Speaking Out On Electoral "Reform"

Voters have hard questions to ask
April 18, 2007

Fall ballot on vote reform
April 16.

Most Ontarians would surely agree that changes are needed to the electoral system. However, the proposed changes seem to be even less democratic, since 39 representatives would be appointed, not directly elected by voters.

Voters should question who compiles the list of eligible appointees and who selects the winners. Voters should also question the increase of seats from 107 to 129. Do we really need the increased costs of more government?

The proposed changes seem designed more to appease political contenders than to give voters the representation of their choice. A more democratic system would have representatives elected by the process of elimination in somewhat the same way that parties elect their leaders. Voters could be given a first and second choice on the ballot, or the party with the fewest votes could be compelled to give their support to another party until one party has a clear majority of more that 50 per cent. To whom a losing party would give its support could be made an involuntary condition of the pre-election campaign.

Let's not rush to change simply for the sake of change. The main objective should be to give voters a clear majority of their choice, not to create a perpetual minority government whereby no one benefits except those who would have been eliminated had they not been appointed.

Eileen Hutcheson, Acton, Ont.

A defective proposal
April 18, 2007

Fall ballot on vote reform

April 16.

A panel of "normal" folks has been meeting for the past year to look at alternatives to the current "winner-takes-all" election formula in Ontario. They have come up with "mixed-member proportional" representation, which is used in Germany and Ireland. A large majority of the panel has recommended this system.

I can see a couple of flaws:

1) We are going to get 22 more politicians, 22 more salaries, 22 more benefits packages and 22 more support staff with salaries and benefits.

2) Thirty-nine of our representatives are going to be appointed by their parties. That means they are not responsible to the electorate. What if they are terrible representatives? Will this be a reward by the party for good service? What can be done if a poor appointee is selected year after year by their party? How can we get rid of them?

3) We will probably be faced with endless minority governments and coalitions. I know many people think this is a good thing, but if the government falls, are we going to be having election after election? Will we be like Italy?

I will not be voting for this new option. I do not want appointees running the government. Elected officials may not be smarter or better, but they are the ones we elected and they answer to their constituents.

Jack Hughes, Oakville