List PR ...... 1-10 Single Transferable Vote ...... 1-11 Mixed Member Proportional ...... 1-12 Parallel System ...... 1-13

OTHER SYSTEMS AND METHODS ...... 1-13 What We Heard What We

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard INTRODUCTION About the Assembly The Assembly is made up of 104 Ontarians: 103 Purpose of this Report randomly selected citizens—one from each of From November 2006 to January 2007, over the province’s electoral districts—plus the 2,000 people from all parts of the province Chair, George Thomson who was appointed by came to meetings to share their thoughts on the government.The Assembly was established electoral systems with members of the Ontario by a regulation under Ontario’s Election Act Citizens’Assembly on Electoral Reform. and is independent of government. Its mandate is to assess Ontario’s electoral system and other They were people who had studied electoral systems, and to recommend whether the systems and people who had not, but they all province should keep its current system or knew what mattered to them in electing their adopt a new one. If the Assembly recommends Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs).They a new system, it must describe it in detail. If included former candidates; current municipal, there is a recommendation for change, the provincial, and federal representatives; and a government will hold a referendum on the leader of a political party. But mostly they were Assembly’s proposal at the next provincial interested citizens who had important things to election on October 10, 2007. say about the way we vote and what our votes should mean. Participants were young (the The Consultation Phase was the second of youngest presenter was 14) and not so young; three phases of the Assembly’s work. It was individuals and representatives of organizations, preceded by an intensive Learning Phase (fall such as Fair Vote Ontario and Equal Voice; and 2006) in which the Assembly learned about diverse in occupation, political stripe, culture, Ontario’s electoral system and other systems. experience, and point of view. Following consultation is the Deliberation Phase (February to April 2007) when the This report attempts to reflect the great diversity Assembly will discuss what it has learned and of opinion which made the consultation meetings heard, and decide what to recommend to the so valuable to the Assembly’s work.The meetings people and government of Ontario. were one component of the consultation process which also included special outreach The Consultation Meetings meetings and written submissions from members of the public.What Assembly Forty-one consultation meetings were held in members heard in the consultation will help 35 towns and cities across Ontario (five meetings them in their deliberations.All members have were added in response to demand). See page access to the summaries of the public meetings 1-15 for a list of the meetings. Simultaneous and will receive a copy of this report. English-French translation was provided at eight meetings, and sign language at two. The report is an overview of the key themes Consultation guides were available at meetings from the consultation meeting summaries, in English and French, and on request, in which are posted on the Citizens’Assembly’s Braille. Meetings were held in libraries, colleges website www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca. and universities, Legion halls,YMCAs, community The report (like the meeting summaries) provides centres, Indian Friendship Centres, and confer- an idea of the range of thoughts expressed by ence halls.Assembly members and members of people who attended the meetings; it doesn’t the public showed commitment and fortitude by claim to speak for all Ontarians. Please visit the braving the winter weather to attend meetings. website to read the consultation guide No meeting was cancelled despite bad weather, (“Citizens Talking to Citizens”), view this report especially in the North. and the other consultation reports, and find out more about electoral systems and the work of Each consultation meeting was hosted by a Heard What We the Assembly. different panel of Assembly members.The

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard 1-1 members usually lived in the community, or close by, but many members attended meetings THOUGHTS ABOUT outside their local area to support their PRINCIPLES colleagues and hear more points of view. Some members from the south went north, and vice The regulation that created the Citizens’Assembly versa, to hear firsthand the issues raised in directs the Assembly to consider eight principles other parts of the province. Members were and characteristics of electoral systems.The assisted by staff of the Citizens’Assembly principles (in alphabetical order) are: accounta- Secretariat who looked after logistics, facilitated bility, effective parliament, effective parties, the meetings, and answered technical questions. fairness of representation, legitimacy, stable and Most meetings followed the same general format: effective government, stronger voter participa- a welcome and introductions by Assembly tion, and voter choice.The Assembly identified members, a short video about the Assembly, a ninth principle to consider: simplicity and presentations from the people who had practicality. registered in advance, and then an open forum. The consultation guide asked Ontarians what But no two meetings were alike. Some had 10 principles are most important to them and why. or more presentations scheduled; others had This section provides a summary of key themes fewer formal presentations and were more like expressed by participants on the principles. town hall meetings. Some were bursting at the seams with participants; others, especially in Accountability smaller communities, had about a dozen attendees.The size of meetings didn’t matter You need a local representative to hold though.All generated dialogue and ideas that accountable. I don’t see any way to hold a have given the Assembly greater insight into party accountable. (North Bay)1 what is important to the people who participated in the meetings. Accountability means that government officials have to justify their actions to the The Students’ Assembly voters and listen to the views of others. Also important to the consultation was the input (Owen Sound) of the Students’Assembly on Electoral Reform, a Citizens should know who’s in charge so process similar to the Citizens’Assembly to they can hold government accountable. engage high school students from across Ontario. (Toronto) Members of the Students’Assembly made a spirited presentation to the Citizens’Assembly. Many participants emphasized the need to be (For more information on the Students’Assembly, able to identify decision-makers and hold them visit: www.studentsassembly.ca) accountable. Most often, people associated accountability with having an MPP who is accessible and responsive. Many said they want their local representative to be accountable to them, the voters, not to their parties. Some felt that party loyalty and party discipline compromise the accountability of MPPs to voters. Often, participants talked about accountability

1 The quotations throughout the report are taken from the meeting summaries posted on the Citizens’Assembly website.The summaries are based on the notes taken at the meetings. In some cases, the note-takers were able to

What We Heard What We record participants’ comments word-for-word; in others, the notes approximate participants’ original words.

1-2 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard in relation to different kinds of government. For would reduce the effectiveness of the legislature some people, single-party majority governments (e.g. small parties might exert undue influence); better ensure accountability because it is easy more parties would bring more points of view to identify who is responsible for decisions. to the legislature and encourage compromise Others felt that coalitions increase accountability and consensus. People often said they feel the because decisions represent more viewpoints legislature is too adversarial and want to see and are often negotiated in the open. instead a more cooperative style of parliament. Some participants pointed out that we can hold Some people were unhappy with parliamentary governments accountable by voting them out issues that are outside the Assembly’s mandate. in the next election. Others said this is difficult In general, they want to see less party discipline because sometimes they may want to vote a and more independence (e.g. free votes) to party out, but still prefer its local candidate. allow MPPs to represent their constituents. Many participants said they want more accountability and identified broken election Effective Parties promises as an issue. Some suggested mechanisms to hold representatives accountable that We can design a system to encourage are outside the mandate of the Citizens’ larger or smaller parties, but in any Assembly.These include: the right to recall system parties will adapt. (Toronto) politicians between elections, preventing We have many parties now because on members from “crossing the floor,”and direct social issues we are not as much of like election of the Premier. mind as we were perhaps 100 years ago. Effective Parliament (Sarnia) Smaller parties have their place, but if We need more voices in parliament. they are worthwhile they will grow. Parliament is too polarized right now. (Dryden) (Owen Sound) Most people talked about political parties in The legislature should be about debate, one way or another. Some criticized parties for including controversy. (Niagara Falls) having unclear agendas or narrow interests, acting unpredictably when they form a govern- The opposition should have more power. ment, or having too much power (especially (Burlington) the party leadership). Several participants Most people focused on three areas related to called for the abolition of parties and some effective parliament: the role of the opposition, advocated for direct democracy where citizens the number of parties in the legislature, and the would act on their own behalf. On balance, general functioning of the legislature.Among though, most people felt that parties have an participants who highlighted the importance of important role to play in our political system: an effective opposition, some argued that it has “Parties are useful.They work out ideas and no real power under a single-party majority policies before elections and make it easier for government, while others said the opposition people to decide who to vote for.”(Cornwall) can still play an important role in debate and Many people wanted it to be easier for small on all-party committees. parties to win seats in the legislature.The Green Participants were divided in how well they Party was a frequent example.These participants thought the legislature would function if more associated more parties with innovation, policy political parties were represented.Thoughts alternatives, and inclusive representation. Even included the following: more parties would among people who advocated for systems that Heard What We weaken the opposition; too many more parties support small parties, many said there should

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard 1-3 be a threshold or limit on the number of parties. visible minorities,Aboriginal peoples, As one participant put it,“too many parties can Francophones, immigrants, people with disabili- create havoc.”(Timmins) A few participants felt ties, and people who are poor. Participants that thresholds were artificial barriers and were divided on whether there should be unfair to so-called fringe parties:“One person’s direct methods to increase representation (e.g. fringe is another person’s passion.”(Toronto) quotas, reserved seats for Aboriginal peoples), Some felt that we should discourage small or whether a new electoral system would bring parties because they reduce the likelihood of about change indirectly. majority governments and decrease stability. Several presenters argued against demographic These participants favour having a few, large representation as an electoral system principle. parties that develop platforms to win broad Some said they want to be represented by support. One presenter described large parties someone who shares their values, not their as essentially coalitions of many different interests background. One participant felt that reflecting that have compromised on a single platform. all differences meant reinforcing them. Others don’t believe that the electoral system can be Fairness of Representation blamed for the under-representation of certain groups and suggest that societal The right to fair representation is as values are at play and slow to change. important as the right to vote. (Cornwall) Proportionality Meeting participants advocated for this principle more than any other.They tended to focus on Proportionality is paramount. Seat share three aspects of fair representation: demographic should equal vote share.That’s all that representation, proportionality, and geographic matters. (Belleville) representation. We need proportionality but we should Demographic Representation ease into it; we shouldn’t have too many proportional seats to start with. (Oshawa) Aboriginals need to have a voice in the legislature. (Kenora) Proportionality is a fad; it dominates all discussions. (Mississauga) Low-income people are not fairly represented.Their votes don’t count. (Kingston) A majority of participants advocated for some degree of proportionality. Most said that Anything we can do to increase the proportionality would make every (or almost representation of women and minorities every) vote count toward the outcome of an is healthy, but anything that mandates it election, and would make the distribution of is a dangerous precedent. (Windsor) seats in the legislature a true reflection of voters’ intentions. Many participants equated I don’t need to be represented by someone proportionality with legitimacy, and argued that exactly like me. (Orangeville) other principles, in particular demographic representation, voter choice, and stronger voter Many participants wanted better demographic participation, would flow from more propor- representation and associated it with the legiti- tional election results. macy of our political institutions and the quality of decision-making.They would like candidates, Not everyone agreed, however. Some felt that the government, and the legislature to reflect strict proportionality is not necessary; that the makeup of the province. Participants high- proportionality has unreasonably taken over the

What We Heard What We lighted the following groups as under- debate on electoral systems; or that proportion- represented: women, young voters, members of ality as a guiding principle leads to undesirable

1-4 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard system choices.Those who opposed propor- pants (mostly, but not always in these areas) tionality often cautioned against coalition thought that rural and Northern interests are governments and instability. not adequately represented in the legislature. Some advocated for increasing the number of Geographic Representation ridings in the North; others argued against this on the grounds that it would violate the princi- Northern Ontario needs effective represen- ple of representation by population. tation, even though its population is small.We are a lone, distant voice in Legitimacy Ontario politics. (Timmins) Legitimacy involves having confidence in The riding system is not fair.Up North the the system, and believing that we are ridings are huge. (Toronto) being represented and listened to. (Kitchener-Waterloo) Districts should not have unfair variations in population. (Brampton) The source of legitimacy is hard to identify. It has something to do with traditions The idea that ridings give us a local face and values. (Ottawa) that understands local issues is a roman- ticized idea of geographic representation. I accept the decisions of the government, (Toronto) even if I didn’t elect it. (Oshawa)

Many participants thought some form of Participants often discussed legitimacy in light geographic representation is important.They of other principles or outcomes they support. like having an MPP from their area who is They saw legitimacy as the end result of other locally accessible and understands local issues. things. Some linked legitimacy to aspects of fair Participants argued that geographic representa- representation. Others identified legitimacy as tion is necessary to reflect regional differences voter confidence in the electoral system and and interests in the legislature. Several presen- the results it produces. ters disagreed.They think geographic represen- Ideas about legitimacy included the following: it’s tation is no longer important because of about reflecting the views of the population; it’s decreasing regional differences and electronic voting sincerely (as opposed to strategically); it communication. comes from stronger voter participation; it can’t At many meetings, riding sizes and boundaries be achieved without proportionality; in a repre- were discussed. Some participants thought sentative democracy,it comes from majorities; it’s boundaries are artificial:“Constituencies do not about inclusion, involvement, and cooperation. mean the same thing as communities.”(Markham) A few people thought representation by popu- Simplicity and Practicality lation, which requires that each vote carry equal weight in electing representatives, isn’t Simplicity is not by itself a virtue.The elec- working. People in urban areas tended to think toral system should be as simple as possible, that their members represent far too many but as complex as necessary. (Toronto) people, while people in rural areas generally The Assembly should suggest a system thought their members represent far too large that people will understand, even if it’s areas. Often, participants in the North said that flawed, rather than a complex system the size of their ridings is unmanageable and which tries to solve all problems. (Guelph) that it is almost impossible for them to have access to their MPPs. A new system has to be simple enough for What We Heard What We Fair representation for rural areas and the people to have confidence in the integrity North was a recurring theme. Many partici- of the results. (Sarnia)

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard 1-5 Many participants who addressed simplicity They argued that stability is more a result of and practicality said they want a system that political culture (and other factors) than the people can understand, and cautioned the type of electoral system. Assembly against complicated proposals. People who support single-party majority People argued that too complex a system governments said they normally serve a full- would discourage more people from voting, term in office before an election is called; can and often associated simplicity with legitimacy. make policies and pass laws without having to “The electoral system must be simple enough “play politics” with smaller parties; and can take that people understand it, and transparent so action quickly. In contrast, they felt coalition that people trust it.”(Kitchener-Waterloo) governments are unstable; give too much A number of people felt that simplicity and power to small parties (often with narrow practicality shouldn’t stand in the way of interests); make it hard to get things done; and change and achieving other objectives.As one act on the lowest level of consensus. Some participant put it,“simplicity can be traded off people equated stability with the frequency of for other principles.”(Windsor) elections and thought we would go to the polls Some people distinguished between simplicity more often if we had coalition governments. of voting (the ballot) and simplicity of the Participants who favour coalitions gave examples results (how ballots are counted). Both were of major democracies, in Europe and elsewhere, seen as important considerations.“Every voter with a history of stable and effective coalition should be able to understand the vote and the government.They argued that policies in these count.”(Toronto) countries tend to be more stable, because the make-up of a governing coalition is unlikely to Stable and Effective change entirely after an election.They thought Government that some consistency in governance encourages long-range planning and produces better policy. Strong majorities allow governments to In contrast, they felt that one single-party majority carry out their agendas. (Perth) after another often results in drastic policy swings after an election. Coalitions are forced to work together Supporters of coalitions thought they would and reach consensus; this takes longer but include more points of view; give women and the decisions that are made are the right other under-represented groups more opportu- ones. (Oshawa) nity to participate; and help to bring a more consensual style of decision-making to Ontario Coalitions are nothing more than minori- politics.They believe some citizens might be ties with more compromise, and result in wary of coalitions because they have no experi- added cost due to different demands of ence with them, but would get used to a new each party.The tail wagging the dog is system where coalitions are the norm. very expensive. (Sarnia) One presenter had a unique point of view: Many different views were expressed on stable “Coalition governments where there are never and effective government, but there seemed to radical changes might be too stable.”(Toronto) be three main threads: no one type of govern- Finally,some participants said they like minority ment is by definition more stable and effective governments because they are forced to com- than another; single-party majority governments promise with other parties, which improves are more stable and effective; coalition govern- policy and decision-making. ments are more stable and effective. Participants who argued the first point of view What We Heard What We illustrated how single-party majorities, coalitions, and minority governments can be stable.

