Election and Referendum Day

The non-arguments presented by Ufford against MMP are woefully vague. If that is the best case he can present to the CBC (!) in favour of our current system, I would be a bit worried if I were part of the No MMP campaign! Having said that, Ufford's smugness (disinterest?) toward the issue is probably due to his awareness that voter apathy and a lack of public knowledge regarding MMP may ensure its defeat.

I wanted to comment on the election having observed the campaign over the last month. As expected, the media's coverage of the campaign adopted the horse race/game framing model in which the leaders and their style are the focus. Hence you had the generally conservative media repeating the unfounded myth that John Tory is a more likeable and trustworthy leader than Dalton McGunity (again, for reasons unexplained). This was, of course, to the exclusion of any discussion of Howard Hampton and Frank de Jong and the substantive issues of their respective parties.

John Tory successfully set the agenda for the election by framing it on the silly, menial issue of public funding for faith-based schools. Liberals, progressives and moderates alike can make the simple connection that church and state are to remain separated, which is why over 70 percent of Ontarians oppose the 'faith schools' measure. However, that the public disagrees with Tory (which the media has focused on extensively) is irrelevant: the Conservatives were able to get their issue discussed and framed as the most important issue of the campaign, despite the fact that climate change and poverty are the most pressing issues of our time (according to the International Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations, Make Poverty History, most non-governmental organizations, and most public opinion polls). So even though Ontario considers itself a world leader on many fronts, there was no serious discussion of the two main issues - as well as others - that will dominate our foreseeable future.

A final turning point in the campaign was Howard Hampton's supposed "meltdown" a few days ago, during which he lambasted the media for failing to focus on child poverty and the deplorable state of many of Ontario's seniors. With the exception of a handful of editorials that praised Hampton's honesty (Sun Media was one of them), the NDP leader was mocked for his inappropriate "outburst." Evidently, the media gets upset when parties and leaders stray too far from their organized agenda, an agenda that includes polls, leaders' gaffes, 'the main issues' (determined by the media, not the public), and who is 'winning' and 'losing.' But Hampton was right in making those remarks, especially if one considers the degree to which climate change and environmental issues were also neglected by the media.

After analyzing the parties' platforms, and having conducted considerable research on proportional representation, I will be voting for the NDP and yes for mixed-member proportional representation (MMP). To me that is the definitive progressive vote in this election. I'm also impressed with the extent to which the Green Party has now established itself as a serious "major" party. The party's outright rejection of nuclear power (a position shared by the NDP) and its proposal to scrap income taxes and replace them with consumption taxes (of environmentally harmful products) are solid propositions. But I can't vote for a party that wants to reduce corporate taxes (corporations are among the biggest polluters in the world) and believes that "the market" can solve many environmental issues. The NDP's preference for government regulation of environmental standards and reduced income - not corporate - taxes are more sensible stances in my opinion. That is why I will be voting for their party on the 10th. As well, with enough 'Yes for MMP' votes we will see Ontario adopt a fairer, more representative electoral system that is based on compromise as opposed to divisiveness.

I'll accept any political system that works.  One wonders if there is a system better than the one we have.  But the details always need to be checked for any proposed system.

 I read the site, but there are some questions that need answering.

• Who actually represents the riding the Local member or the List Member?
• What is the List Member's actual role in government?
• Who is appointed to cabinet?  Anyone elected, or just the List Members from the party elected?
• What happens if the local members outnumber the List members (on a party basis), is that a minority government, and will that mean more elections?
• Is this not increasing the size of government members?  One for each riding plus x number of list members?

Before I select that as a possible option I would need to have these questions answered, otherwise I stick to the current system.

No one is ahead of their time, just the rest of humanity is slow to catch on