The Regional Proportional Preferential Vote (RPPV)

A Presentation to the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform—

by Matthew Rae

Ottawa, Ontario

29 January 2007 Table of Contents

page

Introduction 2

Tallying the Results, Step 1 of 2 – Determining Proportionality 6

Tallying the Results, Step 2 of 2 – MPPs 8

By-elections 13

Sunday elections 14

Conclusions 15

Addendum – RPPV applied to Ontario results of the 2006 Federal Election 17

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 1 Introduction

The electoral method outlined in this paper is based on the principles of

proportionality, with as many votes as possible being counted, flexibility and

choice for the voter, ease of understanding, taking some power out of parties’

hands, and allows for the local and regional, and province-wide issues to be

addressed by the voter. It is a method that I have formulated myself and uses

the best attributes of several systems.

It is a method whereby voters are asked to choose the party they want to

form government by ranking a list of the party’s candidates in their legislative region according to their order of preference; hence the name the Regional

Proportional Preferential Vote (RPPV). Whilst the current riding structure is retained and candidates are nominated through normal party procedures, the ridings are grouped into 11 regions of anywhere form 7-11 per region. It is a

preferential ballot that is filled out according to the Borda Count, a way of electing

candidates by awarding points to several candidates based on their ranking by

the voters.

Our province has particular regions that often share the same culture,

economic interests, and challenges. To reflect this, the RPPV groups existing ridings into regions. An example of this is the region of Erie, St. Clair, and

London which comprises 10 ridings encompassing the cities of London and

Windsor as well as the surrounding communities and counties that form economic and other attachments to them. The following is a chart of how I envisage these regions would look under the changes provided for in Bill 214

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 2 increasing the number of ridings to 107 (although suggestions and amendments to this are more than welcome).

Fig 1. A breakdown of the ridings and regions under the RPPV (with the future 107 ridings)

Regions Ridings incorporated into the Number of Ridings in Regions Region 1. Ottawa -Carleton—Mississippi Mills 7 -Nepean—Carlton - -Ottawa—Orleans - -Ottawa—Vanier -—Nepean 2. -Glengarry—Prescott—Russell 7 -Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox & Addington - -Leeds—Grenville -Prince Edward—Hastings -Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke -Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry 3.Simcoe and Durham -Barrie 10 -Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound -Dufferin—Caledon -Durham -Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock -Northumberland and Quinte West -Peterborough -Simcoe—Grey - -York—Simcoe 4. Durham and York -Markham—Unionville 9 -Oak Ridges—Markham -Oshawa -Ajax—Pickering -Richmond Hill -Pickering— -Thornhill -Vaughn -Whitby—Ajax 5. -Beaches— 11 -Davenport - - -Eglinton—Lawrence -Parkdale—High Park -St. Paul’s - -Toronto—Danforth -Trinity—Spadina -—Weston

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 3 6. , York, and -Etobicoke Centre 11 Scarborough -Etobicoke—Lakeshore -Etobicoke—North -Scarborough—Agincourt -Scarborough—Centre -Scarborough—Guildwood -Scarborough—Rough River -Scarborough—Southwest -Willowdale - -York West 7. Peel -Bramalea—Gore—Malton 9 -—Springdale - -— -—Cooksville -Mississauga—Erindale -Mississauga South -Mississauga—Streetsville -Oakville 8. Niagara -Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough— 10 Westdale -Burlington -Halton - -Hamilton East—Stoney Creek - -Niagara Falls -—Glanbrook -St. Catharines -Welland 9. Midwestern Ontario -Brant 11 -Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound -Cambridge -Guelph -Haldimand—Norfolk -Huron—Bruce - -Kitchener—Conestoga -Kitchener—Waterloo -Perth—Wellington -Wellington—Halton Hills 10. Erie, St. Clair, and -Chatham—Kent—Essex 11 London -Elgin—Middlesex—London -Essex -Lambton—Kent—Middlesex - -London—Fanshawe - -Oxford -Sarnia—Lambton -Windsor—Tecumseh - 11.Northern Ontario -Algoma—Manitoulin 11 -Kenora—Rainey River -

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 4 -Nipissing -Parry Sound—Muskoka -Sault Ste. Marie -Sudbury -Thunder Bay—Atikokan -Thunder Bay—Superior North -Timiskaming-Cochrane -Timmins—James Bay

Using the example of the region of Ottawa and the candidates in that region who stood for election in 2003 (when there were six ridings in the city), we see that the RPPV ballot would have resembled that in Fig. 2. Note also that candidates standing under a minor party’s banner (e.g. Communist Party,

Libertarian, etc.) would also be included on this ballot but for the sake of simplicity and space they were not included in this example. The parties are listed from left to right in alphabetical order and within each party column the candidates are listed in alphabetical order. Those in the “Other” column which would be in the last column of the ballot would be “No Affiliation” or

“Independent” candidates.