1-6 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard Stronger Voter Participation electronic, online or mail-in voting; and more civics education in schools. Low turnout means the will of the people is not expressed. How meaningful is a Voter Choice 60% result out of only 40% participation? (Windsor) Everyone should be able to vote for something they believe in, as opposed to People with disabilities should have the against something they are afraid of. opportunity to vote with dignity. (Toronto) (London)

More people would vote if they thought People vote for many different reasons: their voices would be heard. (Bracebridge) for a party, for a candidate, or against a party or candidate.An electoral system At almost every meeting participants empha- should allow people to express these sized the importance of voter participation. preferences simply. (Barrie) Some expressed disappointment over low voter turnout, especially among young voters.The We need more choice. (Markham) meetings attracted many young people, including members of the Students’Assembly More choice might confuse voters. (Dryden) (a process similar to the Citizens’Assembly to Many participants objected to strategic voting: engage high school students), who provided voting deliberately for a candidate who is not living proof that some youth are actively their first choice to keep someone else from engaged in political life. winning.They said strategic voting is not a true The most often identified reason for people not exercise of choice. Several participants said that voting was that they don’t feel their vote they had never voted for a party that had won counts or will make a difference. Other reasons a seat. Some people felt that there are not included: lack of accountability of governments enough viable parties to make their choice and representatives; lack of meaningful choice; meaningful; others disagreed and said and apathy and cynicism. Participants also high- independent candidates could also play an lighted specific barriers to participation faced important role in representing constituents. by people who are poor or homeless, people Many people wanted ballots that would give without literacy skills, people who are elderly, them more choice than marking a single X. and people with disabilities. Some people sug- Some expressed frustration that they couldn’t gested that the Assembly should consider separate a vote for a candidate from a vote for a accessibility as another guiding principle. party. Others wanted a preferential ballot so Participants were divided on whether the elec- they could rank their choices; if they didn’t get toral system could increase voter participation. their first choice, they could still get their Some saw no link between voter turnout and second or third.A few participants were against the electoral system and thought voting is preferential ballots:“Under them, most people declining under all systems. Others thought are represented by their second choice and this changing to a preferential ballot where voters would be a problem, not a solution.” could rank their preferences, or changing to a (Peterborough) more proportional system where small parties Finally, some people, even among those who could win seats would give people more wanted more voter choice, warned against confidence that their vote mattered. making the ballot too complicated. Some people suggested ideas for increasing voter turnout that are outside the mandate of the Citizens’Assembly, including: mandatory Heard What We voting laws; incentives to vote (e.g. tax breaks);

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard 1-7 THOUGHTS ABOUT don’t fix it.”Some said the current system isn’t perfect but no system is and FPTP has generally ELECTORAL SYSTEMS provided Ontario with good governance. People who favour keeping FPTP associate it The consultation guide asked Ontarians how most often with stable, single-party majority well they feel the current electoral system government; transparency and accountability (First Past the Post) meets the principles that (“you know who is making decisions”); and are important to them, and whether they think strong geographic representation. Many said Ontario should keep its system or change to a that one of the greatest strengths of the current new one. People who want change were asked system is that it allows voters to hold individual to identify which system they prefer and why. representatives accountable.The clear link Most people wanted change, but as several between voters and their MPPs makes members participants pointed out, these were the people more sensitive to local needs. Supporters of who were more likely to attend consultation FPTP said they like voting for an individual meetings. Some (but not all) of the people who candidate and don’t understand how you could advocated for change explained what system or vote for a party under some systems. type of system they prefer. Participants who spoke in favour of the current Some people opposed change because they are system are satisfied with candidates winning with happy with the current system. Others saw a plurality (more votes than any other candidate). flaws in the current system but think they They don’t feel that a candidate needs a majority should be addressed through reform in other (50% + 1) or that election results need to be areas (e.g. rules of the legislature, election proportional to achieve legitimacy.They also felt financing), not the system itself.“I think we that the system gives them enough choice (e.g. have to be careful not to use the electoral independents can run) and that new parties can system to fix things that it cannot solve.”(North succeed if they gain public support. Bay) Some had problems with the current Almost everyone who spoke in favour of FPTP system but are not convinced that any other praised its simplicity compared to other system would do a better job. systems.They said it is simple to use and easy This section provides a summary of the key to understand: the winner is the candidate with themes expressed by participants about the the most votes and the government is the party current system and other systems. with the most seats. First Past the Post (Single Some people were concerned with the cost of change and indicated, for example, that they Member Plurality) wouldn’t support increasing the size of the legislature if that were required under other systems. In our system we vote directly for our local representative, who is someone who Our system produces manufactured lives among us. (Kitchener-Waterloo) majorities, which have 40% of the votes, 60% of the seats, 100% of the power...The It is simple, practical, easy to understand, last time we had a true majority govern- and cheap. (Hamilton) ment was in 1937. (Toronto)

It may have flaws but it’s the best system It forces voters to make complicated in the world. (Oshawa) choices, for example, to vote strategically or against someone and it is difficult to Participants who recommended that the vote against someone. (Barrie) province keep its First Past the Post (FPTP) sys-

What We Heard What We tem believe that it has worked well for Ontario. In contrast, many people who spoke against As several participants said:“It’s not broken, so FPTP said it is a complicated system in two

1-8 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard main ways. First, voting is “tricky” because the Alternative Vote ballot allows voters to mark only a single X. One participant explained:“Our system is com- AV increases voter satisfaction:‘He wasn’t plex.We have to reconcile our different prefer- my first choice, but at least he wasn’t my ences for our local MPP,political party, and last choice.’ (Dryden) Premier into a single vote.”(Cornwall) Second, people said the results of elections are difficult AV is simple and similar enough to our to understand because they don’t reflect the current system to be accepted. It would be way people actually voted. a modest, pragmatic change. (Kitchener- Most people who called for change said that Waterloo) election results under FPTP are unfair because AV ends up with a majority unhappy and they are not proportional: seat share does not without representation. (Peterborough) equal vote share.They criticized the adversarial, “winner-take-all” tendency of FPTP to produce Participants who recommended Alternative manufactured majorities (parties that win a Vote (AV) like that it produces a winner with majority of seats with less than a majority of majority support. Many equated majority votes), and to exaggerate small fluctuations in support with legitimacy, fair representation, popular support with large shifts in seat shares. and accountability. People questioned the legitimacy of a system Some people thought AV is the best system. that produces these results. Others saw it as a first step toward further As ridings have only one member each and there electoral reform—an improvement over our can be only one winner, supporters of other current system without drastic change.They candidates said they feel they are denied repre- thought it was more likely to gain popular sentation. Many said they feel their votes are support than other new systems. “wasted” if they don’t count toward electing AV was praised for retaining local representa- anyone and that the nature of the system tion; often producing single-party majorities; requires them to vote strategically—against some- and using a ballot similar to the current one. one, as opposed to for someone.These factors Instead of marking a single X, though, voters were often connected to low voter turnout. could rank their preferences. Many saw a Many who called for change gave the current preferential ballot as critical to voter choice system low marks for representation of women, and making more votes count, as voters’ Aboriginal peoples, minorities, and other alternative choices would be considered. groups.They said the system’s lack of propor- They also thought a preferential ballot would tionality makes it difficult for small parties to encourage parties to seek broader support to win seats and prevents a diversity of candidates earn voters’ second choices. and viewpoints from making it into the legisla- People who spoke against AV don’t see it as a ture. Some suggested single-member districts big enough improvement over the current are to blame because parties choose the system. Comments included: it doesn’t produce candidate who they think will appeal to the proportional results; small parties would still broadest number of voters in the riding. have trouble winning seats; voters should be Some people suggested the current system able to get their first choice, not their second reinforces regional differences because parties or third choice; and preferential ballots are too that have strong regional support are more complicated. likely to win seats than parties that appeal broadly to all voters. What We Heard What We

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard 1-9 Two-Round System Many participants advocated for Proportional Representation (PR), somewhere along a con- We could vote genuinely in the first tinuum from absolute proportionality to at least round, knowing that we’d have the oppor- some proportionality (“more than we have tunity to vote again.The gap between the now”). Some people identified which system two rounds would be very exciting. It they prefer; others did not. Some knew what would increase voter participation. they wanted to achieve, but weren’t sure the (Chatham) best way to get there. Many people referred to PR systems in general; a few spoke specifically It might be helpful to emphasize more of about List PR. Single Transferable Vote (STV), a majority, but I can’t imagine having Mixed Member Proportional (MMP), and two elections. (Windsor) Parallel Systems were also recommended as proportional systems. (Separate sections on I would support run-off elections ahead of STV,MMP,and Parallel Systems follow.) a preferential system. (Guelph) Many people who talked about PR systems The few people who recommended a Two- generally or List PR focused on the principles Round System (TRS) like that a candidate must and objectives they want to achieve: propor- get a majority of votes to win.This was seen as tional results and an end to “wasted votes”; fundamental to legitimacy.Their thinking was demographic representation; more voter often similar to those who advocated for choice; coalition governments and a more con- Alternative Vote:TRS would retain local repre- sensual style of politics; more representation of sentation; would be simple (despite two elec- small parties and alternative viewpoints in the tions); and would not be a radical departure legislature; and an end to the “winner-take-all” from the current system. feature of First Past the Post. One supporter of TRS suggested that we don’t Comments on PR systems often fell into three need immediate election results and that taking main areas: party lists, thresholds, and the trade- time for a second round was fine.A few partici- off between proportionality and geographic pants questioned the practicality and cost of representation. having two elections, but one noted that “poorer Many people talked about party lists in the countries use TRS,so we can afford them.” context of List PR, MMP,or Parallel Systems. (Barrie) Supporters of party lists see them as a useful tool for promoting the election of women and Proportional Representation other under-represented groups. Generally, Systems (General) & List PR those who saw demographic representation as the top priority wanted closed lists; and those A straight List PR system is the simplest who emphasized voter choice wanted open and best form of PR. It’s the ‘real thing.’ lists. Some people suggested laws or incentives (Toronto) for parties to make their lists representative, while others thought that public pressure I sympathize with Proportional would be enough. Some argued that the fear of Representation, but nobody has explained lists was “overblown,”and that lists could be to me exactly how it would work. developed democratically by party members. (Belleville) Critics of party lists included proponents of the current system, supporters of STV,and a number If we vote for a party and not for an of people who advocated for an MMP system individual, we will not have accountability. without lists.They said they want to vote for an In a list system, the members are account- What We Heard What We individual, not a party.As one person put it: able to the party, not to the voters. “How can you be represented by someone (North Bay)

1-10 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard from a party list?” (Orangeville) People argued representatives.They also oppose systems that lists give parties too much power, shut out fail to produce single-party majority governments. independent candidates, and are a blunt tool for Generally,they associate PR systems with unstable increasing demographic representation. and ineffective coalitions, frequent elections, a Many people talked about thresholds in relation lack of accountability, and the proliferation of to PR systems in general, List PR, and MMP. small parties. (Thresholds require parties to obtain a minimum level of support to qualify for proportional Single Transferable Vote seats.) A few people said there should be no thresholds if voters are to be truly represented. STV possesses a conceptual elegance that Many people were willing to consider some comes with preferential voting. I think it kind of threshold to prevent too many single- would be very saleable. (Toronto) issue or “extremist” parties from gaining repre- Each vote is for a candidate, which sentation. Common suggestions for a threshold improves individual accountability and were between 2% and 5% of the vote. creates a direct link between the elec- People had various views on the balance torate and their representatives. (Oakville) between proportionality and geographic representation (an issue also dealt with under MMP). STV sounds interesting but I don’t under- Some supporters of PR advocated for province- stand the mechanics of it. (Markham) wide lists (no regions) and thought geographic representation is divisive, outdated, or less Supporters of Single Transferable Vote (STV) important than achieving proportionality. Some like that it is a proportional system, but candi- said that province-wide List PR is the only way date-centred: voters vote for individual candi- to represent geographically distributed groups dates and there are no party lists. Some people who are under-represented, such as young thought STV would keep parties on their toes voters and people who are poor. However, because they would have to appeal to more many people wanted to retain some level of voters to win their second choice (and subse- geographic representation because of the size quent) votes. Some thought that the quality of of the province and regional differences. candidates would improve because parties could run multiple candidates in a riding and As all proportional systems require districts they would have to compete against one another. with more than one representative, many people talked about district magnitude (the Participants often praised STV for maximizing number of members elected in a district). Some voter choice. Its ballot allows voters to rank identified the tension between wanting a larger their preferences, regardless of party.They said district magnitude to achieve greater propor- this would eliminate strategic voting and make tionality, but not wanting to make ridings too every vote count, as surplus votes would be big or add too many seats to the legislature. transferred to other candidates.They also (The size of the legislature is discussed further thought STV’s multi-member districts would under “Other Thoughts.”) Supporters of PR help improve the representation of women and systems said multi-member ridings would provide other groups: more candidates, greater diversity. more diverse representation and give voters a People were split on how big districts would choice of MPPs to contact. By contrast, some have to be under STV.Some thought they people felt that multi-member ridings wouldn’t would have to be too large and rural and north- work.“Who do you go to when you have a ern areas would lose representation. Others problem with the government?” (Toronto) thought that STV could be designed to have Critics of PR systems felt they give too much meaningful geographic representation, and that power to parties and sacrifice the important district magnitudes could be adjusted to reflect Heard What We connection between voters and their individual regional concerns.

