An Open Letter to Frank Klees
Dear Mr. Klees,
It was with great interest that I read your campaign advertorial in the Sept. 28th Era-Banner in which you outlined your objections to the proposed MMP system of voting brought forward by the Citizens’ Assembly.
You contend that the Citizens’ Assembly, “did not consult broadly enough, nor was it objective in it’s approach.” In fact the Assembly spent 3 months studying, in depth, both the current Ontario electoral system and the electoral systems used by other democracies around the world. Additionally they spent 4 months in consultations with the public, holding 41 public meetings across the province, reading written submissions and undertaking both special and community outreach. Over 3000 Ontarians communicated their views with the assembly. I fail to see how the Assembly failed to be objective, or that the consultations were not sufficiently broad.
You go on to say, “I strongly object to the concept proposed under the MMP system … under which 39 people would be appointed to the legislature by their Parties rather than be directly elected. These so called “List Members” will have the same rights, privileges and responsibilities as an elected MPP, but will be accountable only to their Party bosses. This is not democracy as I understand it.”
Firstly, list members would not be “appointed” by their parties. Both the people on the list, and the process the party used to create the list, will have to be made public well in advance of the election date. Voters will have the same opportunity to scrutinize the list candidates as they have to scrutinize their local candidates. If a voter doesn’t like the chosen candidates or the process by which they were selected then they simply do not vote for that party, in exactly the same way that they do not vote for a local candidate whom they do not support.
On accountability; the list members, rather than being accountable to only the people in their local riding, are, in fact, accountable to the people of the entire province, since that is where their votes come from. If a list MPP fails to do an acceptable job in the legislature and still appears high on the party’s list in the next election voters can simply choose not to support that party with their vote.
Will they be any more beholding to their party than locally elected MPPs? I doubt it. In our legislature whipped votes are the norm, individual MPPs are generally forced to vote with the party lest they face demotion from cabinet, censure or even expulsion. Finally, of course list MPPs would have the same rights, privileges and obligations as locally elected MPPs, they were elected by the voters too after all. This includes the obligation to carry out their legislative duties with the best interests of the citizens of Ontario in mind.
Is it democracy as you understand it to allow the voice of the majority of Ontarians to go unheard? Is it truly democratic to have a majority government that receives a minority of the votes. Clearly not.
You assert that since list members, “get appointed according to the percentage of popular vote, [this] will open the door to multiple parties having one or two seats and will result in perpetual minority governments.” Perhaps it will, (although colaition governments are more likely, ) but if that is the will of the people then so be it. The legislature is meant to be a representation of the populace. If the populace wants a minority government with representation from many parties, then that is what it should get. That is what democracy is all about. Our current system supports false majorities and increases regionalism. MMP seeks to remedy that by making all votes count equally regardless of where they come from in the province. More importantly, any government that receives a clear majority under MMP can truly say they have a mandate from the people to implement their programs.
Using Italy as an example of how an MPP elected government would work (or not) is a bit specious. Why not look at the examples of Germany (very stable governments over the past decades) or New Zeland which has sucessfuly run under MMP since 1996.
I am truly surprised that you take the Premier to task for not expressing his own view on the issue. Surely you can understand, having been a government member in the past, that the Premier must remain publicly neutral on any referendum question. Support on either side of the question could bias the results. In fact, it is my supposition, that if Mr. McGuinty had taken a public stand on the referendum that you, and other politicians, would have slammed him, (and rightly so,) for using his position to influence the voters of Ontario.
Now, lest you think that I am in complete disagreement with you, we find common ground on this point: “We need to empower MPPs to truly represent their constituents rather than to simply puppet Party lines. Members must be given the freedom to vote according to their conscience, and to carry out their responsibilities with dignity and respect.”
Fixing the electoral system to accurately reflect the will of the people is only the first step. It is up to those elected representatives to work together to raise the bar for conduct in the legislature.
Sincerely,
Jordon Davidson
Constituent in the Riding of Newmarket-Aurora