Fig 2. An example of the RPPV Ballot for the Ottawa Region (2003 Election)

Green Liberal NDP Progressive- Other Conservative Adair, Neil McGuinty, Dalton Atkinson, Jeff Baird, John Bradshaw, Chris McNeely, Phil Dagenais, Ric Coburn, Brian Chernushenko, Meilleure, McCarthy, Liam Guzzo, Garry David Madeleine Ransom, Melanie Patten, Richard McLaren, Lamirande, Maurice James Takach, Matt Vanier, Rod Rivier, Marlene Raymond, Richard Thierrin, Raphaël Watson, Jim Zebrowski, Verner, Joe Joseph

The name of the riding and the region the voter is voting in would be indicated in the voting booth on an information sheet. The same sheet would also indicate the ridings affiliated with each candidate as well as instructions on

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 5 how to vote. Needless to say, a familiarisation campaign would be needed in the weeks and months preceding Election Day. Furthermore, the candidates all running for the same party would all campaign together, handing out literature that would explain a little about themselves.

Instructions on how to vote could resemble the following:

• In order to vote for a party you must rank at least one of the party’s candidates listed

underneath the party name by marking a “1” in the box next to your choice for MPP. You

don’t necessarily have to vote for your choice of party’s candidate in your riding.

• You may rank the other candidates for the same party in sequential order according to

your preference (up to six on this ballot) until all of the candidates have been ranked.

• You may not skip numbers but you may rank just one if you like, or two, the choice is

yours. However, non-sequential ballots (e.g. marked with a 1 and 6 without numbers 2-5

also ranked) will be disqualified.

• You can only rank one party’s candidates [ranking a party’s candidate(s) is a vote for that

party].

• To vote for a candidate with no party affiliation (independent or non-affiliated) then simply

mark an “X” beside your choice as you would on the old style ballot. If you vote for an

independent then your ballot is then complete.

• If you have any questions then please ask the Elections Canada staff who will be pleased

to respond to your queries.

Tallying the results, Step 1 of 2 – Determining Proportionality

From the results of this ballot, the pure numbers are drawn. The number that is used for the RPPV is the percentage of the vote a party enjoys (taken to four decimal places). More precisely, the percentage from each of the 6 regions is used to determine the number of MPPs who will be elected from each party.

As a demonstration, the results from the 2003 provincial election shall be used.

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 6 At this stage the preferences are not considered; rather the pure numbers to

determine proportionality are of concern. All spoiled ballots are removed from

the boxes and the ballots sorted according to party and independent votes as the

counting is done. The region of Ottawa consists of six ridings and the support for

the mainstream parties in the ridings were as follows.

Fig. 3 The election results of the 2003 provincial election in the region of Ottawa

Riding GP Lib. NDP PC Nepean—Carlton 2,200 20,878 3,828 31,662 Ottawa—Centre 3,821 22,295 11,362 11,217 Ottawa—Orleans 1,402 25,300 2,778 28,762 Ottawa South 1,741 24,647 4,306 16,413 Ottawa—Vanier 1,876 22,188 6,507 10,878 Ottawa West—Nepean 1,309 23,127 4,099 20,277 Total: 12,349 138,435 32,880 111,209 Share of vote: 4.17% 46.78% 11.11% 37.58% Seats awarded: 0 3 1 2

Based on this popular vote within the Ottawa region, the parties that had a

high enough of the popular vote to win a portion of the six seats available were

the Liberals (3), the PCs (2), and the NDP (1). The translation to seats from the

total number of votes in the region and thus the vote share as a percentage is

calculated as follows using the example of the results of the Liberals in Ottawa.

If an independent received a high enough of a percentage then s/he would also

be included on the chart above.