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard 1-11 Most participants who objected to STV said divided on whether proportionality should be that the counting of votes is too complicated. calculated regionally to provide better local They worried that people wouldn’t understand representation and accountability, or province- it and would reject an STV proposal. Some wide to produce more proportional results. questioned whether STV results are legitimate Some proposed that party lists be regional but or “manufactured” by the counting process.A that proportionality be calculated province-wide. few people said STV was their first choice but Most people thought local candidates should they were recommending other systems be elected using a plurality system like we have because they thought STV would be a “tough now.A few people supported using a majority sell.”Not everyone agreed:“It’s simpler than system like Alternative Vote which would allow doing our taxes or dealing with Windows. If voters to rank their preferences. Most partici- Malta, Ireland, and Australia can make STV pants recommended giving voters two separate work, so can we.”(Toronto) votes—one for a candidate and one for a party. A few people suggested it would be simpler to Mixed Member Proportional give voters only one vote for a local candidate and use candidates’ party affiliations to calculate MMP provides proportionality while pre- proportionality. serving our direct local connection to gov- Opinions on how to fill the proportional seats ernment. It retains the best features of our also varied. Some supported using party lists system and remedies its deficiencies. It is (open or closed). Several people said closed the best compromise. (Kingston) lists would keep things simple and allow lists A change to MMP would be less shocking to be used to improve demographic representa- than a change to pure List PR and would tion. Others recommended avoiding lists bring many of the same benefits. (Toronto) altogether and filling the proportional seats with candidates who had failed to win local Adjustment seats give parties too much seats (“best losers” or “runners up”). control over candidates. Everyone should People often talked about the two “classes” of have to run in a riding. (Thunder Bay) politicians—local members and list members— under MMP.Supporters thought it would be Most people who recommended Mixed Member workable:“List members can focus on regional Proportional (MMP) like that it combines or province-wide issues.There could be a useful geographic representation with proportionality. division of responsibilities.”(Niagara Falls) Many people (supporters and detractors) said Some suggested that list members could be that the system involves a trade-off between more policy-oriented and riding members more local representation and proportionality. Many locally active. Critics of MMP disagreed:“Having said they could live with some balance of the two people represent one area is faulty.Who do two:“I don’t want to lose local representation, you go to?” (Toronto) but I will give up some of it for a more representative government.”(Orangeville) Critics of Finally, some supporters of MMP said that it MMP felt that ridings would have to be too would build on what Ontario citizens are large, especially in the North, and local repre- already used to (i.e. local representation) and sentation would suffer.A few participants therefore be more easily understood and suggested keeping northern ridings the same size accepted than other systems. but enlarging urban ridings to address this issue. Thoughts varied on specific design features of MMP.In terms of the ratio of local seats to list seats, there were several suggestions, including: What We Heard What We 75% (local) to 25% (list), 60% (local) to 40% (list), or an even 50%/50% split. People were

1-12 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard Parallel System (Guelph, Ottawa), Centred Election System (Toronto), Condorcet Method (Mississauga, A Parallel System would give small par- Kenora, Perth), CTESS (Christopher Twardawa ties some representation but not over- Electoral System Solution) (Toronto), Fixed whelm the ability of the government to Members Single Member Proportionate govern. (Toronto) (Ottawa), Kemeny-Young and VoteFair ranking (Kenora), Mixed Association Electoral Model Parallel Systems allow for a useful differ- (Hamilton), Modified MMP (Kingston), Open ence in the status of MPPs. Local members Transferable Representation (Toronto West), could represent constituencies, while a “other system” (Hamilton), People-Land proportional tier could represent larger Democracy (Toronto), Personally Accountable areas and focus on province-wide issues. Representation (Scarborough), PR-DER (Hamilton) (Proportional Representation with Decisive Election Results) (Toronto), Sudbury/Kaufman Participants who talked about Parallel Systems Model (Sudbury),Two-Election System (Toronto generally like the features they have in com- West),Weighted Vote System (Mississauga, mon with MMP.Some prefer a Parallel System Oshawa), and Weighting (Belleville). because it would be more likely to produce single-party majority governments. OTHER THOUGHTS Supporters of a Parallel System felt it would give voters more choice and allow small parties Many participants raised other issues they feel to gain some representation in the legislature, are relevant to our electoral system or to the without the loss of stability they fear from a political wellbeing of the province in general. fully proportional system, or the added com- Some issues are related to the Assembly’s man- plexity of adjustment seats (in MMP).A Parallel date; others are clearly outside its mandate.A System, they argue, would be a smaller change few examples of each category are provided from the current system than MMP,and would here.The meeting summaries on the website have a better chance of meeting with public provide more details on the wide range of approval. issues people had on their minds.

OTHER SYSTEMS Possible Referendum

AND METHODS A referendum with a low turnout or threshold should not lead to change. At many meetings, participants suggested other (Mississauga) electoral systems and methods. Some are modified versions of the major systems described The threshold for the referendum is too above. Others are voting methods used by insti- high.A simple majority would be better. tutions and organizations. Many are original (Burlington) models developed by presenters on their own. This brief report can’t do justice to these There should be a properly funded proposals.Visit the Citizens’Assembly website province-wide education campaign so www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca to read voters can make an informed decision. more about these recommendations in the (Peterborough) meeting summaries.The summaries also note Many people reflected on what would happen where presenters made written submissions if the Assembly recommends change. Many who explaining their proposals in greater detail. support change said they think the 60% threshold Other systems and methods recommended at for a referendum to pass is too high.They also Heard What We the consultation meetings are:Approval Voting advocated for a vigorous public education cam-

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard 1-13 paign leading up to the referendum so voters in elections.At many meetings, people emphasized would understand any new proposal. Some the importance of civics education in schools participants worried whether the period of and of the electorate. time between the Assembly’s recommendation (May 15, 2007) and a possible referendum at Citizens’ Assembly Process the next provincial election (October 10, 2007) would be long enough for voters to learn about I hope that the Citizens’Assembly process a new system. will be used for other issues, such as climate change. (Sudbury) Size of the Legislature The fact that the Assembly is independent The public thinks that there are enough gives it a lot of credibility. (Belleville) politicians already; recommending more We should be sure that the Assembly is seats would be unpopular, even if a new not being steered toward any decision. system requires them. (North Bay) (St. Catharines) Increasing the number of MPPs is not a Finally, participants often commented on the problem.We had 130 MPPs before. (Sault Citizens’Assembly process itself. Many who Ste. Marie) came to meetings thought it is innovative and Another issue raised by participants, often in praised the involvement of “ordinary” citizens the context of proportional systems, is the size in policy-making. Many thanked the Assembly of the legislature.There were two main camps: members present for their commitment and those who said they would support an increase hard work, and said they would trust their deci- if it were justified; and those who said they sion. Others were more wary of the process: would oppose an increase under any circum- “The new system should be studied by experts stances. Some people felt than an increase before it goes to a referendum.”(Belleville) would be acceptable if it strengthens the principles, in particular components of fair CONCLUSION representation (proportionality, demographic representation, and geographic representation). In debriefs after the consultation meetings, Among those who thought an increase could many Assembly members talked about how be justified, there were various ideas on how much they had learned from the public who big it could go. Most suggestions fell within the had participated.They commented on the range of 130 to 150 seats. depth and breadth of what they had heard: a wide variety of opinions expressed with con- Other Issues viction and eloquence.They committed to shar- ing what they had heard with other Assembly We should educate young people about members who weren’t there because they politics from an early age.The only way were attending other meetings.They said they to have a good electorate is to have an felt honoured to be addressed by so many citi- educated citizenry. (Toronto) zens who care about our electoral system and civic life in Ontario.And they expressed pro- People addressed many other issues they think found appreciation for the people who came the Assembly should consider in the broader out to consultation meetings and shared their context of electoral reform. Some of these have best ideas with great generosity. already been noted in this report. Other common Everything they heard—only a small part of ones include: how parties nominate candidates; which could be included in this brief report— What We Heard What We campaign financing; voter eligibility and problems will help the Citizens’Assembly as it deliberates with voters’ lists; and ideas on the role of media and makes a recommendation for Ontario.

1-14 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard PUBLIC CONSULTATION MEETINGS

Barrie December 7, 2006 Belleville January 15, 2007 Bracebridge January 18, 2007 Brampton November 20, 2006 Burlington January 18, 2007 Chatham January 24, 2007 Cornwall (bilingual) January 15, 2007 Dryden November 27, 2006 Etobicoke January 23, 2007 Guelph January 20, 2007 Hamilton December 6, 2006 Kenora January 23, 2007 Kingston January 16, 2007 Kitchener-Waterloo January 10, 2007 London January 9, 2007 Markham December 4, 2006 Mississauga November 21, 2006 Niagara Falls (bilingual) January 22, 2007 North Bay November 28, 2006 Oakville November 22, 2006 Orangeville December 6, 2006 Oshawa November 21, 2006 Ottawa (bilingual) January 11, 2007 Ottawa (bilingual) January 16, 2007 Owen Sound December 4, 2006 Perth January 17, 2007 Peterborough December 5, 2006 Sarnia January 10, 2007 Sault Ste. Marie November 29, 2006 Scarborough December 7, 2006 St. Catharines November 30, 2006 Sudbury (bilingual) November 29, 2006 Thunder Bay November 28, 2006 Timmins (bilingual) November 27, 2006 Toronto Central January 21, 2007 Toronto Central (ASL) January 22, 2007 Toronto Central January 25, 2007 Toronto Central (bilingual) January 17, 2007 Toronto North January 8, 2007 Toronto West (ASL) January 8, 2007 Windsor (bilingual) January 9, 2007 What We Heard What We

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Heard 1-15 What We Read

A Report on Written Submissions to the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

February 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 2-1 Voter Choice ...... 2-9 Purpose of this Report ...... 2-1 A Saleable Alternative ...... 2-9 About the Assembly ...... 2-1 List Proportional Representation . . . . .2-10

A FEW STATISTICS ...... 2-2 Communities of Interest ...... 2-10 Profile of Submissions ...... 2-2 Party Lists ...... 2-10 Opinions about Electoral Reform ...... 2-3 Flexibility and Simplicity ...... 2-10

KEEP THE CURRENT SYSTEM . . .2-3 Parallel System ...... 2-10 “It’s Not Broken so Don’t Fix It” ...... 2-3 Proportionality ...... 2-11 Clear Lines of Accountability ...... 2-4 Simplicity and Saleability ...... 2-11 A Simple System ...... 2-4 Two-Round System ...... 2-11 The Cost of Change ...... 2-4 OTHER IDEAS ...... 2-11 Representation by Population ...... 2-4 Condorcet Method ...... 2-11 Voter Participation ...... 2-4 Approval Voting ...... 2-12

CHANGE THE SYSTEM ...... 2-5 Weighted Vote ...... 2-12 Proportionality ...... 2-5 “None of the Above” ...... 2-12 Voter Participation ...... 2-5 Other Systems ...... 2-12 DEMOGRAPHICS AND A Representative Legislature ...... 2-5 REPRESENTATION ...... 2-12 Coalition Government ...... 2-6 Aboriginal Peoples ...... 2-13 Mixed Member Proportional ...... 2-6 Northern Ontario ...... 2-13 Local Representation and Proportionality .2-6 CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY PROCESS 2-14 Voter Choice ...... 2-7 Possible Referendum ...... 2-14 Party Lists ...... 2-7 RELATED ISSUES ...... 2-14 Flexibility and Simplicity ...... 2-7 Public Education ...... 2-15 Single Transferable Vote ...... 2-8 Voter Participation ...... 2-15 Geographic Representation ...... 2-8 Accessibility for People with Voter Choice ...... 2-8 Disabilities ...... 2-15 Absence of Party Lists ...... 2-8 Nomination of Candidates ...... 2-15 Complexity in the Eye of the Beholder . .2-9 Other Issues ...... 2-15 What We Read What We Alternative Vote ...... 2-9 CONCLUSION ...... 2-16

