I have a high regard for people who have strong opinions and the courage to express them.
Republican member of the United States Congress, Liz Cheney, is one of those. Bold, brave, and unconcerned about personal consequences, she put it all out there at a prime-time televised committee hearing last week. Regardless of her political future, she will go down in history for that.
I have much less time for whiners.
There has been a lot of that since the provincial election in Ontario a little over a week ago. All of a sudden, many of those who were unsuccessful with their preference were crying foul, attacking our electoral system, moaning over low voter turnout and in some cases, questioning the legitimacy of the election itself. Shades of the United States!
Chief among these was the Toronto Star. In a recent editorial commenting on the provincial election, entitled “Ontario’s election produced a result that is unfair and unrepresentative. The voting system needs to be changed”, they said this:
“And this time it [first past the post]produced a result that is patently unfair, completely unrepresentative, and is bound to increase even further the widespread cynicism about electoral politics that leads to such a dismal turnout. Why bother to vote, many will conclude, when the system is so rigged?”
All political journalist Andrew Coyne could say about this was “Whoa!”
Rigged? Again, shades of the United States. When was it rigged? Was it rigged in 1867 when first past the post was introduced as the electoral system for Canada? Has it been “rigged” ever since or just when those with influence don’t like the results?
In that same editorial, the Toronto Star opined, “It’s time to put electoral reform — specifically proportional representation — back on the agenda.”
Really? As Paul Rhodes, a political strategist and pundit, noted after reading that statement, “I’m still looking for the Star editorial where they bemoan FPTP when it elects Liberals.”
It certainly begs the question as to where the Toronto Star was during the last two federal elections when the Conservatives each time received more votes than the Liberals. Under proportional representation the Conservatives would have had more seats than the Liberals, and possibly the right to form government.
Where was the Toronto Star on proportional representation then? It does leave one wondering if their current position on electoral reform is anything more than hypocrisy, whining, and sour grapes.
John Mykytyshyn is a political consultant and public opinion researcher. I find him a little off the wall at times but agree when he says, “The reality is Good Losers look for what was missing from their campaigns and what they can learn. Bad Losers blame voters and democracy and endeavour to change the rules to win.”
First past the post as an electoral system may not be perfect but it does have its advantages. For example, if that method was in force for presidential elections in the United States, Donald Trump would never have been president. It’s hard for me to argue with that one!
While, as many will know, it is not my normal inclination to agree with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, I certainly did when he said this past week that proportional representation is not right for Canada. First and foremost, it would effectively do away with our system of local representation by ridings, which I believe to be an important part of our democratic process, and which also brings governance accountability closer to the people.
Under an electoral process of proportional representation, most if not all members of Parliament would be appointed and not elected. Electors would vote not for an individual, but only for the political party of their choice. Seats would be assigned based on the percentage of votes each individual party receives across the country and the party hierarchy, and not individual voters, would decide who actually sits in them. While this can be tweaked and twiddled with to make it appear more democratic, it is the basic model of proportional
representation.
Personally, I have no problem with a first past the post electoral system. It has worked in this country since confederation. This time around it worked well for the Tories in Ontario. At both levels of government, it has worked on other occasions, in favour of Liberals and Conservatives, and at least at the riding level for New Democrats. It seems indelicate to bitch about process only at the time when it doesn’t work for you. If we must look at electoral reform, however, I would far prefer a ranked ballot system over proportional representation.
A ranked ballot system would require every elected candidate to receive a 50 per cent plus one plurality. To accomplish this, voters would be allowed to indicate their first, second, and third choices on a ballot. Candidates with the lowest number of votes would be eliminated until the second or third choices of those that voted for the eliminated candidates amounts to a plurality for the candidate who receives the greatest combined votes.
This system would maintain representation and accountability at the local riding level. It would also require all elected representatives to have a majority of votes in order to be elected.
Some Conservatives would feel that this process would give an advantage to left-of-centre political parties, but I am not so sure. One part of the Toronto Star’s recent editorial that I do agree with, is that the Liberals and the NDP have “real, substantive differences”.
And from a personal point of view, such a system could well force Conservative policies more toward the centre than the far right of the political spectrum, in order to attract second-choice votes from Liberal supporters.
Whether one is a proponent of electoral reform or not, that is simply no reason to challenge the legitimacy of the recent provincial election in Ontario. It followed the rules and a process that has been in place for more than 150 years.
Like them or not, Doug Ford and his Progressive Conservatives won that election, fair and square.
Hugh Mackenzie
Hugh Mackenzie has held elected office as a trustee on the Muskoka Board of Education, a Huntsville councillor, a District councillor, and mayor of Huntsville. He has also served as chairman of the District Muskoka and as chief of staff to former premier of Ontario, Frank Miller.
Hugh has served on a number of provincial, federal and local boards, including chair of the Ontario Health Disciplines Board, vice-chair of the Ontario Family Health Network, vice-chair of the Ontario Election Finance Commission, and board member of Roy Thomson Hall, the National Theatre School of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Canada. Locally, he has served as president of the Huntsville Rotary Club, chair of Huntsville District Memorial Hospital, chair of the Huntsville Hospital Foundation, president of Huntsville Festival of the Arts, and board member of Community Living Huntsville.
In business, Hugh Mackenzie has a background in radio and newspaper publishing. He was also a founding partner and CEO of Enterprise Canada, a national public affairs and strategic communications firm established in 1986.
Currently, Hugh is president of C3 Digital Media Inc., the parent company of Doppler Online, and he enjoys writing commentary for Huntsville Doppler.
Join the discussion: