mmp goes on in a huge defeat


Last night, the people of Ontario had a rare opportunity to change the way our electoral system works, instead the citizens overwhelmingly chose to keep the status quo. But really, did the referendum question ever have a chance? First, the nearly impossible double 64/60 super majority pretty much disqualified the hopes of Ontario moving towards a more proportional representation. Results indicate it fell short of the 60% of the popular vote and no where the 64% support amongst the 103 ridings.

But going beyond the technicalities that made MMP nearly impossible, the referendum demonstrated the political culture of Ontario in which so few of us are willing to rock the boat. Majority governments in Queen's Park are the norm and people of the province seem content with it. We prefer electing single party majorities than having parties align themselves along political accords or coalitions, which with MMP would be the new norm. If the government in charge at time of election is taking a cautious middle of the road approach in their campaign, Ontarians give them the benefit of the doubt and renew their mandate. No better proof that 1943 to 1985 the "Big Blue" PC Party reigned as Ontario's successive government. After some turbulence and political instability throughout of the 1990s of left-leaning NDP followed by the neo-conservative government of Mike Harris, Ontarians are settling for the middle of the road with the Liberals. There is nothing extra ordinary about Dalton McQuinty and his Liberals to suggest his party is worthy of a second consecutive majority. The party has managed to tap into the mantra of Ontario politics that "bland works" after a shaky start in its first mandate.

The defeat of the MMP proposal is an indication that Ontarians are satisfied with the state of Ontario politics and how we choose our governments. Perhaps, the debate was limited and there was little in the way of discourse what the proposed changes would mean, but having the major parties stay out of the debate was almost necessary. Tangling party politics and electoral reform certainly would fog the issue. McQuinty was correct in setting up the Citizen's Assembly to look into reform and stay out of it beyond that. More importantly, he benefits from the existing system and had little incentive to alter the way things are done.

Perhaps, this was opportunity to inject democratic vigor into our system as no student of electoral politics can deny MMP improves representation of women and minorities making the legislature more reflective of its society. However, the referendum came at the wrong time and in the wrong context. Had the issue come up in the 1995 elections when Ontarians were consecutively electing parties of all political stripes with each previous election, the question of electoral reform would be a critical issue on our minds. This year is a throw back to the "Big Blue" era of PC politics where bland works. If anything, PC's campaign promise of extending faith-based school funding rocked the boat of the existing educational system and sunk their campaign in its first week.

Sure, first-past-the-post is an antiquated system going back centuries in the UK and a system imposed on the once colony of Canada, but it's proven to be remarkably stable and creating decisive governments. Over the next four years, Ontarians have to judge the performance of only the Liberals and no one else really. If, by the next election they are dissatisfied with the course in which the province is heading, two prospective governments are waiting in the wings: NDP and PC. And not to mention, the rising strength of the Green Party which is bound to make further inroads with the coming federal election.

The remarkable strength of first-past-the-post is not how easy we elect majorities but how easy we can throw them out of office in the next election.


Dailies

old thoughts become new revelations