A call to assembly

I for one didn't see it coming, but the Saskatchewan NDP has promised to convene a Citizens Assembly if it wins next month's provincial election:

A re-elected NDP government would hold a "citizens assembly" to look at lowering the voting age, introducing fixed election dates and making other changes to democracy in Saskatchewan, party leader Lorne Calvert says.

The assembly would be made up of "randomly chosen" Saskatchewan residents who would make recommendations to the legislature, Calvert said Friday.

They would examine a number of issues, ranging from fixed election dates to voting age to voter turnout.

Calvert said the panel could also discuss the possibility of a new electoral system as an alternative to the first-past-the-post system currently in place.

I'm not sure whether the focus on issues like fixed election dates and voting ages rather than electoral systems is based primarily on Calvert's own preferences, or the (however unfair) conventional wisdom arising out of Ontario's MMP vote. But Calvert's promise itself should help reverse any perception that electoral reform is done for - particularly if the NDP wins the election in part based on the commitment.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether the proposal will earn the attention it deserves - particularly given that it was made on the same day that the Sask Party unveiled its entire platform (or at least those parts which hadn't yet been leaked). But it's nonetheless remarkable for a party which has succeeded so thoroughly in the existing structure to be taking the lead in looking for ways to improve how Saskatchewan votes.

And if Calvert's move can push swing votes into the NDP column based on the prospect of an improved electoral system, then both the NDP and the province stand to benefit substantially in the long run as a result.

On needless complexity

The Ontario Lib government's ballot question for this fall's referendum on electoral systems was released a couple of days ago. With that in mind, I'll take a moment to point out what strikes me as the biggest problem with the Libs' wording before any talk about the ballot itself gives way to an all-out push on the substantive issue.

The ballot question will be as follows:

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?/Quel système électoral l’Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l’Assemblée législative?

The existing electoral system (First-Past-the-Post)/L’actuel système électoral (système de la majorité relative)

The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens’ Assembly (Mixed Member Proportional)/L’autre système électoral proposé par l’Assemblée des citoyens (système de représentation proportionnelle mixte)

I have to agree to at least some extent with the Ontario NDP's concerns about the question. But Prue only seems to tangentially discuss the most striking problem I see in the question as phrased:

New Democrat critic Michael Prue said he's now even less confident that electoral reform will take place, and called the question biased since it lists the existing system first.

"Whenever you (ask people to) choose A or B, invariably, A has a much higher preponderance of being chosen than B," Prue said.

The question should have been framed with a yes or no option, asking voters if they wanted to adopt the new system supported by the citizens' assembly, he said.

Prue also complained the question wasn't presented to the legislature for approval and that the threshold to enact change is too high.

What Prue barely hints at is the clunky wording put together by the Libs - which, like so much of the process put together by McGuinty's government, seems aimed at offering a false sense of commitment to reform while subtly blocking any attempt to change the current system.

Consider by comparison what voters see on ordinary electoral ballots. Since these ballots are based solely on candidates' names and party affiliations, each candidate has two hooks to use to associate a single word with their desired message. And the ballot is arranged so that the voter will likely read both of those hooks for each candidate - without having to search for them in a jumble of words - before casting the ballot.

In a referendum process, a one-hook system is probably more feasible. A "yes/no" structure offers probably the best approximation of that relatively simple layout, while being familiar for those who have seen U.S. plebiscite advertising. (Not to mention that it would have allowed the putative "yes" side to make use of the associations it's been working on building for some time now, rather than having to start from scratch.)

But even a layout which simply asked - for example - "Which electoral system would you prefer to see used in Ontario? 'FPP' or 'MMP'", with accompanying materials to explain what those options mean for those who want to read more, would make for a far more fair playing field. With that type of minimalist ballot, both sides could try to link their message to a simple, three-letter term which will voters could find on the ballot without any difficulty.

Instead, the ballot as put together will make it unnecessarily problematic for the issue campaigns to attach their message to anything voters will read at the polls. At best, the "yes" campaign figures to try to hook into "alternative" and "Citizens' Assembly" - but both phrases figure to get lost on the ballot as planned, particularly with the clutter printed in two languages.

And for the "no" side, "existing" is hardly an inspiring or memorable message to tap into either. Though of course the combination of the needlessly cluttered wording and the high threshold for change may well create enough intertia to ensure that no actual campaign is needed to preserve the status quo.

Hopefully the push for electoral reform will be strong enough to overcome yet another needless obstacle. But between the disappointing starting point and the roadblocks put in place by the Libs, it's hard to be optimistic - no matter how popular MMP has proven to be among ordinary Ontarians given the chance to get informed.

On principle

The Star reports on another twist in the politics surrounding Ontario's MMP referendum this fall, as the Lib minister responsible for the file is stepping down based on Dalton McGuinty's politicization of the issue. But it remains to be seen what the move will mean for the referendum itself:

Sources say Democratic Renewal Minister Marie Bountrogianni is quitting politics in part because she is disillusioned with the way Premier Dalton McGuinty's officials are handling the referendum.

Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain) will stay on until the Oct. 10 election, but will not be running again...

One insider said last night that Bountrogianni, who has feuded with McGuinty's office over various policy matters since the Liberals took power in 2003, was displeased by the fact the government commissioned some polling about the referendum, which is to be held in conjunction with the election, on whether Ontario should adopt a form of proportional representation in the future.

The Liberals, who have so far remained non-committal on the referendum question, conducted polling on the extent to which Yes and No voters would be more or less likely to vote for the governing party in the election.

Bountrogianni, who has been careful to stay neutral throughout the democratic renewal process, was reportedly concerned the referendum vote was being politicized by such machinations.