1st – Find vote share as a percentage

138,435 (number of votes cast for Liberal Party in Ottawa) = 46.78% of popular vote 295,959 (total number of votes cast in region for all parties/candidates)

2nd – Assign seats to party based on number of ridings in the region

0.4678 x 6 (number of ridings in region) = 2.8 = 3 (must round up to get whole number)

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 7 Tallying the Results, Step 2 of 2 – MPPs

Now that the pure numbers have been determined it is now time to put faces to those numbers. To do this, the preferences are counted using the Borda

Count (BC). Developed in 1770 by Jean-Charles de Borda, a French mathematician who also constructed the standard metre, the Borda Count is a ranked preferential voting system. While used in a small number of legislatures and in other institutions, the Borda Count is a system whose attributes have unfortunately been forgotten over time. The Borda count determines the winner of an election by giving each candidate a certain number of points corresponding to the position in which he or she is ranked by each voter. Once all votes have been counted the candidate with the most points is the winner. Because it sometimes elects broadly acceptable candidates, rather than those preferred by the majority, the Borda count is often described as a consensus-based electoral system, rather than a majoritarian one.

The following provides an explanation of how the BC works. In sum, the candidates are awarded points according to how high they are ranked by the voters. In other words, the candidate that gets the most first place rankings will not necessarily be elected if someone less favoured receives stronger second or even third ranking support. Points are awarded according to the total number of ridings in the region (n); thus in the example of the Ottawa region there are, for the four major parties, six candidates per party (this could be smaller if some parties cannot muster enough candidates to stand within each riding, ie. the

Communists, Family Coalition Party, etc.). The points are awarded according to

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 8 the following table with n equalling 6. Each vote for an independent is given full points, 6.

Fig. 4 Formula for awarding points

Ranking Formula Points (n=6) 1st n-1 5 2nd n-2 4 3rd n-3 3 4th n-4 2 5th n-5 1 6th n-6 0

To continue the example, let’s use the Liberal Party’s results in Ottawa

again since they must elect the most candidates (3) and can illustrate the effects

of the BC best. The Liberals elect three candidates based on the results from

Step 1. For simplicity’s sake, small numbers in multiples of 5 were used.

Fig. 5 Number of points awarded to each Liberal candidate in the Ottawa Region

Candidate First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth McGuinty, Dalton 40 30 5 10 30 0 McNeely, Phil 5 5 20 20 0 0 Meilleure, Madeleine 20 15 30 20 0 40 Patten, Richard 8 5 5 20 20 30 Vanier, Rod 2 15 15 20 20 0 Watson, Jim 25 30 25 10 30 30

It can be seen from the above that Dalton McGuinty was ranked first by 40

Liberal voters, second by 30, third by 5, fourth by 10, fifth by 30, and sixth by no

voters. To give points to each candidate for these rankings we use the formula

as explained above whereby a candidate receives 5 points (6-1) for every 1st place ranking, 4 points for every 2nd place ranking, and so on until 0 points are

awarded for sixth place rankings.

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 9 Thus when McGuinty’s points are added up the result is calculated as follows:

(40 x 5)+(30 x 4)+(5 x 3)+(10 x 2)+(30 x 1)+(0 x 0) = 385 points

Fig. 6 below shows an example of a possible outcome of the other Liberal

candidates in Ottawa.

Fig. 6 Borda Count points for Liberal candidates in Ottawa

Candidate First SecondThird Fourth Fifth Sixth Total Points McGuinty, Dalton 40 30 5 10 30 0 385 McNeely, Phil 5 5 20 20 0 0 145 Meilleure, Madeleine 20 15 30 20 0 40 295 Patten, Richard 8 5 5 20 20 30 225 Vanier, Rod 2 15 15 20 20 0 175 Watson, Jim 25 30 25 10 30 30 370

The results indicate that McGuinty enjoys the greatest support of all his

fellow Liberal candidates in the Ottawa Region. The Liberal candidate with the

least amount of support in the region is Phil McNeely at 145 points. The Liberals

must elect three MPPs as the results from Step 1 indicated. Therefore the three

top Liberal candidates ranked the highest become MPPs; they are Dalton

McGuinty (385 points), Jim Watson (370 points), and Madeleine Meilleure (295

points). If a tie occurs then the candidate with the greatest number of first rank

ballots is considered, the candidate with the most being elected. If a tie is still

encountered then the second rank ballots are taken into consideration and so on

until the sixth rank is counted.

