Referendum ads ‘a hip way of telling the public nothing’

Brandon Thao
Brandon Thao

the fourth estate

Ask most people on campus about the upcoming referendum question and you will often get blank stares and maybe an awkward shrug.

Understandably, this may be the response of a demographic with historically lower voter turnout. But young people are not the only ones who are unaware. Other citizens, from all walks of life, don’t know the impending question, which appears to be the result of an information drought and not simply negligence.

The mystery behind the referendum question remains as consuming as the mouth on advertisements urging: “Don’t let others speak for you—vote.” In other words, Elections Ontario’s hip way of telling the public nothing.

Throughout 2006 and 2007, a group of 103 citizens, called The Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, formulated the present referendum question in response to complaints surrounding Ontario’s electoral system. Over eight months, the group was intensively educated on the subject resulting in their unanimous decision that the current system (first-past-the-post) was dated and mixed member proportional (MMP) was the best replacement option for Ontarians. This was their recommendation, which is the basis behind the current referendum.

To ensure the Assembly’s recommendations were heard, Elections Ontario was given a $6.8 million budget to inform people of the election date and to help people understand the question so that they can make an educated decision. What resulted was a highly ineffective campaign that enlightened no one.

Elections Ontario’s failure is plainly seen in their fumbling television ads, airy radio plugs and vacant print ads, all which offer nothing more than a few guffaws and wasted time; it has left voters just as confused as if no one attempted to educate them.

That being said, their website (yourbigdecision.ca) offers a helpful, skeletal summary of the systems and the referendum question. But it doesn’t justify millions of misplaced and ineffectively used tax dollars. The fact remains: most voters are still unaware of the question and fewer understand what it’s asking.

For those who have already taken a look at the ballot you know that the referendum question asks the voter if they want to keep the current system or switch it to MMP. But what does that mean and what’s the difference? People scarcely understand the current system let alone a crazy-sounding mélange of political jargon.

In a nutshell, the current system has a “winner-take-all” perspective on constituencies.

The candidate who wins the most votes in a constituency wins the whole region and a seat in the legislature. This system disregards other votes cast for losing parties, resulting in a discrepancy between the percentage of votes and seats gained. For example, in the 2003 provincial elections, the Liberals gained 70 per cent of the seats with 47 per cent of the vote.

However, this drawback is also a major strength because of its ability to breed strong majority governments and keep fringe parties out.

As an alternative, MMP hopes to remedy the difference between seats and popular vote. MMP attempts to equate the percentage of votes to the percentage of seats as long as the party meets a three per cent threshold. If a party receives 20 per cent of the vote, they receive 20 per cent of the seats. This system’s major strength is that it prevents wasted votes and allows proportional representation of parties within the house. However, MMP’s pluralism has garnered criticism, suggesting that it may lead to a fragmented house filled by fringe parties.

While there are pros and cons to each, MMP appears to be a viable option for an archaic system that no longer represents the will of a diverse province and a new generation. Unchanged since 1840, the demand for a decentralized government has grown and although the current system works, the potential for improvement shouldn’t be ignored.

But many are unwilling to accept change to a system that has worked for more than a century. In order for MMP to pass, the referendum must receive 60 per cent support in 60 per cent of the province’s constituencies.

If this happens, the new system will be in place in Ontario by the 2011 elections.

There are two sides to every coin and many issues to consider when choosing in favour of one side over the next. Sites like nommp.ca offer some points against MMP whereas changethesystem.ca offers an antithesis to their argument. Moderate views can be found at yourbigdecision.ca and citizensassembly.gov.on.ca.

The fact that the referendum draws questions signals a waste of the $6.8 million given to Elections Ontario to educate the public. Their ineffective campaign has, if anything, added to the confusion surrounding the proposed reform.

It isn’t surprising that “knowing the question” means asking, “What does it mean?” Ultimately, the process of electoral reform is to get voters to communicate their personal opinions. But if people are uninformed, we cannot make leaps and bounds in democracy. Make your decision, vote on Oct. 10.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content