Bountrogianni's concerns sound like fair ones from a personal standpoint, as there are certainly reasons for concern about McGuinty's apparent lack of any principle on the issue. But for those of us more interested in seeing MMP pass than in internal Lib machinations, I have to figure the polling itself will make for relatively good news.

As I'd noted earlier this week, all indications so far are that Ontario's Cons are holding their fire only until the Libs' wording is released, allowing them to campaign against the Libs directly on the issue rather than criticizing the findings of the citizens' assembly.

If the Cons do pursue that strategy, then there figures to be a strong overlap between "no" voters and anti-Lib voters - giving McGuinty every reason to be at least somewhat publicly supportive of the "yes" side. And with today's indication that McGuinty is indeed setting his position on MMP based on political convenience rather than any strong personal or party principles, that scenario is all the more likely to play out.

For once, cynical machinations among Ontario's most prominent politicians are apparently lining up in a way which could result in real positive change. The question now is whether the issue will play out as seems likely now - or whether there are surprises in store along the way.

The waiting game

Sun Media reports that the most prominent provincial figure who seemed likely to oppose MMP in Ontario is still sitting on the fence. And John Tory's continued indecision looks to be a good sign for the Yes side:

The man who would lead Ontario is seldom at a loss for words when asked what he plans to do...

But the leader of the Progressive Conservatives said he’s not sure yet what he thinks about the referendum question on the provincial ballot Oct. 10.

Voters will be asked if they want to change the electoral system to one that would reward political parties based on their share of the popular vote.

“I don’t know,” said the usually decisive Tory when asked when he or his party will adopt a position on the referendum question that would boost smaller parties.

Of course, it seems entirely likely that Tory will eventually wind up on the wrong side of the issue. But it looks like he's biding his time until he can claim that his problem is with the specific wording drafted by the McGuinty government rather than the conclusions of the Citizens' Assembly...which would still bode well for the Yes side's chances for a few reasons.

First, the interim in which Tory remains undecided figures to offer a significant head start to backers of electoral reform: presumably the No side will receive both less media attention and less public credence as long as there isn't a single party leader willing to speak on its behalf.

Second, if Tory is indeed looking to focus his attacks narrowly, that would seem to also suggest that Ontario's Cons aren't spoiling for a fight against PR on principle - which would in turn limit the range of arguments that the No side will be able to make without appearing splintered.

And finally, if Tory is indeed planning to focus future criticism primarily at the government's wording, then the Libs are in turn likely to try to defend their own actions. And that should eliminate much of the risk that the Libs and Cons could work together to try to preserve a first-past-the-post system.

That said, it's still far from sure that MMP will be able to clear the arbitrarily high hurdles set up by McGuinty. But it looks like the voting thresholds, not any particularly forceful opposition, will pose the greatest difficulty for electoral reform.

On unintended consequences

In and of itself, the Cons' proposal to increase the number of Ontario, B.C. and Alberta seats in the House of Commons looks to act as little more than an ineffective temporary diversion: a readjustment was set to take place around the same time anyway, and the likely anger from provinces which will receive proportionally less seats figures more than outweigh the gratitude of the provinces which will receive more.

But it's worth noting that while the plan may have little practical impact on the federal political scene, it may have a far greater effect in helping one of the Cons' least-desired democratic reforms to take root in Ontario.

After all, one of the most immediate criticisms of Ontario's proposed MMP system - and likely one of the most effective from a sheer populist perspective - has been the complaint that the province doesn't need more politicians.

But at last notice, the provincial Cons figured to be the primary opponents of the MMP plan. And it'll be awfully tough for Tory and company to make use of that argument when their federal cousins - led by some of the most prominent figures in the last provincial Con government - are actively increasing the number of legislators on the federal scene. Which means that the Ontario discussion figures to spend substantially more time on much more favourable territory for the "Yes" side.

In the end, Harper's most significant contribution to real democratic reform may be in the last way his party would have expected - or wanted - to influence how Canadians choose their leaders. And with any luck, a successful Ontario move toward more proportional voting will only be the beginning of a national trend.

A simple check

Via Dissidence, the Star reports that at the end of a process which was presumably aimed at putting the future of Ontario's electoral system in the hands of voters rather than politicians, the McGuinty cabinet will be responsive to absolutely nobody in drafting the question on MMP to be placed on the ballot this fall:

Premier Dalton McGuinty and his cabinet — and not an all-party legislative committee or a non-partisan outsider — will decide the Oct. 10 referendum question on changing Ontario’s electoral system.

"We'll have a question that is very clear for people to consider on the ballot and we'll take it from there," McGuinty told reporters this morning...

Democratic Renewal Minister Marie Bountrogianni said voters should not be worried that the Liberals will craft a question that favours the governing party in any way.

"Cabinet will frame the question. It will be simple, clear, concise. As the premier has told me, if my mother can’t understand it, we’re not doing it," said Bountrogianni.

But Progressive Conservative MPP Tim Hudak (Erie-Lincoln) and NDP MPP Michael Prue (Beaches-East York) said all parties should be involved in determining the question to ensure it is fair.

Both the article and Dissidence suggest some other means of ensuring a fair question. But from my perspective, the check on any question (whether drafted by cabinet alone or by a multi-party committee) should be obvious.

After all, it's the Citizens Assembly that's made the decision as to what type of system should be considered, and voted to have it put to Ontario's citizens this fall. Given the assembly's role as the final decision-maker in the process to date, is there any reason at all not to put the question itself to another assembly vote to make sure that the ballot question matches the assembly's intentions?