Exactly the same process would follow for the PC candidates except the

candidates with the two highest point totals would be elected and for the NDP

just the candidate with the highest total would be elected (from the proportionality

results in Step 1). In the other regions across the province the same process

would occur except it would be more challenging in areas where more members

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 10 must be elected since the voter must be more familiar with a greater number of

candidates. For example, in the region of Northern Ontario there are 11 MPPs to

elect. Although it would make sense to perhaps divide the region in two, the

proportional aspect would suffer as a consequence. In the case of the Ottawa

Region there were no seats awarded to the non-mainstream and movement

parties (e.g. Green Party, Family Coalition Party, Communist, etc.). These seat

total numbers are very close to the final provincial wide numbers and the

proportionate seat totals it would have projected which were the following:

Fig. 7 Province wide proportionality vs. Regional proportionality (2003 results)

Party Popular Seat Projection on a Province-wide Seat Projection under Support basis RPPV (province wide) Liberal 46.4 48 51 PC 34.6 36 34 NDP 14.7 15 17 GP 2.8 3 1 FCP 0.8 1 0

The difference in results between the two systems is that the RPPV

favours the Liberals and the NDP and disfavours the PCs, Greens, and the FCP.

This is due to the necessity of rounding that takes place when it comes to

assigning the number of MPPs per party in the regions. The following is a

region-by-region result of how many MPPs representing which parties would

result from the first ballot using the results of the 2003 election.

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 11 Fig. 8 Province wide party distribution by region under the RPPV

Region GP Liberal NDP PC Ottawa 0 3 1 2 Eastern Ontario 0 4 1 3 Simcoe and Durham 0 4 1 5 Durham and York 1 3 1 3 Toronto 0 5 3 2 Etobicoke, York, and Scarborough 0 6 1 4 Peel 0 4 1 3 Niagara 0 5 2 4 Midwestern Ontario 0 6 1 3 Erie, St. Clair, and London 0 5 2 3 Northern Ontario 0 6 3 2 Total: 1 51 17 34

Of particular note here is that parties that have not traditionally elected a candidate from a certain region, do so under the RPPV. For example, the PCs elect two candidates in Toronto and two in Northern Ontario. Other examples show that the Green Party would have elected a member in the region of Durham and York; the NDP would have one MPP from Eastern Ontario and at least one

MPP from every single region including three from Northern Ontario.

The advantages of regional proportionality are profound. For a long time some people have decided how to vote based on their favoured party’s perceived chances of winning in the riding. For example, someone living in Northern

Ontario who wishes to vote for the PC party may hesitate in doing so, so as not to “waste” his or her vote on a party that has “no chance of winning”. They would instead vote for another party or simply not vote at all thereby obscuring the electorate’s true political desire. The RPPV would go some way in addressing this problem since many more votes are counted and it can now safely be said that a party can no longer dominate a particular region.

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 12 Another advantage to the RPPV in this regard lies in the composition of

the cabinet after the election campaign. Given our province’s large regional

variations, Premiers have for a long time tried to strike a regional balance in the

composition of their cabinets. This is chiefly for political as well as practical

reasons. Politically, they want to curry favour with the residents of a particular

region by having a cabinet minister from the area. Practically, they want to have someone from a particular region who will, because of his/her attachment to the area, have a particular expertise or appreciation for his/her portfolio (e.g. having a Natural Resources minister from Northern Ontario). This would be made easier under the RPPV since all of the mainstream parties elected MPPs from all of the 11 regions.

By-elections

In the event of an MPP resigning his or her seat or vacating it for any other

reason, the normal practice is for the Premier to call a by-election within a given

timeframe. This is however very problematic since the advantage is for the

governing party to call a by-election whenever it is politically convenient for them

to do so regardless of the needs of the constituents of the riding in question.

Under the RPPV by-elections would come to an end.

Returning to the example of the region of Ottawa, John Baird, the MPP for

Nepean—Carleton, resigned his seat to stand for the federal Parliament thereby

creating a vacancy and thus a by-election. Under the RPPV his place at Queen’s

Park would immediately be filled by the candidate that finished in third placed on

the second ballot of PC candidates (third place because only two candidates

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 13 needed to be elected from the PC Party in Ottawa on the second ballot). The

constituents would therefore have an immediate replacement for their departing

MPP. In this sense, all candidates that did not get elected on Election Day could

see themselves as “MPPs in waiting”.