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read lic consultation and special outreach meetings. INTRODUCTION What Assembly members learn from the submissions will help them in their deliberations. Purpose of this Report All members have access to the entire collection of written submissions and summaries, and will From October 25, 2006 to January 31, 2007, the receive a copy of this report. Ontario Citizens’Assembly on Electoral Reform Please visit the website to read the consultation invited members of the public to make written guide, view this report and the other consulta- submissions.The consultation guide,“Citizens tion reports, and find out more about electoral Talking to Citizens,”asked Ontarians four questions: systems and the work of the Assembly. 1. Which electoral system principles are most important to you? Why?1 About the Assembly • Are there other principles you think are important? Why? The Assembly is made up of 104 Ontarians: 103 randomly selected citizens—one from each of 2. Does Ontario’s current electoral system the province’s electoral districts—plus the reflect the principles that are important to Chair, George Thomson who was appointed by you? If yes, why? If no, why not? the government.The Assembly was established 3. Do you think Ontario should keep its current by a regulation under Ontario’s Election Act electoral system or change to a different one? and is independent of government. Its mandate • If you think Ontario should change to a is to assess Ontario’s electoral system and other different system, which one do you prefer? systems, and to recommend whether the Why? province should keep its current system or • How does the system you prefer reflect the adopt a new one. If the Assembly recommends principles that are important to you? a new system, it must describe it in detail. If there is a recommendation for change, the 4. Do you have any other comments or government will hold a referendum on the recommendations related to the Assembly’s Assembly’s proposal at the next provincial mandate? election on October 10, 2007. This report provides an overview of the key The Consultation Phase was the second of themes from the written submissions which are three phases of the Assembly’s work. It was summarized and posted on the Citizens’Assembly’s preceded by an intensive Learning Phase website www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca. (September to November 2006), in which the The submissions have allowed Assembly mem- Assembly learned about electoral systems. bers to learn what is important to the hundreds Consultation will be followed by the of Ontario citizens and others who wrote to Deliberation Phase (February to April 2007) say what they believe an electoral system when the Assembly will discuss what it has should achieve.This report reflects the learned and heard, and decide what to thoughts expressed by the people who made recommend to the people and government submissions, and doesn’t claim to speak for all of Ontario. Ontarians. The submissions were one component of the consultation process which also included pub-

1 The Citizens’Assembly regulation directs the Assembly to consider eight principles and characteristics to assess our current electoral system and others.The principles are: legitimacy,fairness of representation (which includes demographic representation, proportionality, and representation by population, among other factors), voter choice, effective parties, stable and effective government, effective parliament, stronger voter participation, and accountability.The Assembly Read What We added a ninth principle: simplicity and practicality.

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read 2-1 zations, students’ groups, women’s groups, and A FEW STATISTICS more.The Students’Assembly on Electoral Reform, a process similar to the Citizens’ The Assembly received 986 written submissions Assembly to engage high school students from by January 31—a total of 3,547 pages.2 About across Ontario, also made a written submission. 52% of submissions are one page or less; 42% (For more information on the Students’ are between 2 and 10 pages; and 6% are 10 Assembly, visit www.studentsassembly.ca) pages or more.The longest submission is 142 pages and the shortest is just 5 words. Figure 2: Submissions by Age Category

Figure 1: Submissions Received 40

700 35

30 600 25 500 20 400

percent 15 300 10 number

200 5

100 0

Under 17 17-24 25-39 40-54 55-70 70+ 0

Oct 25- Nov 16- Dec 1- Dec 16- Jan 1- Jan 16- Nov 15 Nov 30 Dec 15 Dec 31 Jan 15 Jan 31

Figure 1 shows when submissions were As Figure 2 shows, people of all ages made received; 657 came in during the last two submissions. weeks of January. About 79% of submissions are from men and Profile of Submissions 21% from women. Approximately 95% of submissions are from Submissions came from 889 individuals and Ontario—from 99 of the current 103 electoral organizations. Fifty-eight people made more districts. (No submissions were received from than one submission. Note that the numbers Scarborough-Agincourt, Simcoe-Grey,York in this report are based on the total number Centre, or York West.) Fifty-four submissions, of submissions, not the number of people or approximately 6% of the total number from who made them. Ontario, are from the 12 electoral districts in Submissions were received from 54 organizations the northern part of the province.3 or representatives of organizations.These Submissions were also received from Alberta, include: advocacy organizations, businesses, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nunavut, and labour unions, political parties, religious organi- Quebec, and from other parts of the world,

2 The Assembly continued to accept submissions until February 28 in response to requests from the public.An additional 53 submissions were received.These will be summarized and posted on the website, but could not be analyzed in time for this report. 3 The northern districts are:Algoma-Manitoulin; Kenora-Rainy River; Nickel Belt; Nipissing; Parry Sound-Muskoka; What We Read What We Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke; Sault Ste. Marie; Sudbury;Thunder Bay-Atikokan;Thunder Bay Superior North; Timiskaming-Cochrane;Timmins-James Bay.

2-2 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read including Australia, Germany, New Zealand, Table 2: Most Frequently Recommended United Kingdom, and United States. Electoral Systems Opinions about Electoral Electoral System Number Percent

Reform Mixed Member Proportional 234 32.45 As Table 1 shows, most submissions (763 or Single Transferable Vote 54 7.49 77%) express opinions about electoral system Alternative Vote 51 7.07 reform. Of these, almost 90% favour change and just over 10% want to keep the current List Proportional Representation 44 6.10 electoral system. Parallel 23 3.19

Two-Round System 19 2.64 Table 1: Submissions by Category Proportional unspecified 166 23.02 Category Number Percent Various others 94 13.04

Change 685 89.78 Unspecified change 36 4.99

No change 78 10.22 Total 721 100

Total 763 100 KEEP THE As Table 2 shows, those who favour change recommend various electoral systems. Mixed CURRENT SYSTEM Member Proportional (MMP) is the most frequently recommended system at 33%. Single “It’s Not Broken so Don’t Fix It” Transferable Vote and Alternative Vote are next, each with about 7% support.These are Most people who recommend keeping First followed by List Proportional Representation, Past the Post (also called “Single Member Parallel, and Two-Round System. Plurality”) believe it has worked well for About 23% of people recommend a proportional Ontario:“It’s not broken so don’t fix it.”Some system but don’t specify which one they prefer. submissions argue that the current system isn’t About 13% of those who recommend change perfect but no system is and on balance, First favour one of a number of other methods or Past the Post (FPTP) has provided Ontario with systems, such as Condorcet,Approval Voting, good governance. Supporters of the system and Weighted Vote.A small group of people identify it most with the principles of stable recommend change but don’t indicate what and effective government, accountability, and alternative systems they support. simplicity and practicality. Note that the total number of submissions Many people who wrote in favour of FPTP like recommending alternative systems in Table 2 that it provides stable, single-party majority (721) is greater than the total number of governments. Under FPTP,governments normally people recommending change in Table 1 (685) serve a full-term in office before an election is because some submissions recommend more called, and can pass legislation without having than one system. to secure the support of other political parties. Most advocates of the current system believe that an election can be fair and legitimate, even if the results aren’t proportional (seat share doesn’t reflect vote share). What We Read What We

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read 2-3 I wish to state my support for maintain- The Cost of Change ing the FPTP system. Its greatest strength is that it leads to majority governments A number of FPTP supporters are also rather than the minority coalitions that concerned about the cost of adopting a new most other systems foster.The duty of electoral system. Some believe reform would government is to lead, not to be forced require increasing the number of seats in the into compromising its platform to obtain legislature which they would not support. the support of parties that garner single digit percentage support from the electorate. I strongly believe that government should (Herschell Sax, submission 1583)4 be small.Today, we could govern Ontario with 50% fewer elected members of the legislature and fewer bureaucrats.Any Clear Lines of Accountability reform that would increase the number of elected members should be resisted. Advocates of the current system give it high (Joe Mundy, submission 1436) marks for providing a clear line of accountability between the voter and the government.They believe single-party majority governments are Representation by Population more transparent than coalitions.With single- party majorities, voters know who is responsible A number of submissions support retaining the for making decisions, and whom to hold current system but think it would be fairer if accountable at the next election. representation by population was more consistent across the province.They believe every In addition to providing government accounta- electoral district should have roughly the same bility, supporters of FPTP believe the system number of voters, so that every vote would allows voters to hold individual representatives influence the results of elections equally. accountable. In our system, they argue, there is a strong link between voters and local Every attempt should be made to draw Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs).This the electoral boundaries such that a vote helps ensure that members are sensitive to the is equal across Ontario. Right now the concerns of their constituents. boundaries favour the rural voter… This is not right and should be addressed on a A Simple System periodic basis. (Rod Williamson, submission 1554) Those who favour FPTP say it is the easiest system for voters to understand.The ballot is simple and the election results are clear:The Voter Participation winning candidate is the one with the most votes in the district and the government is the Many people who wrote in favour of FPTP are party with the most seats across the province. concerned about declining voter turnout but don’t believe it is related to the electoral system, It is my firm belief that the simplicity of or that a different system would encourage the existing plurality system [makes it] more people to vote. Some suggest that the the most effective and most democratic problem be addressed through other initiatives, method of electing our parliamentary such as government education campaigns representatives. (Joseph Zanyk, encouraging voters to go to the polls. submission 1474)

4 The submission numbers start at 1,000 so every one would have a four-digit number. Some numbers are missing What We Read What We because duplicate or spam submissions were deleted.

2-4 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read When a map of Ontario is coloured CHANGE THE SYSTEM according to party affiliation of members of the legislature, one often sees blocks of the same party.This is often not reflective Many people who wrote in favour of change of the percentage of the popular vote, just said they believe the current system is outdated the unfairness of our present system. and no longer meets the needs of a modern, (Elaine Kennedy, submission 1338) diverse society.Those who recommend change focus most often on the principles of fairness of representation, legitimacy, stronger voter Voter Participation participation, and voter choice. Unlike those who support FPTP,many people who want change think that voter participation An archaic voting system has no place in is directly affected by the electoral system.They 21st century Ontario. (Fair Vote Ontario, feel the current system discourages citizens submission 1383) from participating because many believe their votes don’t count.They believe changing to a Proportionality proportional system would increase voter Almost every submission recommending turnout. change highlights fairness of representation When you talk to voters you often hear and, in particular, proportionality. Most advo- them say ‘why should I bother voting, my cates of change believe that disproportional vote won’t count anyway?’And if they results are unfair: Some parties (often larger don’t vote for the most popular candidate ones) receive more than their share of seats, in their riding they’re probably right. while other parties (often smaller ones) receive Under our current system all the votes cast less than their share of seats. Many believe that for parties other than the ultimate riding this—more than any other factor—compromis- winner are in effect wasted—they have no es the legitimacy of the current system.They influence on the outcome of the election. argue that a more proportional system would The flipside of that is that many people increase voter confidence in the political vote strategically rather than sincerely. process. (Jeannie Page, submission 1397) The legitimacy of a democratically elected assembly or government requires that A Representative Legislature the voter participation is high and that Concerns about the lack of proportionality also the way representatives are elected is relate to demographic representation. Many fair.Another requirement of legitimacy who favour change don’t believe Ontario’s legis that the representation of parties in islature is an accurate reflection of the diversity an assembly should be proportional to of the province. Submissions identify women, the voters’ choices. (Abel Ferreira, members of visible minorities, Francophones, submission 1357) young people,Aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, and other groups as being under- Many submissions wanting change suggest that represented in our legislature. votes cast for candidates that don’t win are “wasted” because they have no direct impact Many argue that the “winner-take-all”nature of on the make-up of the legislature.The greater single-member districts under FPTP disadvan- the proportionality of results, they point out, tages those who come from underrepresented the fewer number of wasted votes. groups. In contrast, they believe proportional systems provide greater opportunities for parties to run, and voters to elect, a more diverse Read What We slate of candidates. Party lists, for example, can

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read 2-5 be balanced to reflect the diversity of the and work together to represent diverse viewpoints. population.Advocates of change often refer to Those who like the idea of coalition governments the more diverse parliaments in other parts of believe they would help make the legislature the world as evidence that proportionality can more co-operative and conciliatory.This would enhance representation. help address the concerns many citizens have about the adversarial nature of politics in the Europeans generally use some form of province. proportional representation instead of our First Past the Post system.This results The following sections provide a more detailed in more women getting elected. (Doris look at the themes expressed by the people Anderson, submission 1718) who recommended specific electoral systems. Mixed Member Proportional Many supporters of change believe proportionality would allow more views to be heard in Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) is the the legislature.They suggest that supporters of system most frequently recommended in smaller parties often feel obliged to vote for submissions advocating for change. Many MMP established parties whose candidates have a supporters believe the system best reflects the better chance of winning in single-member principles of fairness of representation (propor- districts. If votes for smaller parties had a direct tionality and geographic representation, among impact on parties’ standings in the legislature, other factors), and voter choice. people may be more inclined to vote for their first choice.This would make it easier for smaller Local Representation and parties to grow and, in turn, become better Proportionality established. Advocates for MMP like that it can provide pro- People believe voting for an alternative portionality while maintaining local representa- party is a wasted vote... I believe all parties tion. Many people said they feel it is important to should have an equal voice or at least Ontarians to have an identifiable representative more opportunity for their voice to be who is accountable to the voters in an electoral heard. (Shane Mussche, submission 1173) district.They believe MMP would represent significant change toward proportionality but would not be too unfamiliar to Ontario voters. Coalition Government MMP adds a tier of compensatory (or adjustment) Advocates of change are also concerned about seats to a structure that is similar to our current having stable and effective government and an system. effective legislature. Supporters of proportional representation recognize that single-party While I would personally support a move majority governments are often stable but toward a List PR system, I recognize that argue that they are only desirable if a majority it would be a rather bold change that of the population voted them in. Otherwise, it would alter some commonly accepted is more democratic to have governments that and perhaps cherished elements of our better represent the range of choices expressed current system.With MMP, we can main- by the electorate. tain local representatives responsible for specific ridings, but also ensure a more Many of those in favour of change believe accurate reflection of the overall provin- coalitions (whether they form minority or cial vote. (Murray Cooke, submission 1814) majority governments) are more effective and responsive to the concerns of voters. In a coalition, they point out, no one party has all What We Read What We the power and coalition partners must negotiate

2-6 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read Many of those who recommend MMP Some supporters of MMP don’t like the idea of recognize that the number of local districts political parties drawing up lists of candidates must be reduced or the number of seats in the to be awarded compensatory seats.They feel legislature increased to create a compensatory this gives parties too much control over who is tier. Some MMP supporters don’t want to see and who is not elected.A proposed alternative the size of the legislature increased. Others feel among submissions is the “near-winners” or Ontarians are currently underrepresented, “best losers” method, which allocates compen- given the population of the province, and satory seats to the runners-up in the local dis- having a larger, more diverse legislature would tricts.Advocates believe it would help ensure increase the quality of political representation. that all members of the legislature are directly accountable to the voters. Some people recom- Voter Choice mend using a single-vote ballot (very much like Those who recommend MMP believe the Ontario’s current one), and calculating propor- system would give voters more choice.They tionality based on candidates’ party affiliations. like the idea of giving voters two votes: one for the candidate of their choice and one for Those appearing high on the ‘best losers’ the party of their choice. list are there, not because they are friends or favourites of the party elite (and there- I think that a mixed model in particular, fore unaccountable to the voters), but similar to those found in Germany and rather because a sufficient number of New Zealand, would allow voters the people voted for them! This also intro- opportunity to select the party they support, duces legitimacy, because these candi- while still allowing them to vote for a specific dates can make a legitimate claim to be MPP in their riding. (Jennifer MacFarlane, representing at least citizens that voted submission 1729) for them locally in that particular riding. (Glen MacDonald, submission 1921) Many said a double ballot would reduce the pressure voters sometimes feel to vote strategic- Flexibility and Simplicity ally for their second choice candidate, in order Many MMP supporters said they like the flexi- to prevent another candidate from winning. On bility of the system. For example, those who an MMP ballot, the party vote determines the don’t think it is fair to elect local members by number of seats each party is awarded.This a plurality vote, suggest using a majority system makes it possible for voters to choose their first like Alternative Vote to decide winners in local choice on the candidate side of the ballot with- districts. Others who believe simplicity is a out affecting the overall standings of parties in more important principle favour plurality the legislature. Supporters of MMP argue that elections at the local level because the overall election results would be fairer and more results of the election will closely reflect the legitimate if voters felt free to vote according popular vote. to their true preferences. Some critics of MMP worry about the complexity Party Lists of a system that elects MPPs in two different ways and has a list tier added to local district Some MMP supporters like party lists because seats. In contrast, supporters point to the fact they can be used to reflect the diversity of the that MMP is used successfully in other countries province. Supporters argue that balanced lists and feel confident that Ontarians will adjust would produce a more representative legislature to the new system. by allowing more women, visible minorities, and members of other historically under- represented groups to be elected. Read What We

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read 2-7 Single Transferable Vote STV supporters also believe that the preferential ballot and vote transfers help eliminate strategic The second most favoured system among submis- voting.Voters know that their second, third, or sions is Single Transferable Vote (STV). Supporters subsequent preferences will be taken into of STV like that it provides a degree of propor- account even if their first choice candidate tionality and geographic representation. Similar to isn’t elected. MMP,STV is seen as a system that preserves some of the features of Ontario’s current system but STV gives citizens more say in who makes also provides the benefits of more proportional up their government by allowing them to results. Submissions favouring STV associate the use their second and third choice if system with the principles of voter choice, required. In this way no vote is ever wasted stronger voter participation, and accountability. and MPPs continue to be accountable to a local riding. (Brendan Simons, Geographic Representation submission 1066) Many supporters describe STV as a proportional system that is regional by nature.They see this as Some people favour STV because it allows inde- an advantage in a province like Ontario that is pendent candidates to be elected. Independent both geographically and demographically diverse. candidates are rarely elected in party-based Each area of the province would be represented proportional systems because seats are allocat- by members from local districts much the same ed according to the percentage of the popular as now.The difference is that the districts would vote each party receives.And under First Past be larger and have more than one representative. the Post, independent candidates must get Those who favour STV support the idea of having more votes than each of the candidates repre- districts that are large enough to accommodate senting established parties to be elected.With the diversity of a district, but small enough to STV,candidates need only obtain enough represent local issues effectively. support to reach the quota. Supporters believe this gives voters more choice because they can Voter Choice support candidates running for their preferred Advocates of STV believe the preferential ballot party, as well as independent candidates who gives voters more choice than a categorical ballot have a real chance of being elected. because it allows them to rank their preferences. In the multi-member districts used in STV,parties Absence of Party Lists often run more than one candidate in a district. STV,unlike other proportional systems, does Voters can choose to support more than one not require political parties to draw up lists of candidate from a party,or can support the candi- candidates to be elected.The parties nominate date they like most, without feeling obliged to candidates to run in each district but the voters vote for the party’s entire slate of candidates. decide which candidates are awarded seats in the legislature. Supporters of the system believe STV provides a special opportunity to mit- this makes representatives more accountable to igate geographic disparities, by varying the the voters and less accountable to their parties. district magnitudes from region to region… Some critics of STV believe that the absence of But the real advantage of STV over other party lists makes it more difficult for parties to forms of proportional representation is the promote the election of women and other degree of voter choice; indeed STV can best groups. Others disagree.They argue that if parties be thought of as proportional representation nominated more representative candidates they together with voter choice, the ability to would have a better chance of being elected prefer not merely a party, but a candidate under STV because each electoral district sends

What We Read What We or candidates within that party. (Eileen several members to the legislature. Wennekers, submission 1018)

2-8 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read Complexity in the Eye of the pass legislation or move forward with other Beholder government business. Critics of STV often suggest that the system is Voter Choice complicated and one of the most difficult to understand. Some supporters agree but believe Like supporters of STV,those who recommend its benefits outweigh these concerns. Some AV see preferential voting as an attractive point out that the counting and transferring of option that reduces strategic voting and gives votes may be more laborious than in other voters more choice. If voters felt free to cast systems, but from the voters’ perspective, STV ballots for their first choice candidates (as well is simple:Voters rank a list of candidates in as their second, third, and subsequent choices), order of preference. they argue, election results would be a more accurate reflection of voters’ true preferences. I am in favour of Single Transferable Vote because it is quite simple, straight- Unlike First Past the Post, the ‘rank system’ forward, elegant, and easily generalizable. more accurately represents the will of the (Dave Robinson, submission 2044) people, allowing citizens to vote with their hearts without fears of vote-splitting or Finally, a number of people argue that strategic voting. (Jay Fitzsimmons, complexity is in the eye of the beholder and submission 1706) people tend to be most comfortable with the system they’re used to. Some critics of the system believe that AV results are not legitimate because voters’ first Alternative Vote preferences rarely produce a majority winner. Some argue that the majority is “forced” by the The third recommended electoral system is counting process, which eliminates the last- Alternative Vote (AV). Submissions in favour place finishers and redistributes their votes to of AV tend to identify it most often with the the remaining candidates.AV supporters dis- principles of legitimacy, accountability, voter agree.They believe voters can meaningfully choice, and stable and effective government. rank candidates because they rarely support one candidate to the exclusion of all others. Supporters favour AV because it is designed to declare a majority winner in every electoral Critics of AV most often point out that it is not district.They believe this makes the system a proportional system. Returning a majority more legitimate and representatives more winner at the constituency level does not guar- accountable than those elected with less than a antee that the share of seats a party wins will majority.With AV,no candidate can be elected be proportional to its share of the vote.AV sup- without a clear mandate from constituents. porters recognize this but believe that fairness, legitimacy, and accountability depend more on Alternative Vote... brings a great gain in a system’s capacity to declare a majority winner. voter choice and therefore in legitimacy, because it will ensure the election of the A Saleable Alternative candidates who can attract the broadest Supporters suggest it would be relatively easy possible support from their constituents. to move from our current system to AV. (David Mayerovitch, submission 1684) Electoral districts would remain unchanged, In general, those in favour of AV like that it voters in each district would continue to have a tends to produce single-party majority govern- single representative, and the ballot would be ments. Many AV supporters, like those who pre- essentially the same, except that voters would fer First Past the Post, believe that governments rank their preferences.This, they argue, makes are more likely to be stable and effective if they AV a more saleable alternative to the Ontario Read What We don’t have to make deals with other parties to public than other systems.

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read 2-9 List Proportional geous because large multi-member districts Representation make it possible to balance lists according to different demographic considerations. The next most favoured system is List Others support the use of open or free lists to Proportional Representation (List PR). In addi- reduce party control over lists and to provide tion to proportionality, submissions supporting voters with more choice.Voters can choose any List PR also highlight the importance of demo- candidate they want and are not limited to the graphic representation, voter choice, and candidates running in their immediate area. simplicity and practicality. Generally, critics of list systems believe parties should not have control over which candidates Communities of Interest are awarded seats in the legislature. Some List PR supporters feel that representation should be understood in terms of “communities Flexibility and Simplicity of interest,”rather than geographic communities. Advocates believe List PR is a comparatively They argue that the best way to ensure that a simple and flexible proportional system.A broad range of interests is represented in the single province-wide List PR system would, for legislature is to ensure a high degree of example, remove concerns about variations in proportionality. representation by population. It would also The adoption of a List PR system in eliminate the need to redraw electoral boundaries. Ontario would likely increase the number Many of those who recommend List PR recog- of political parties represented in our nize the regional nature of Ontario.To address legislature. Rather than a negative, new this issue, some suggest using a system with a parties can enhance the quality and small number of regional districts.This design inclusiveness of political representation would be more complicated than a single- by effectively articulating the interests of district (province-wide) List PR system but sup- new social actors in the political arena. porters believe it would be simpler than many (Roberta Rice, submission 1014) other options, including our current system which has more than 100 single-seat districts. Many supporters of List PR believe a system Supporters of List PR believe that the results with a relatively low threshold would make it produced by a highly proportional electoral easier for smaller parties to elect members to system are intuitive and easy to understand:A the legislature and provide voters with more party’s share of the seats is roughly equal to its choice.They suggest that under the current share of the vote. system small parties with broad appeal fare Nothing could be more plain and fair poorly in elections because their support is not than the closed list system. (Tim Rourke, concentrated enough in any one district to win submission 1067) a seat.This makes it difficult for new parties to gain representation.As a result, the choices that appear on the ballot and the members who are Parallel System elected are not representative of the viewpoints in society. Some submissions recommend that Ontario adopt a Parallel system, which they associate Party Lists with the principles of fairness of representa- Some people support PR systems with closed tion, stable and effective government, and lists because they can be a useful tool for simplicity.They recognize some of the benefits promoting the election of women and other of First Past the Post but feel it’s important for What We Read What We groups.They see List PR as particularly advanta- election results to be more proportional.

2-10 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read Proportionality would essentially be the same as now, voters Supporters of Parallel systems also have much would not have to rank their preferences, and in common with those who prefer a Mixed there would be no need to transfer votes from Member Proportional system. Both groups like one candidate to another. the idea of having a single, local representative [The Two-Round system] is so very simple and a measure of proportionality.The difference and will eliminate the vote splitting that is that supporters of Parallel systems are willing results so often in the winner being some- to give up more proportionality to achieve one that the majority of voters don't other objectives. In particular, many like that want. (Don Crosby, submission 1648) single-party majority governments may be more likely under a Parallel system than under MMP. Supporters of TRS believe allowing voters to I want a system that retains political cast their own votes in a second round is more parties, allows voting for a local represen- transparent and legitimate than the counting tative, and makes the parliament propor- process under Alternative Vote which may tional. I would prefer a system that did “force” a majority.They also suggest that the not always produce coalition governments. time between the first and second elections It appears that the system that best would give voters an opportunity to reconsider achieves these goals is the Parallel System. their preferences. (David Sills, submission 1694) Critics of TRS think it would cost too much. They believe it would be easier to adopt a Some criticize Parallel systems because they system like Alternative Vote that can produce a don’t produce results that are proportional majority winner with only one round of voting. enough.They believe that a tier of compensatory seats (as in MMP) should be used to correct disproportional local election results. OTHER IDEAS

Simplicity and Saleability Some of the most comprehensive submissions On the other hand, those who defend Parallel recommend less common electoral systems or suggest that it is easier to understand than a methods, or entirely new models designed to mixed system. Changing to a Parallel system meet the specific needs of Ontario. More than would not, they argue, require much change. 90 submissions recommend alternative systems We would have elections as we do now, but we other than those discussed above. Only a few would elect additional members to achieve a could be mentioned in this brief paper. Please measure of proportionality. Supporters see a visit the Citizens’Assembly website Parallel system as an attractive compromise that www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca to read would appeal to both those who want significant these submissions. change and those who are happy with the current system. Condorcet Method Two-Round System Several submissions recommend the Condorcet method to determine a winner in a single- Several submissions recommend a Two-Round member district. In this kind of election, voters System (TRS) or holding a runoff election be- rank candidates in order of preference.The tween the top two finishers in district races where count is conducted by pitting every candidate there is no majority winner on the first vote. against every other candidate in a series of Advocates of the system believe that holding a notional one-on-one contests.The Condorcet second election is an easy and straightforward winner is the candidate who wins the most of Read What We way to produce a majority winner.The ballots these contests.Advocates of Condorcet believe

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read 2-11 it is the most accurate way to select one “None of the Above” candidate that best reflects the preferences of a majority of voters. A few submissions recommend including a “None of the Above” option on the ballot so [In a Condorcet system] the preferred candi- voters would not be forced to choose a date is the candidate who is preferred to all candidate if they don’t support one. other candidates, in every sub-election...This candidate deserves to be declared elected. Other Systems (Lucien Saumur, submission 1001) Other submissions recommend new electoral systems or mechanisms to address regionalism, Approval Voting urban and rural representation, environmental stewardship, the representation of women, the Some submissions recommend Approval Voting. nomination of candidates, and many other This method allows voters to select as many or important issues. as few of the candidates listed on the ballot. The candidate with the most votes is declared the winner. Supporters suggest that this candi- DEMOGRAPHICS AND date is, by definition, the one that voters approve of the most. REPRESENTATION

