Professor Peter Woolstencroft is taking the coming referendum on Oct. 10 seriously – because he fears people might make a huge mistake and support it.
“I think people are suddenly aware that this is a monumental, going-over-Niagara-Falls decision,” he said in an interview. That is from someone who considers himself “a reformer. This is a bad decision.”
Woolstencroft has studied proportional vote systems and is aware of their strengths and defects. He does not like a Mixed Member Proportional voting system.
He said any type of design can be tricky, including a road, or bridge plan, or an electoral system. He cited the “Big Dig” running for years in Boston, costing billions of dollar. Recently a pair of the tunnels did not meet. He fears a change to the voter system could carry the same high cost.
“Physical systems are hard to get right.” The proposal for MMP “is flawed – and it’s too short a period” for consideration.Consider the risk and rewards. We need to think important things through.” A few months of summer and then six weeks of an election campaign is not enough time.
Woolstencroft and two other university professors outlined reasons to oppose the MMP system in a paper. He is from the Department of Political Science at the University of Waterloo; Rob Leone is with the Department of Political Science at Wilfrid Laurier University, and Mark Yaniszewski is with that Department at the University of Western Ontario.
The paper, signed by them but written by Woolstencroft, stated, “It has been said that the current system has problems. We are democratic reformers, but the proposed system is more flawed and will create even more problems.
“How we cast votes and elect politicians are more than technicalities. Election rules reflect significant values and create incentives for politicians. Changing an electoral system requires us to think about what we value. What incentive system do we really want?”
“With MMP, we will cast two votes. One, as now, will be for our local MPP (but with a total of 90 instead of the current 107). The other will be for our preferred party, leading, after complicated calculations, to the election of 39 “party list” parliamentarians. In theory, we will have a legislature reflecting the votes for parties (proportionality), and, it as assumed, more women and visibility minority MPPs.
“Proportionality will mean the end of majority governments and create a legislature composed of many parties preoccupied with power-bargaining and gaining short-term advantage. Parties will find it hard to plan.”
Woolstencroft also did not like the three per cent threshold for party-list MPPs, where a party needs three per cent of the total vote to win a seat, calling it “a threshold at the low end of the range for MMP systems: most are at five per cent. Our concern is MMP – in such a diverse and large province as Ontario – creates an incentive for people to form new parties in order to advance their interests. Political entrepreneurs will see that they can win seats without making a heavy effort to appeal to many voters.”
He added, “A multi-party legislature means that small and single-issue parties will be more important than their voting strength would otherwise warrant.”.
Proponents claim the MMP system will allow more diverse MPPs a say, but Woolstencroft believes that argument has “two fatal flaws in the party list idea. First, where people are placed on the list is crucial: placed first means election, last means defeat. So, having 30 women on the list is meaningless – if the top nine are men.”
“Second, Ontario is one constituency for the party-list candidates; parties are not required to list people from Ontario’s various regions. It is entirely possible for most party-list MPPs to hail from one region. This is great News for people living in, say, the GTA, but bad News for rural residents or Northern Ontarians.”
Woolstencroft said proponents do not talk about the way it works in many other places, where a party is required to win at least one seat before it can elect list members. He believes the Ontario proposal makes it far too easy for minority parties to win seats off their list.
Further, he said, “There should have been provision for regional party-list elections so no region is seriously under-represented in the legislature. As it is, the proposed MMP system may encourage the formation of regional parties.
Woolstencroft and his colleagues also noted, “The MMP proposal contains a new theory of representation. Instead of having MPPs in Queen’s Park who are locally-elected and expected to represent their district’s concerns there will be 39 MPPs who have no direct connection with or accountability to electors.
“That creates two classes of representatives, one known and responsible to their electors, the other answerable to party leaders who place people on the list and their ranking.
“The MMP designers did not require that party members (in regional conventions) choose the party list candidates. Citizens would have an incentive to join parties, thus invigorating an important part of our society.
“What are the party-list parliamentarians doing? Political science literature suggests the following: Constituency MPPs will be busy with local issues and dealing with concerns of constituents; party-list MPPs will be preoccupied with the legislature, doing party work, and meeting with interest groups.”
Woolstencroft said he talked with one retired politician who told him “MMP is better than tenure” at a university. Woolstencroft said he replied that even professors with guaranteed jobs still have to work but with MMP, “We have 39 people with no direct responsibility for an area.”
He suggested they will spend their time enjoying dinners with special interest groups and not have to answer to the voters.
The professors wrote, “MMP’s new theory of representation will radically change politics in Ontario. Perhaps it is a good idea that Queen’s Park has one group of MPPs who are directly connected to constituencies and other MPPs passing laws and imposing taxes who do not have to worry about personal re-election or even being re-nominated by local party members.
“For our part, we oppose a system of “representation without location.”
They noted proponents of MMP cite the system used in New Zealand as an example of an MMP system that works.
“They do not mention the lengthy decision-making process: a Royal Commission reported, followed by a referendum on electoral systems, then a second referendum on MMP. We should have had the same opportunity to learn, reflect, and decide.”
Woolstencroft noted those in favour of the system “hate the argument that most of the party lists will be from the GTA. Some part of Ontario will see itself not represented on the party lists.” He said, “The reason I’m distressed at this proposal – it’s just wacky. We need a longer discussion. New Zealand is not Ontario.”
He said the only thing the two have in common is both are 85 per cent urban. Ontario has three times the population and many times the size. “Even the urban areas are different,” he said. “To transfer the two [voting institutions] is a very dubious proposition.”
The professors concluded, “We urge Ontarians to retain FPTP, knowing that it has provided for stable, effective, and accountable government since before Confederation. The voting process is simple and the counting of votes is straightforward.”