The advantages to doing away with by-elections are numerous. Not only

would the political advantage be less to the governing party but the cost of

holding a by-election would save the taxpayers potentially millions of dollars over

the course of the parliament’s tenure. Furthermore, in the case of a fragile

government in a minority or coalition situation, the scales could not easily be tipped by a seat changing hands and bringing the government down prematurely.

Sunday Elections

As a side note to the main point of this paper, I suggest that the Citizen’s

Assembly, if it be in their power to do so, keep the fixture of set election dates but

move them to a set date in October on a Sunday. Although this is traditionally a

sacred day with Christians I don’t think an election day would interfere with the

observation of Christian principles and practices. Many European nations hold elections on Sundays and it seems to work very well. One of the biggest advantages to holding elections on Sundays is an increased likelihood of voter turnout. Most people do not work on Sundays and are not in school on Sundays so would not have to take time to go before or after their work week

commitments.

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 14 Conclusions

To tie up so loose ends, it could well be the case that a particular riding has members with no one elected in it; in other words all of the MPPs of the region come from only 5 or six ridings. This however would be compensated for by the fact that voters would have multiple MPPs with whom they could raise issues. As it stands right now, in some ridings the MPP’s office could be on the other side of the riding, hundreds of miles away. Therefore it would be nothing new for constituents to be physically far from their MPP; it already exists.

Furthermore, communication technology today allows for MPPs to be arguably even more accessible now than they have ever been.

Another question that may arise is that of “who is my MPP?” The answer to that is everyone shares the same MPPs in the region. What would be encouraged though is for voters to contact the MPP for whose party s/he voted.

For example, if Bob in North Bay voted for the NDP then he would contact one of the NDP MPPs for whom he voted in the election.

This paper has made the case for the RPPV to be adopted by the

Citizen’s Assembly. It is a system which adopts the best attributes of several systems while leaving a role for the parties to play in nominating their candidates.

The merits of the system are based on what I see as being important to an electoral system (in this order): proportionality, more choice and flexibility given to voters, less power given to politicians (e.g. by-elections), relatively easy to understand, and addresses the regional concerns that play such a large part in

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 15 politics in our province and in our country. Thank you for your work and please

feel free to reach me if there are any queries.

Matthew Rae

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 16 Addendum—RPPV applied to Ontario results of the 2006 Federal Election

For interest’s sake and to provide further examples, the following is an application of the RPPV to the Ontario results of the 2006 Federal Election.

Various comments are given which show the strengths and weaknesses of the system. There are 106 federal ridings in Ontario at present therefore 54 seats would be needed to form a majority government. Sources for this come from the

Elections Canada website (www.elections.ca)

1. Ottawa

Region Liberal Conservative NDP GP Carleton—Mississippi Mills 16,360 39,004 8,677 4,544 Nepean—Carleton 20,111 39,512 8,274 3,976 Ottawa Centre 19,468 15,105 24,609 6,765 Ottawa—Orleans 24,224 25,455 9,354 2,377 Ottawa South 27,158 23,028 8,138 2,913 Ottawa—Vanier 23,567 15,970 12,145 3,675 Ottawa West—Nepean 20,250 25,607 9,628 2,941 Total: 151,138 183,681 80,825 27,191 Percentage: 33.69 40.96 18.02 6.06 Seats: 2.3583 2.8672 1.2614 0.4242 2 3 1 1

Total votes for all parties and independents: 448,494

2. Eastern Ontario

Region Liberal Conservative NDP GP Glengarry—Prescott—Russell 22,787 22,990 7,049 2,494 Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox & Addington 14,709 30,367 9,604 3,115 Kingston 28,548 16,230 11,946 5,006 Leeds—Grenville 12,661 28,447 7,945 3,003 Prince Edward—Hastings 18,034 27,787 8,474 2,386 Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke 12,532 29,923 6,509 1,605 Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry 13,906 28,014 6,892 1,713 Total: 123,177 183,758 58,437 19,322 Percentage: 31.51 47.00 14.95 4.94 Seats 2.2057 3.2902 1.0465 0.3459 2 3 1 1

Total votes for all parties and independents: 390,944

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 17 NB. The results from Eastern Ontario demonstrate the difficulties sometimes in rounding the results to numbers of MPPs. The GP earns a seat here since they are the closest to the whole number (0.35) as compared to 0.21, 0.29, and .05 for the Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats respectively.