I urge the Assembly to opt for my proposal Many submissions express concerns about that includes approval voting; allowing demographic representation: Is the Ontario voters to mark each choice that they are legislature an accurate reflection of the satisfied with seems more practical than diversity of the province? Many people—both forcing them to arrive at ‘the best’... those who recommend change and those who (Chris Bradshaw, submission 1831) do not—think it is important to have more women, members of visible minorities, people Weighted Vote with disabilities, young people, Francophones, other linguistic minorities,Aboriginal peoples, Another suggested approach is Weighted Vote. and other groups better represented in the The basic idea is that the voting power of legislature. But there is no consensus on the individual members of the legislature would best way to accomplish this. be weighted based on their party’s share of the Some people don’t believe demographic repre- popular vote.This would give each party sentation is directly related to the electoral sys- influence in the legislature that is proportional tem.They think that parties should be encour- to the support it received from the electorate, aged to nominate more candidates from under- even if it didn’t win a proportional share of represented groups and make sure these candi- seats.Weighted Vote is designed to address dates have the resources they need to get elected. disproportionality without creating multi- Most of those who recommend change believe member districts, party lists, or other design some form of proportional representation features common among PR systems. would help increase the diversity of the legislature. One of the most frequently mentioned Under the proposed system [weighted options is the balanced party list—balanced to vote], although different members may reflect Ontario’s population as much as possible. have different voting power, in aggregate, each party's voting strength is exactly Since all-white-male candidate lists would proportional to the number of people reflect badly on a party, and hurt its elec- who voted for that party. (Cam Farnell, toral chances, lists are typically balanced What We Read What We submission 1947) to include women and minority candidates. (Equal Voice, submission 1505)

2-12 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read Some submissions favour “zippered” lists, which The Citizens’Assembly [should] recom- alternate male and female candidates.A few mend to the Government of Ontario that, recommend a system of dual-member districts during the next five years, it engage in an where each one would elect a male and female authentic, adequately financed public representative. education, consultation and negotiation Generally, those who made submissions are not process with Aboriginal organizations in favour of quotas or reserved seats for under- and communities to determine what kind represented groups, with the possible exception of institutional reform would encourage of seats for Aboriginal peoples. Some suggest and facilitate the meaningful participa- reserved seats would be unfair, undemocratic, tion of Aboriginal voters in Ontario’s or unpopular with the Ontario electorate. decision-making processes. (Stan Jolly, submission 1942) I reject quotas not because I believe there is a level playing field and that they are Northern Ontario not needed... But [because] I accept that quotas are not saleable at this time and Many submissions said the North has too little they are not a fix. (June MacDonald, influence in the legislature.Among these, many submission 2007) feel that the interests of Northern Ontario are best served by maintaining a system of single- Aboriginal People member districts. Because the geographic size of the electoral districts in the North can make Some submissions recognize the unique effective representation difficult, many don’t political position of Aboriginal peoples in think larger, multi-member districts associated Ontario and believe something should be with proportional representation would be a done to ensure they are better represented viable option. in the legislature.Among those who provide specific proposals, solutions vary.They include Some northern ridings are already far too reserving a number of seats for Aboriginal large geographically… Any system that peoples in proportion to their population, enlarges the size of northern ridings will and establishing a parallel Ontario Aboriginal make this situation even more difficult. legislature. (Brian Williams, submission 1875) Another suggested idea is to establish “Aboriginal districts.”This would involve Others point out that northern districts can’t drawing electoral boundaries to ensure a small be made smaller without compromising the number of districts have populations that are principle of representation by population.They predominantly Aboriginal. Supporters argue don’t think it is fair or legitimate that members that while this would not guarantee Aboriginal in urban districts represent many more voters representation, it would give parties an than those in rural or northern areas. incentive to run Aboriginal candidates in Currently rural ridings generally have these districts. fewer voters than urban ridings, meaning Others argue that the government should that a rural vote is worth more than an engage in a separate process of dialogue with urban vote. I believe this is a significant Aboriginal communities. problem, since I see voter equality as one of the fundamentals of democracy. (Willem Bruce Krayenhoff, submission 1368) What We Read What We

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read 2-13 the process even though the Assembly was CITIZENS’ ASSEMBLY established as an independent body. Others feel the threshold undermines the time and effort ROCESS P Assembly members have dedicated to the process. Many submissions express appreciation for the Assembly and the opportunity to participate in It [is] outrageous of the provincial govern- a discussion about the future of Ontario’s elec- ment to impose a requirement of 60% to toral system. Many thanked Assembly members pass any referendum question [while] at for their commitment, time, and effort. the same time allowing MPPs to be elected with less than 50% of the vote. (Tony I applaud the work of the Assembly and McGran, submission 1064) look forward to hearing more about its deliberations and recommendations. (Marianne Brender à Brandis, On the other hand, several submissions support submission 1250) a high referendum threshold because changing the electoral system would have a significant Let me thank you for your work and the impact on the future of the province.They detailed attention you are paying to this argue that a new system should not be adopted very vital exercise. (Paul Wilson, without considerable support from the people submission 1721) of Ontario. Many submissions express concern that the Some submissions express concerns about the general public does not fully understand the cost and objectives of the exercise.A few issues related to electoral reform or the advan- question the wisdom of convening a group of tages and disadvantages of alternative electoral citizens with little or no expertise in electoral systems. Many fear that there won’t be enough system design and giving it the task of recom- time for public education in advance of a mending what is best for the province.The referendum vote if the Assembly recommends quality of the recommendation, they argue, a new system. depends too much on the quality of the education Assembly members receive and I am concerned that it will take a lot of the resources dedicated to the project. education and awareness-raising to get over 60% of Ontarians to agree upon Possible Referendum anything! (Katherine Kitching, submission 1815) The most frequently mentioned issue related to the Citizens’Assembly process is the government’s referendum legislation that establishes a “60/60” threshold. If the Assembly recommends RELATED ISSUES change, its proposal will require 60% support overall and a majority of support in 60% of the Many submissions raise concerns related to the province’s electoral districts to succeed. broader political process—some more closely The majority of people who mention the connected to the Assembly’s mandate than referendum legislation feel that the legitimacy others. Many proponents of change believe that of the process has been compromised by the although electoral system reform is important, 60% threshold.They believe that such a high other issues must also be addressed to make threshold will make it difficult for any recom- the system, political parties, and representatives mendation for change to succeed. Some see it as more responsive and accessible to all Ontario What We Read What We the government trying to control the outcome of citizens.

2-14 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read Public Education If casting one's vote is indeed the most important act a citizen performs in any A number of submissions identify a general lack democracy, then it is time for the process of political interest as a problem that needs to to become more inclusive for all citizens. be addressed. Many think changing the electoral Everyone must be able to vote in secret system might help improve voter participation and with confidence if we are to truly but most do not see reform as a cure-all. Many prepare our province for the future.The advocate for comprehensive public education members of the Alliance for Equality of campaigns to encourage citizens, especially Blind Canadians look forward to the day young Ontarians, to become more involved in when we can exercise our democratic the electoral process and civic life more rights freely, with confidence and dignity. generally. (Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, submission 1132) Voter Participation Nomination of Candidates Many submissions discuss declining voter turnout and suggest various approaches to Many submissions express concerns about the address the problem. Some argue that voting is way candidates are nominated. Some believe cur- an obligation, not a right, and recommend rent nomination processes place too much power mandatory voting with penalties for not voting. in the hands of party officials.They want to see They believe mandatory voting has worked candidates nominated in an open democratic way, well in other countries. Others believe incentives for example, by allowing party members to cast would be more appropriate than sanctions and votes for the candidates of their choice. would also have a positive effect on voter Other Issues turnout. Some people recommend lowering the voting Submissions make recommendations on many age.They feel this would help increase interest other issues, including: and participation among young people. • Reform to campaign financing laws to ensure Others recommend electronic voting because that no party has an unfair, monetary advantage they feel additional voting options would over another during election campaigns encourage more citizens, especially young • Reform to the rules that govern parliamen- people, to cast their ballots. Some argue that tary procedure electronic voting would also make voting and • New ways to select the Premier, including counting ballots more efficient. By contrast, allowing elected members of the legislature other submissions argue against electronic to choose the Premier by consensus follow- voting because they are concerned about vote ing an election; or allowing the electorate to tampering and a potential loss of transparency vote directly for the Premier and accountability. • Allowing voters to recall a representative Accessibility for People with between elections and other “direct democracy” proposals, such as holding more Disabilities frequent referendums on significant Some submissions highlight the issue of government policies. accessibility for Ontarians with disabilities.They If we expect to see real democratic believe it is important to ensure all Ontarians change, then we must look to reforms have an equal opportunity to cast votes, partici- beyond electoral systems, such as citizens’ pate in campaigns, and run for political office. initiatives, referendums, and deliberative forums, such as the Citizens’Assembly. Read What We (Joseph Angolano, submission 1730)

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read 2-15 CONCLUSION

The broad range of ideas expressed through the written submissions illustrates the diversity of opinion among those who are concerned about the electoral system. Many people are passionate about change, while others defend the current system with equal vigour.Whatever their viewpoints, the hundreds of people who made submissions have at least one thing in common: a concern for the future of the province and the shape of one of its most important political institutions. The Citizens’Assembly is grateful for the generosity of citizens who took the time to put their thoughts about electoral systems in writing.The collection of submissions will help Assembly members in their deliberations when they make a recommendation for Ontario. It will also be a valuable resource for researchers and others who are interested in electoral systems and this unique process of citizen engagement. What We Read What We

2-16 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports - What We Read Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups

Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

Prepared by Peter Clutterbuck Community Planning Consultant Social Planning Network of Ontario

February 2007

Social Planning Network of Ontario TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 3-1

THOUGHTS ABOUT VOTING . .3-2

THOUGHTS ABOUT PRINCIPLES .3-4 Accountability ...... 3-4 Effective Parliament & Effective Parties ...... 3-4 Fairness of Representation ...... 3-4 Simplicity and Practicality ...... 3-5 Stable and Effective Government . . . .3-6 Stronger Voter Participation ...... 3-6 Voter Choice: Quantity & Quality . . . . .3.6

VOTING FOR IMPORTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES: DOTMOCRACY . .3-7 Dotmocracy Results for All Special Outreach Groups Combined ...... 3-8 Special Outreach Sessions: Dotmocracy Results by Community ...... 3-9 Ottawa ...... 3-9 Sudbury ...... 3-9 Niagara ...... 3-10 Peel ...... 3-10

THOUGHTS ABOUT ELECTORAL SYSTEMS ...... 3-11

OTHER THOUGHTS ...... 3-11

CONCLUSION ...... 3-12

APPENDIX ...... 3-13 Special Outreach Focus Groups

Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups INTRODUCTION uals were invited to participate in a three hour facilitated session on electoral reform. Some The Social Planning Network of Ontario special supports were provided to assist partici- (SPNO) was commissioned by the the Citizens’ pation such as transportation assistance, lan- Assembly on Electoral Reform to plan, organize guage interpreters and material aids (e.g. the and conduct four special outreach sessions as Ottawa SPC had the presentation materials con- part of the Assembly’s public consultation verted into Braille for a participant without process.Although the public consultations sight).All sessions were conducted in accessi- were open to the entire community, the ble local facilities familiar as meeting places to Citizens’Assembly wished to make sure that a community participants. special effort was made to get input from parts Altogether, 115 people from diverse communities of the community that often have more attended and participated in the four special difficulty participating in such initiatives. outreach sessions, breaking down by community The SPNO is a province-wide network of 20 as follows: locally-based social planning and community Community Participants development councils that do research, policy analysis, community development and public Peel 35 education using participatory methods. Sudbury 22 Four communities from different parts of the Ottawa 30 province were selected for the special outreach Niagra 28 sessions.The sessions were conducted in: Participation reflected well the diversity identi- • Mississauga with outreach to Peel Region on fied previously. Notably, participation in the Tuesday, November 21, 2006, organized by Sudbury session included ten young Aboriginal the Social Planning Council of Peel. community members. In Ottawa, French language • Sudbury on Wednesday, November 29, 2006, facilitation and materials were provided to organized by the Social Planning Council of accommodate the participation of members Sudbury. who wished to discuss the material in their • Ottawa on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, own language.As well, audio-visual presentations organized by the Social Planning Council of were shown in both official languages in the Ottawa/Conseil de planification sociale Ottawa session. d’Ottawa. The format for the special outreach sessions • St. Catharines with outreach to Niagara Region varied from the consultation meetings of the on Monday,January 22, 2007, organized by the Assembly open to the general public. Since only Niagara Social Assistance Reform Network on four sessions were to be held, and since it was behalf of the SPNO expected that not many participants would be The special outreach sessions were invitational very familiar with the electoral systems and events designed to reach people from a variety of principles, a structured process of presentation, communities whose voices are often not heard discussion and participation was planned.The on major public policy issues and proposals: low four sessions employed an intensive three-hour income people, single parents, immigrants, people agenda with the following components: with disabilities and people with personal and/or (a) Introductions of Citizens’Assembly officials community work experience on issues such as and participants and overview of the purpose literacy,housing and homelessness, hunger, and agenda for the session. supports to seniors, youth and families. (b) Screening of a DVD introducing the Through the community networks of the local mandate and work of the Citizens’Assembly host social planning councils and the Niagara followed by questions of clarification to Special Outreach Focus Groups Social Assistance Reform Network, local individ- Secretariat officials.

Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups 3-1 (c) Power Point presentation on the mandate the Sudbury group. Janet was aided by other of the Citizens’Assembly and the focus of the Secretariat officials who were present, including session with questions for clarification. the Executive Director of the Secretariat, Karen (d) Opening questions and facilitated discus- Cohl and Mark Lyons, Policy Analyst/Researcher sion on why participants vote and how well with the Secretariat. the current provincial voting system works. Three Citizens’Assembly members, David (e) Overview presentation by Power Point of Viitala, Stephanie Jones and Ron Green, and the the principles and their main elements that the Chair of the Citizens’Assembly, George Citizens’Assembly is using to assess possible Thomson, were able to attend and participate options for electoral reform in the Niagara session.Another Citizens' (principles/sub-elements are appended). Assembly member, Richard Bowdidge, attended the Sudbury session. In both cases, the (f) Facilitated discussion on the principles and Assembly members were warmly welcomed their sub-elements individually. and their attendance was much appreciated by (g) “Dotmocracy” exercise in which partici- session participants. pants individually indicate the degree of impor- All sessions were stimulating and animated. tance that they give to the principles and sub- Those attending participated enthusiastically elements.1 (See attached list on the principles and took strong interest in the work of the as presented for consideration in this exercise.) Citizens’Assembly and the discussion of the (h) Review and discussion of dotmocracy principles and electoral systems. Many partici- results. pants held strong views on the electoral system (i) Screening of Billy Ballot, a short video pre- and on other parts of the democratic process. pared by the Secretariat that briefly reviews the Most were not familiar with the complexities of main features of the four families of electoral electoral systems and found the presentations systems (available along with other resource and the discussion educational. Participants material at www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca). were very pleased that the Citizens’Assembly (j) Reflection on how the four families of voting had made provision for these special outreach systems in Billy Ballot reflect the principles that events. Some indicated that it would have been participants highly value and discussion of good to conduct more of them. preferred options for electoral reform. (k) Conclusion and thanks to participants with THOUGHTS ABOUT information on how they can follow the work of the Citizens’Assembly. VOTING With the exception of Sudbury, each session Participants were invited to express why they was facilitated by Peter Clutterbuck, voted and why it is important to vote.This gen- Community Planning Consultant with the eral opening line of inquiry led into comments SPNO and attended by Susan Pigott, Executive and observations about the current provincial Lead of Citizen Engagement with the voting system. Secretariat. In the case of Sudbury, inclement Participants from all four communities indicat- weather prevented the attendance of Peter ed that reasons for voting include: Clutterbuck and Susan Pigott. Janet Gasparini, Executive Director, of the Social Planning • To be a responsible member of society. Council of Sudbury, was briefed by telephone • To fulfill a civic duty and contribute to the and used prepared session materials to facilitate working of democracy (some thought that

1 Each participant was given three strips of four dots (four red for “high importance,”four blue for “medium impor- Special Outreach Focus Groups tance” and four yellow for “low importance”) and was asked to give one vote to each of the twelve principles/sub- elements (five stand-alone principles and seven sub-elements), which were listed on wall charts in the meeting room.

3-2 Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups it was a “privilege” not to be neglected, “I want my vote to count, but I don’t abused or taken lightly). think it does anymore” • To exercise a right. “We don’t have much choice anymore. It’s • To make a difference in the community. important to me to have a good selection • To select someone who will represent their of choices.” interests and views on issues and be account-- able to the people who elected them. “Unless you are aligned with one of the three major parties, you are shut out of • To have a say, influence and participate in the system.” creating good government. • To make change and stand up for people’s “I vote strategically. I used to vote on issues, needs. but not anymore. Now, I vote based on • To have legitimacy if critical of the elected negative options, and I don’t like it.” government. Focussing participants on issues related to the There were some strong feelings in all four current provincial electoral system, which the communities about why people did not vote, Citizens’Assembly is charged with assessing, which were beyond the scope of the Citizens’ elicited the following observations: Assembly mandate. Participants still requested • Limitations of the current party system in that their views on other barriers to participa- terms of choice. tion in the democratic political process be reported. Barriers include: • Concern that one’s vote doesn’t count when belonging to a minority group and • Poor and homeless people with no fixed not feeling strongly represented in political address are not recognized to vote. decision-making. • Language barriers, income barriers, literacy • Frustration about the lack of accountability barriers for many people who may once governments are elected. otherwise vote. • Elected politicians are too compelled to • Lack of good, accessible information and toe the party line rather than represent education about how the electoral system their constituents more independently. works (especially for newcomers and people without English or French) and • Concern about low participation rate and about the various candidates and parties low interest of youth in voting. running for election. • General sense of political apathy among the • Physical access barriers for people with public, which reduces participation in disabilities (e.g. printed ballots for people voting. without sight; difficulty for some elderly In terms of improvements, participants and frail citizens to get to polling booths focussed more on increasing communications distant from their place of residence). between the community and elected represen- It is fair to say that participants in all four tatives, providing more accessible information communities held a fairly cynical view of the to the people, making political representatives current political system. Much of this feeling more accountable to the electorate and helping had to do with the behaviour of individuals people who feel disenfranchised to get a sense and political parties in the democratic process. that they are being represented in government. Participants were critical of politicians in general (not just at the provincial level) for serving their own interests and just seeking votes to achieve or maintain political power and not to Special Outreach Focus Groups represent the interests of everyday people.

Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups 3-3 Effective Parliament & THOUGHTS ABOUT Effective Parties RINCIPLES P Participants in the four special outreach sessions did not spend a lot of time on these two The facilitator reviewed the principles that the principles. Some participants did not see how Citizens’Assembly is considering in assessing the electoral system might improve the effec- electoral systems, explaining that Legitimacy is tiveness of parties and the provincial legisla- an over-arching principle that the Assembly ture. In three communities participants noted believes will be achieved if an electoral system that parties could be more effective if they adequately satisfies the other principles. adopted more collaborative approaches to The discussion of principles in the four com- work on issues and solve problems. Participants munity special outreach sessions follows and also recognized that having more parties might concludes with a report of the results of a both ensure more people were represented dotmocracy exercise used in each session.The and also compel elected members to work discussion is reported by principle in alphabeti- more effectively together. cal order and not necessarily in the order of “[Without parties], how do we organize 103 discussion in each community session. individual egos. It would take months to Accountability elect a leader and take a long time to make decisions.This is why we need parties.” Participants in all four communities felt very “Maybe we need more than 103 MPPs. strongly about the need for improved account- I would like to see more of a policy role ability in the overall political process.Asked to based on expertise . . . not just be given think about how the principle of accountability assignments because of their position in might be reflected in the electoral system, there the party.” was a lot of support for the idea of ensuring the accountability of the individual elected Member As to the effectiveness of Parliament, participants of Provincial Parliament from the local area.The would like some assurance that the opposition general preference was for voting for candidates in the legislature has the capacity to criticize who would represent the local area or riding and debate government policy and legislation. rather than just voting for a political party. The possibility of electing a Parliament with a Participants felt that parties should be more very weak or even no opposition was seen as a accountable but were less clear about how to weakness of the current First Past the Post ensure that could happen through the electoral electoral system. system. Generally, they were more hopeful about holding their individual MPP accountable Fairness of Representation than about getting accountability from political This principle was one of the most strongly parties. supported among participants in all four special “I would like to have the chance to vote outreach sessions, especially with respect to for a local candidate and a party.” demographic representation.There was unanimity among participants that they did not “I want to vote for someone I know and see themselves reflected in the current compo- who knows me – not for a political party.” sition of the provincial government or provincial legislature, or any level of government or “There is little accountability in our legislature.They felt that the voices of marginal- current system. MPPs have to toe the ized people are not represented in the legisla- Special Outreach Focus Groups party line.” ture and it is very hard for people from these

3-4 Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups parts of the population to run for elected office. “The problem with the parties having extra seats proportionately is that those “True democracy is about everyone’s individuals don’t represent anyone and voices being heard.” don’t have anyone they are responsible to except the party itself.” “Representation by population is important, but politicians should represent people, not geography.” Participants in Ottawa and Peel felt more strongly about the importance of the principle “I have no option to vote for someone like of proportionality. Ottawa participants thought me because they are not on the ballot.” it would increase voter choice.There was no clear consensus in Niagara, with some partici- “You can’t talk it unless you’ve walked it.” pants expressing concerns about proportionality’s effect on stable government. “We need more people elected who understand what it means to be poor.” In Sudbury proportionality did not get as much attention as the issue of representation by pop- “Society has changed a lot since 1792, but ulation. Sudbury participants felt that larger the people in our legislature have not.” population centres, mostly in the south, have more influence in the provincial government. Low income people in Niagara and Ottawa; Simplicity and Practicality people with physical and intellectual disabilities and with mental health problems in Peel, There was not a lot of discussion in the four Ottawa and Sudbury;Aboriginal people in special outreach groups on this principle. Sudbury; immigrants and people of colour in Sudbury participants felt this principle would Peel and Ottawa; all expressed similar concerns best be ensured with better education for about not feeling fairly represented in the young people about the electoral system. In provincial legislature and government.They Peel and Ottawa, literacy was raised as an issue linked this lack of representation with low for some people in dealing with the ballot. voter turnout rates among these parts of the People with intellectual disabilities, people population. without sight, and some newcomers also pointed Representation in the legislature in proportion out the limitations to their participation by an to votes received in the election also made electoral system dependent on written materials sense to some participants in the special such as the ballot.There were two views about outreach sessions. systems that have candidates’ pictures on the ballot: some feeling it would be helpful in their “I don’t like it when people win with a choice to see people running with whom they small percentage of the vote.” could identify; others feeling that pictures might favour certain candidates. “I don’t like proportionality because I like stable governments.”

“I like proportionality because it allows for more voices at the table.”

“I believe that votes should be equal to seats.” Special Outreach Focus Groups

Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups 3-5 Stable and Effective making voting mandatory with penalties. Some Government felt this was justified because voting is a democratic privilege that citizens should be compelled “There is too much centralized control in to honour; others worried that compulsory our legislature.” voting infringed on democratic freedoms. “If we only voted for a party as in a system “The most important thing is to increase of proportional representation, there voter participation. Maybe through incen- wouldn’t be any stability in the resulting tives. Make voting day a statutory holiday— government. It would cause too much give a tax break for people who vote.” conflict.” “Politicians need to see that there are “Minority and coalition governments: consequences if they are not accountable. sometimes they are stable, sometimes We need to have higher voter turnout to they are not.” accomplish this. If a lot of people vote, politicians have to listen up.” “Stability is important because you have to get work done. But, there is no reason Participants in Niagara and Peel thought that to think that a coalition government incentives rather than penalties should be used would not be stable.” to encourage stronger voter participation, although this proposal is beyond the mandate Participant views varied on the importance of of the Citizens’Assembly. Some groups, such as this principle. Mostly it was discussed in relation low income people, could use supports to vote, to the consequences of introducing an electoral such as bus fare to get to the polling stations. system with proportional representation. Many Ottawa participants thought that community participants felt the trade-off to get better organizations could provide voter education, if representation was worth the loss of consistent they had the resources. majority governments. In Peel and Ottawa participants felt elected representatives would Voter Choice: Quantity and have to adapt and work more cooperatively in Quality order to ensure effective stable government. Some other participants expressed more “The system should increase opportunities concern about instability in governments for diversity in choices.” with the introduction of proportionality. “I want to see multiple candidates for the Stronger Voter Participation same party.” “When I vote I look at the individual Participants in Ottawa, Niagara and Peel candidate and the party. I may like the expressed strong support for this principle. In individual but the party they belong to Sudbury, there was not much confidence about might influence my final decision.” the political system gaining the people’s trust, and there was concern about the lack of “It’s important to have meaningful engagement of youth and Aboriginal people in differences between candidates.There has the electoral process. to be quality information before the vote Most participants felt that improved performance and follow up after the vote—that’s how by elected politicians would increase voter quality is expressed.” turnout.They also indicated that information on “We need more voter choice but sometimes candidates and party policies needs to be more people can be overwhelmed by choice.” available and accessible to voters, so that they Special Outreach Focus Groups could make informed choices at the ballot box. “It’s getting more and more confusing as There were mixed feelings about the wisdom of all parties sound and act the same.”

3-6 Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups Participants in the four communities expressed The following figures show the overall dotmoc- more support in general for the principle of racy results for the participants in all four quality in voter choice than in quantity.When communities and the dotmocracy results for different voting options were discussed, there each community.The numbers in the bar was recognition that some options, which graphs indicate the percent of all participants allowed for rank ordering candidate preferences indicating the degree of importance (dark grey or voting both for an individual and a party, bar = “high importance,”black bar = “medium would provide more choice than the current importance,”and light grey bar = “low impor- provincial system and may improve the quality tance”) plus the percent of missing or no votes of candidate or program offerings. for the principles (white bar). Some participants expressed concern about the The principles in each figure are presented in complexity or confusion that might result from descending order from the highest to the lowest too much choice.There was general agreement preferences by combining percentages for the across the four communities that more clear dark grey (high importance) and black (medium and accessible information about candidates importance) bars.The results are also shown in and parties would greatly assist voters in making three tiers of four principles each.The top tier choices however they would be presented on in each figure indicates the most important the ballot. principles; the middle tier indicates mid-level importance; and the bottom tier indicates the less important principles in the judgment of VOTING FOR IMPORTANCE the participants. OF THE PRINCIPLES: The combined votes of participants from all four communities show a strong preference for OTMOCRACY D Demographic Representation (75% combined vote for “high” and “medium” importance), The process for the special outreach sessions Stronger Voter Participation (65%), provided an opportunity for individual partici- Local/Regional Accountability (59%) and pants to “vote” for their own preferences from Quality in Voter Choice (59%). Demographic among the electoral design principles and their Representation also had the highest overall sub-elements. Following the discussion of the vote for “most important” principle (48%). Party principles, each participant was given three Accountability and Simplicity and Practicality strips of four dots (four red for “high impor- are at the top of the middle tier, but, notably, tance,”four blue for “medium importance” and participants gave both Party Accountability and four yellow for “low importance”) and was Simplicity and Practicality the second highest asked to give one vote to each of the twelve proportion of “high importance” votes of all the principles/sub-elements, which were listed on principles (37%). wall charts in the meeting room.As Legitimacy was considered an over-arching principle, it In the combined results, Proportionality is low was not included in the voter choices. in the third tier at 40% for high and medium importance.This low ranking is attributable The results provide a sense of which principles primarily to the Sudbury group where only 9% participants judged were more and which less of participants indicated medium importance, important in designing an electoral system. 50% voted low importance and 41% did not While not a formal poll or survey, the results do vote at all on Proportionality.The combined provide at least an approximation of the partic- vote for Proportionality among the other three ipants’ preferred weightings of the principles in communities is 50% for high and medium terms of importance. importance, which would place Proportionality Special Outreach Focus Groups

Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups 3-7 in the second tier of importance among Results by community follow on the next two participants in Peel, Niagara and Ottawa pages. Ottawa, Niagara and Peel show relatively combined. similar results, while Sudbury’s preferences In terms of the third tier of principles for the show the greatest difference among the four combined community vote, there is a notably communities. No principle is in the top tier in high percentage of votes for “low importance” all communities.Among all four special out- for Quantity of Voter Choice (34%) and reach groups, however, Demographic

Dotmocracy Results for All Special Outreach Groups Combined (Number Voting = 100)

Fairness: Demographic Representation 48 27 20 5

Stronger Voter Participation 33 32 23 12

Accountability: Local/Regional 33 26 14 27

Voter Choice: Quality 30 29 16 25

Accountability: Party 37 18 17 28

Simplicity & Practicality 37 16 21 26 Effectiveness: Stable & Effective Governement 26 22 10 42 Fairness: Representation by Population 24 20 24 32

Voter Choice: Quantity 22 20 34 24 Effectiveness: Effective Parliament 15 27 15 43 Fairness: Proportionality 23 17 20 40 Effectiveness: Effective Parties 14 21 30 35

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

% High Importance % Medium Importance % Low Importance % No Votes

Effective Parties (30%).Among all the princi- Representation, Stronger Voter Participation ples, these two received the highest percentage and Local/Regional Accountability are in the of “low importance” votes among special top two tiers of importance in each community. outreach group participants. Special Outreach Focus Groups

3-8 Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups Special Outreach Sessions: Dotmocracy Results by Community Ottawa -- No. Voting = 29

Stronger Voter Participation 28 45 21 6 Fairness: Demographic Representation 41 31 28 Effectiveness: Stable & 17 34 3 46 Effective Governement Fairness: Proportionality 28 21 51

Voter Choice: Quality 28 21 21 30

Voter Choice: Quantity 21 28 41 10

Accountability: Local/Regional 24 24 7 45

Fairness: Representation by 38 3 21 38 Population

Effectiveness: Effective Parliament 24 10 10 56

Effectiveness: Parties 14 14 28 44 Accountability: Party 717 34 42 Simplicity & Practicality 14 10 21 52

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Sudbury – No. Voting = 22

Fairness: Demographic Representation 45 45 0 10 Simplicity & Practicality 59 14 27

Accountability: Party 50 18 9 23

Accountability: Local/Regional 18 41 9 32

Effectiveness: Stable & Effective Governement 50 5 9 31 Fairness: Representation by Population 14 36 14 36 Voter Choice: Quantity 41 5 14 40

Stronger Voter Participation 18 28 32 22

Effectiveness: Effective Parliament 45 36 19

Voter Choice: Quality 928 18 45

Effectiveness: Effective Parties 18 18 50 14 Fairness: Proportionality 9 50 41

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Special Outreach Focus Groups % High Importance % Medium Importance % Low Importance % No Votes

Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups 3-9 Niagara – No. Voting = 19

Voter Choice: Quality 53 42 5

Stronger Voter Participation 47 26 11 16

Accountability: Party 63 5 32

Accountability: Local/Regional 58 5 5 32

Fairness: Proportionality 32 26 11 31 Fairness: Demographic Representation 42 11 37 10 Effectiveness: Effective Parliament 32 16 50

Simplicity & Practicality 37 11 16 36

Fairness: Representation by Population 26 21 16 37 Effectiveness: Stable & Effective Government 16 26 16 42 Voter Choice: Quantity 21 16 42 21

Effectiveness: Effective Parties 16 21 16 47

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Peel – No. Voting = 30

Fairness: Demographic Representation 63 20 13 4

Stronger Voter Participation 37 30 27 6

Accountability: Local/Regional 33 33 33 1

Simplicity & Practicality 37 27 17 19

Accountability: Party 27 30 23 20

Voter Choice: Quality 30 23 20 27

Fairness: Proportionality 33 10 17 40 Effectiveness: Stable & Effective Government 20 23 13 44

Effectiveness: Effective Parliament 3 37 13 47 Fairness: Representation by Population 17 20 43 20 Effectiveness: Effective Parties 730 27 36

Voter Choice: Quantity 3 30 37 30

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Special Outreach Focus Groups % High Importance % Medium Importance % Low Importance % No Votes

3-10 Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups changing the democratic political process THOUGHTS ABOUT significantly.They concluded that it did not matter which system would be used.They did, LECTORAL YSTEMS E S however, express an inclination for the Mixed Member Proportional system after seeing it Following a screening of Billy Ballot, participants explained in the Billy Ballot video, to which were asked to comment on the four families of they responded very enthusiastically. In general, electoral systems presented and how they Sudbury participants felt that people would reflect the principles that participants feel are need to see change in political behaviour important.There was not a lot of time for this before they would regain trust in the electoral part of the process and this was the first time process.There needs to be greater effort put that most participants had been presented with into open and honest communications this much information about different electoral between the public and local politicians. systems. Participants in Niagara were also impressed Participants in the Peel group had strong with the information provided in the Billy Ballot consensus that the current First Past the Post video.There was a general sense that change in system did not reflect most of the principles the electoral system would be beneficial and a that they valued more highly, although it was recognition that other electoral systems reflected the simplest (fourth in importance in Peel’s principles that the participants felt were voting).They expressed a preference for a important and better than the current system. system that would promote voter participation, Improving both local and party accountability fairness in representation and improved was highly valued among Niagara participants. political accountability.A few indicated support Although there was no consensus on the for a straight proportional system, which would preferred voting system, participants clearly demand more of parties to work effectively in stated that the session had been very educa- coalition governments.The Mixed Member tional and had given them a lot of information Proportional system, however, was most for thinking about an improved or alternative popular among Peel participants in that it electoral system. provided a good balance between proportionality and local accountability. THER HOUGHTS Participants in the Ottawa special outreach O T group had similar opinions to Peel participants, Participants in all four communities felt strongly especially on the benefits of proportional that there were major barriers to the participation systems. Most Ottawa participants wanted of many people in the general democratic polit- assurance that any proportional system would ical process at all levels of government, which keep a component of electing candidates to went beyond the electoral system itself. Even represent ridings. Many felt proportional though these issues may be outside the mandate systems would improve voter choice including of the Citizens’Assembly, the participants urged allowing more diverse representation in the the Citizens’Assembly to report these concerns legislature.They did express, however, a and suggest government action to eliminate concern that the Mixed Member Proportional these barriers.These concerns include: system might be hard for voters to understand without good voter education programs. • Politicians need to interact more with Quality and Quantity of Voter Choice were their constituents between elections and ranked high in the mid-tier level of participant to communicate more honestly and preferences in the Ottawa group’s dotmocracy directly in order to encourage stronger exercise. voter participation and promote

accountability. Special Outreach Focus Groups Sudbury participants were less positive about the prospects of a different electoral system

Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups 3-11 • Politics is still primarily about who has Participants in all four communities clearly and the most money to advertise themselves. consistently expressed frustration with their Equity should be built into the process— lack of access to and influence on public information should be disseminated in an affairs.They had strong feelings about the accessible format—TV,radio, Internet, etc. failure of the current electoral system in terms • There are no supports for people on low of adequately representing their interests and incomes, new citizens, people with dis- reflecting their views.They did see merit in abilities and others to have the chance to other electoral systems in terms of alleviating run for elected office and this should be these concerns about lack of representation. remedied. They also, however, identified many other barriers to their participation in the democratic • People need more information and political process beyond the electoral system. political education in order to be more engaged in the democratic process, even Clearly, the thoughtfulness and energy that the between elections. Many participants participants brought to this opportunity to give indicated that they don’t know enough input to the deliberations of the Citizens’ about the candidates when they go to Assembly belie any notion of political apathy the polls. among many Ontarians who struggle to have their voices heard. • There should be particular attention paid to educating young people on the democratic process and electoral system and to get them engaged from an informed basis early in life. • There is a need for more financial transparency in government and more control of party financing.There is also a concern that organized lobby groups have too much access to and influence on elected representatives. • There should be more free votes in the legislature and greater use of public referenda.

CONCLUSION

The special outreach sessions conducted in Ottawa, Niagara, Peel and Sudbury successfully engaged people from parts of the population that are often left out of debate on important public policy issues. It is clear from both the level of participation and the enthusiasm displayed by the participants that they have a strong interest in public policy issues and much to contribute. Special Outreach Focus Groups

3-12 Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups APPENDIX

Which principles are most important to you? Importance Principles High Medium Low FAIRNESS OF REPRESENTATION > Demographic The Legislature reflects the make-up of the Ontario population (men/women, age, ethno-cultural diversity, income levels). > Proportionality The share of seats a party wins is about equal to share of votes it got in election. > Representation by population Each MPP represents about the same number of people.

EFFECTIVENESS > Effective Parties The electoral system supports parties that can formulate policy alternatives for public debate and mobilize voters. > Stable & effective government The electoral system produces governments that can make policy decisions and implement their programs. > Effective Parliament The legislature works well with a government and effective opposition.

VOTER CHOICE > Quantity Voters have a number of choices on the ballot. > Quality There are genuinely different parties and programs to choose from.

ACCOUNTABILITY > Local/regional accountability Local reps are held responsible for government actions. > Party accountability Parties are held responsible for government actions.

STRONGER VOTER PARTICIPATION The electoral system helps motivate more people to vote.

SIMPLICITY AND PRACTICALITY Special Outreach Focus Groups The system works and voters understand it.

Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform - Summary Report on Special Outreach Focus Groups 3-13 Chair George Thomson Nickel Belt Richard Bowdidge Algoma-Manitoulin Donald Brickett Nipissing Roland Gibeau Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot Jeff Witt Northumberland Wendy Lawrence Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford Karl Cadera Oak Ridges Pat Miller Beaches-East York Catherine Baquero Oakville Laura Wells Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale Theresa Vella Oshawa Nancy Collins Brampton Centre Joyce Hughes Ottawa Centre Tara Currie Brampton West-Mississauga Mappanar Sundrelingam Ottawa South John Townesend Brant Leana Swanson Ottawa West-Nepean Carl Berger Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound Arita Droog Ottawa-Orléans Thomas Taylor Burlington Sandra Richter Ottawa-Vanier Chris Doody Cambridge Jerrold Labrecque Oxford Margaret Messenger Chatham-Kent Essex Jean Thompson Parkdale-High Park Andrea Kirkham Davenport Jon Bridgman Parry Sound-Muskoka Jordan Elliott Don Valley East Olivera Bakic Perth-Middlesex Lynda Dill Don Valley West Taylor Gilbert Peterborough Ann Thomas Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey Matthew L.O. Certosimo Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge Raj Roopansingh Durham Margo Bath Prince Edward-Hastings Cornelio Reyes Eglinton-Lawrence Laura Antonio Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke Maureen Grace Elgin-Middlesex-London Darcie Beckley Sarnia-Lambton Jim Passingham Erie-Lincoln John Toll Sault Ste. Marie David Viitala Essex Tamara Fick Scarborough Centre Donna Tichonchuk Etobicoke Centre Melinda Selmys Scarborough East Monica Wappel Etobicoke North Zaya Yonan Scarborough Southwest Elton Pinto Etobicoke-Lakeshore Tom Engelhart Scarborough-Agincourt Catherine Shum Glengarry-Prescott-Russell Roxanne Taillon Scarborough-Rouge River Al Joseph Guelph-Wellington Elsayed Abdelaal Simcoe North Georgette Amadio Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant Jon Kristman Simcoe-Grey Elaine Pommer Haliburton-Victoria-Brock Marie McLaren St. Catharines Ron Green Halton John Daley St. Paul’s Rick Smith Hamilton East Rose Arsenault Stoney Creek Sue Tiley Hamilton Mountain Jennie Stakich Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh David Proulx Hamilton West Frank O'Grady Sudbury Christine Robert Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington Dianne Carey Thornhill Paul Litowitz Huron-Bruce Scott Allen Thunder Bay-Atikokan Nuala Wieckowski Kenora-Rainy River Julia Craner Thunder Bay-Superior North Pam Patterson Kingston and the Islands Buddhadeb Chakrabarty Timiskaming-Cochrane Hal Willis Kitchener Centre Marcia Soeda Timmins-James Bay Lise Breton Kitchener-Waterloo Ron VanKoughnett Toronto Centre-Rosedale Mayte Darraidou Lambton-Kent-Middlesex Peter Soroka Toronto-Danforth Ekaterini Traikos Lanark-Carleton Bruno Steinke Trinity-Spadina Garth Nichols Leeds-Grenville Fran Byers Vaughan-King-Aurora John Reston London North Centre Catarina Fernandes Waterloo-Wellington Bill Ritz London West George Dennis Whitby-Ajax Ted Savelle London-Fanshawe Linda Barnum Willowdale Bryan Byong-Kuon Kim Markham Andreo Cornacchia Windsor West Marisa Squizzato Mississauga Centre Salma Aziz Windsor-St.Clair Mary Jane McMullen Mississauga East Carolyn Agasild York Centre Tom Ricci Mississauga South Ellen Chan York North Edmund James Mississauga West Patrick Heenan York South-Weston William Kwegyir-Aggrey Nepean-Carleton Peter Warren York West Nathan Duru-Obisi Niagara Centre Stephanie Jones Niagara Falls Salvación Villamil Members of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly

4-1 Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform Public Consultation Reports