Monday, May 21, 2007

First past the post and last at the trough

For Northern Ontario proportional representation becomes an unmitigated political disaster. There is no benefit to any Northerner regardless of political loyalty.

Over the years Queen's Park drained every spare resource revenue from Northern Ontario. Never reinvesting unless the applicant is a major political supporter, the south only will accelerate its economic pillage unfettered by political audit.

All senior levels of government compose legislation satiating the inward desires of the urban voter in southern Ontario. The Gun Registry, the tax on diamonds, passports at the border, the banning of hunting contribute to the declines in northern commerce, in northern industry and northern populations.

There is no serious reinvestment in the North despite electoral campaign promises. Only a trifling percentage of those taxes revisit the North.

Depending on whether one defines Northern Ontario along the French I believe the North is left with eleven seats in the federal and provincial parliaments. Recently the federal government dangled twenty two new seats from Ottawa to Toronto.

No new seats for Northern Ontario though. In the last distribution the gnomes of democracy proposed one riding from Current River to the Western Border of Sudbury. Try being a representative of that.

Do the math. Even if Northern Ontario held onto its few ridings the proportional representation and the 22 new seats would add about 61 seats to the south. The North presently holds a bare ten percent voice which would fall instantly to four percent. A power reduction of more than 50%. Does anyone actually believe that ten percent of those proportional MPPs would come from the North.

Do you believe that any provincial party all of which are headquartered in Southern Ontario will pick northerners over thirty nine good old boys from 905? Numerically the growing Asian community in the Greater Toronto Area is a more important demographic than the few Northerners scattered over the vast land mass of Northern Ontario. Few no likely none of those 39 seats will be posted by northerners and I state none will.

This is a very critical point of time. If Northerners actually got together in a Bloc like party it would get no legislature funding because all of the seats must switch to be a party recognized by the speaker of the Ontario Legislature. In 2011 the party would have to win more than 16 seats for house debates and house funding. Consider that there is only a rump of 11 maybe 14 seats depending on where you define Northern Ontario. No Northern faction will receiver adequate funding.

Even then approximately 140,000 votes would be needed to qualify for any proportional representation. According to the new legislation a new party must get three percent of the popular vote to be recognized as entitled to add a proportional representative. And that would be only one representative.

If Northern Ontario was a separate province then proportional representation works politically. But when there is a vast discrepancy of population densities between the two parts of this province, then proportional representation works against the lesser population.

In 2011 it is very likely that Northern Ontario will possess no voice over its own affairs. Only 4% of the seats doesn't carry much weight in any caucus no matter what the present incumbents say.

Before that happens Northern Ontario must form its own political movement, its own political party for political separation to regain some form of self governance.

Its been proposed before and handled poorly. There was always time. Now that time has run out. Every single voter in Northern Ontario must vote against proportional representation. Let this referendum be the poll that asserts your rights. Deny southern Ontario its habitual oligarchy over your affairs, over your education system, over your power plants, over your resources, over your mines, over your roads, over your houses, and over your existence.

7 comments:

Unknown said...

3% of the vote would get any Northern Ontario Party not one representative, but 3% of the representatives; which is 4 seats. Much better than FPTP for Northen repesentation.

Parties bend over backwards to get people from all regions of Ontario into their cabinets. They'll do the same for their list candidates, and if they don't? In MMP we can punish them by starting a new party. The 3% threshold means that parties are much more vulnerable to new parties created from dissatisfaction by poor representation. They would ignore entire regions at their peril.

Anonymous said...

I hope that northerners don't really feel the way you have described.

However, the citizens assembly report has suggested that the current political weight of the north (about 10%) be maintained relative to the south and that the party lists also be balanced geographically.

If a "northern Ontario" political party did form under MMP, the 3% threshold would be a lot easier to achieve than having to win the same number of seats (4) under the FPTP system.

Raymond Lorenz

Anonymous said...

It sounds as if you would be a supporter of a party like "The Confederation of Regions Party".

Under MMP, parties would likely balance their lists geographically on their own. This assumption is based on how the system works in other jurisdictions, and the expectation that parties would try to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters in order to maximize public support.

Assuming the MMP system is adopted by Ontarians, it would likely be reviewed again after several elections to see if it is performing as expected.

It looks as if you would be in favour of an ammended model,such as the regional-list MMP system used in Scotland.

Raymond Lorenz

Wilf Day said...

Northeners should assert their rights, yes, their right to have every vote count.

In both the 1995 and 1999 elections 30% of voters north of the French River voted PC but elected no one but the premier, Mike Harris, whose mandate was from the whole province.

They should have elected five of the 15 in 1995, and three of the 10 in 1999. Then they would have had a real voice in that government. Instead, most PC voters might have well stayed home.

Of course the NDP does well in the North, but that's no help when most NDP votes in the South don't count.

Would parties put northern and rural candidates in good positions on their lists, or just big names from the GTA? Here's what Grant Robertson of the National Farmers Union said recently:

"It used to be you had to have a coherent platform on rural/small town issues to win enough of those seats to become government. Now you can safely ignore those areas and focus on urban Ontario.

The Ontario Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform, average citizens all, has learned more about how we vote and create government than most of us will ever want to know.
They have recommended a new system called mixed member proportional that we will vote on in a referendum during the October provincial election. It provides a solution to the reduced interest by political parties in rural/small town Ontario.

Parties that are serious about wanting to win government will provide a list that is far more representative of the province than our current MPPs are.

Parties will have to make sure that candidates with a strong understanding of rural/small town issues are high up on the list. Whereas now parties can ignore those voters, in the proposed system they will lose seats to parties that can capture votes in these areas. It is the best way to ensure that the issues of farmers and their neighbours finally make it back onto the political agenda."

Same for the North.

Anonymous said...

Correction to previous post...

The 3% threshold would actually be a pretty big challenge for a "Northern Ontario" party that is exclusively focused on a region representing only 7% of the population of Ontario.

On the other hand, the province is already making significant electoral accomodations to the north by giving it a 10% share of all the seats.

It is a challenging balancing act for the government.

Steve Withers said...

Critics of MMP whose analysis fails, as yours does, to comprehend and take into account the role of the list MPPs certainly will think they are being ripped off by MMP. The good news is that those 39 list MPPs will be province-wide MPPs, de facto responsible to every voter, every where who voted for their party. There will be northerners among them. There will be issues that affect the North and all of Ontario that list MPPs from one or more parties will actively represent. The rural area I have lived in New Zealand ended up with a larger riding under MMP, but there are now two MPs with offices in the riding - one local and one list - and several from other parties who regularly advertise themselves as being available to serve the people of my riding (Otaki). They do this because they need to win party votes *everywhere* to maximise their share of the party vote....because it is the share of the vote that defines how many seats they et overall.

Almost all the critics of MMP appear to not understand this and they then go on to ignore it as thought it wasn't there. IT IS THERE! Get your head around it. It['s what makes MMP SO GOOD!!!

Steve Withers said...

Raymond: One of the things that strikes me about Canada and Ontario having been away for 24 years is how people who already have special privileges put themselves and their tribe first and the whole community last....not realising they are aprt of that whole.

Here is an example: I'm a Canadian. But all my significant services and entitlements are provincial. These are not consistent across the country. It is more obvious to me now than it ever has been, as I re-enter Canadian life.....that Canada is cursed with a one-eyed, grasping parochialism that First Past the Post enables and perpetuates.