3. Simcoe and Durham

Riding Liberal Conservative NDP GP Barrie 22,456 23,999 6,978 3,875 Bruce Grey—Owen Sound 14,378 25,133 5,918 6,735 Dufferin—Caledon 14,777 23,641 5,983 4,912 Durham 17,290 27,087 9,946 2,676 Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock 17,266 29,427 10,340 3,017 Northumberland—Quinte West 22,566 25,833 11,334 2,946 Peterborough 20,532 22,774 16,286 3,205 Simcoe—Grey 18,689 30,135 6,784 3,372 Simcoe North 22,078 23,266 8,132 3,451 York—Simcoe 16,456 25,685 7,139 3,719 Total: 186,488 256,980 88,840 37,908 Percentage: 0.3237 0.4461 0.1542 0.0658 Seats: 3.27 4.460738 1.54 0.6580 3 4 2 1

Total votes for all parties and independents: 576,093

4. Durham South and York

Riding Liberal Conservative NDP GP Markham—Unionville 32,769 14,153 4,257 1,146 Oak Ridges—Markham 35,083 28,683 7,367 3,423 Oshawa 12,831 20,657 17,905 2,019 Ajax—Pickering 25,636 16,992 6,655 2,199 Richmond Hill 27,837 16,564 5,176 2,379 Pickering—Scarborough East 27,719 16,693 6,090 1,869 Thornhill 29,934 19,005 4,405 1,934 Vaughn 36,968 16,124 5,114 3,004 Whitby—Oshawa 25,882 29,294 8,716 2,407 Total: 254,659 178,165 65,685 20,380 Percentage: 0.4854 0.3396 0.1252 0.0388 Seats: 4.3686 3.0564 1.1268 0.3492 5 3 1 0

Total votes for all parties and independents: 524,665

NB: Liberals get 5 seats at the expense of the GP because they are closer to the extra seat 0.3686 to 0.3492

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 18 5. Toronto

Region Liberal Conservative NDP GP Beaches—East York 30,874 10,763 14,036 3,080 Davenport 20,172 4,202 12,681 1,440 Don Valley East 23,441 12,661 5,597 1,714 Don Valley West 28,709 17,908 4,902 1,906 Eglinton—Lawrence 26,044 14,897 5,660 2,520 Parkdale—High Park 18,489 8,777 20,790 2,840 St. Paul’s 29,295 15,021 11,189 2,785 Toronto Centre 30,874 10,763 14,036 3,080 Toronto—Danforth 17,256 4,992 24,412 3,583 Trinity—Spadina 25,067 5,625 28,748 2,398 York South—Weston 22,871 6,991 8,525 1,506 Total: 273,092 113,600 150,576 26,852 Percentage: 0.4841 0.2014 0.2669 0.0475 Seats: 5.3251 2.2151 2.9361 0.5235 5 2 3 1

Total votes for all parties and independents: 564,120

6. Etobicoke, York, and Scarborough

Riding Liberal Conservative NDP GP Etobicoke Centre 29,509 18,702 5,426 2,111 Etobicoke Lake 24,337 19,613 8,685 2,853 22,195 8,049 3,820 950 Scarborough—Agincourt 28,065 10,684 4,969 1,120 Scarborough Centre 23,332 11,522 5,884 1,396 Scarborough—Guildwood 21,877 11,790 5,847 1,235 Scarborough—Rouge River 30,285 9,432 4,972 754 19,930 10,017 9,626 1,827 Willowdale 30,623 16,254 6,297 2,268 York Centre 22,468 12,828 5,813 1,560 York West 21,418 6,244 4,724 1,002 Total: 274,039 135,135 66,063 17,076 Percentages: 55.00 27.12 13.26 3.43 Seats: 6.0506 2.9837 1.4586 0.3770 6 3 2 0

Total votes for all parties and independents: 498,205

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 19 7. Peel

Riding Liberal Conservative NDP GP Bramalea—Gore—Malton 25,348 16,367 6,343 1,721 Brampton—Springdale 22,294 14,492 8,345 1,853 Brampton West 27,988 20,345 6,310 2,340 Mississauga—Brampton South 27,370 15,605 5,521 1,927 Mississauga East—Cooksville 23,530 14,326 5,180 1,393 Mississauga—Erindale 26,852 23,524 6,644 2,613 Mississauga South 23,018 20,888 5,607 2,393 Mississauga—Streetsville 23,913 18,121 6,929 2,334 Oakville 25,892 25,148 5,815 2,872 Total: 226,205 168,816 56,694 19,446 Percentage: 47.48 35.43 11.89 4.0812 Seats: 4.2727 3.1887 1.0709 0.3673 4 3 1 1

Total votes for all parties and independents: 476,474

8. Niagara

Riding Liberal Conservative NDP GP Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale 21,656 24,530 13,376 2,767 Burlington 25,431 28,030 8,090 3,471 Halton 28,680 30,577 6,114 3,843 Hamilton Centre 11,224 9,696 24,503 2,022 Hamilton East—Stoney Creek 18,880 13,581 19,346 1,573 Ham. Mountain 18,704 15,915 21,970 1,517 Niagara Falls 20,092 23,485 12,209 2,402 Niagara West—Glanbrook 17,712 27,351 9,251 2,284 St. Catherines 21,423 21,669 11,848 2,305 Welland 20,267 16,678 17,492 1,960 Total: 204,069 211,512 144,199 24,144 Percentage: 34.71 35.98 24.53 4.11 Seats: 3.471 3.598 2.453 0.411 4 4 2 0

Total votes for all parties and independents: 587,943

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 20 9. Midwestern Ontario

Riding Liberal Conservative NDP GP Brant 24,068 10,955 3,580 484 Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound 14,378 25,133 5,918 6,735 Cambridge 19,419 25,337 9,794 3,017 Guelph 23,662 18,342 13,561 5,376 Haldimand—Norfolk 18,363 25,885 6,858 1,894 Huron—Bruce 21,260 20,289 8,696 1,829 Kitchener Centre 21,714 16,131 9,253 2,822 Kitchener Conestoga 20,615 19,246 7,445 2,706 Ktichener Waterloo 31,136 18,817 11,889 4,889 Perth—Wellington 12,301 22,004 8,876 3,117 Wellington—Halton Hills 16,065 27,907 6,785 3,362 Total: 222,981 230,046 92,655 36,231 Percentage: 36.56 37.72 15.19 5.94 Seats: 4.0219 4.149 1.6712 0.6535 4 4 2 1

Total votes for all parties and independents: 609,854

10. Erie, St. Clair, and London

Riding Liberal Conservative NDP GP Chatham—Kent—Essex 15,204 20,820 10,875 1,737 Elgin-Middlesex-London 13,517 23,416 9,873 2,873 Essex 19,510 23,125 12,993 1,507 Lambton—Kent—Middlesex 16,835 25,170 9,330 2,156 London North Centre 24,109 17,968 14,271 3,300 London—Fanshawe 15,199 13,495 16,067 1,803 London West 23,019 21,690 13,056 2,900 Oxford 13,961 23,140 8,639 1,566 Sarnia—Lambton 17,649 21,841 10,673 1,712 Windsor—Tecumseh 13,413 12,851 22,646 1,644 Windsor West 12,110 9,592 23,608 1,444 Total: 184,526 213,108 152,031 22,642 Percentage: 31.63 36.53 26.06 3.88 Seats: 3.4796 4.02 2.87 0.4269 4 4 3 0

Total votes for all parties and independents: 583,340

NB. Problem here comes down to either awarding the GP a seat or the Liberals an extra one. The Liberals get it here because they are closer to the whole number (0.48 to 0.43).

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 21 11. Northern Ontario

Region Liberal Conservative NDP GP Algoma.—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing 14,652 8,957 13,244 1,025 Kenora 9,937 8,434 8,149 692 Nickle.Belt 19,775 5,732 17,668 975 Nipissing—Timiskaming 21,393 16,511 8,268 1,698 Parry Sound—Muskoka 18,485 18,513 5,472 3,701 Sault Ste. Marie 15,825 11,099 17,979 1,056 Sudbury 19,809 10,332 15,225 1,301 Thunder Bay—Rainy River 13,520 10,485 12,862 1,193 Thunder Bay—Superior North 14,009 8,578 13,601 2,231 Timmins—James Bay 13,003 5,173 19,195 578 Total: 160,408 103,814 131,663 14,450 Percentage: 0.3909 0.2529 0.3209 0.0352 Seats: 3.909 2.529 3.209 0.352 4 3 3 0

Total votes for all parties and independents: 410,335

Province wide results

Party Percentage of Support Seats Liberal 40.64 43 PC 34.37 36 NDP 19.18 21 GP 4.66 6 Others 1.15 0 Total 100 106

Regional Proportional Preferential Vote – Matthew Rae 22