News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

allabootmatt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 13, 2007
Messages
1,437
Reaction score
172
Since the results seem pretty set now, I think it's time to start the post-game analysis.

I am reasonably satisfied with the result. I would have preferred a Liberal majority. However, the current situation isn't bad. While the Liberals have, on the whole, been pretty good to Toronto, they've occasionally tended to backslide on commitments, as with the $4Bn Transit City delay that so enraged David Miller. Being propped up by an NDP that has its base in downtown Toronto will make this kind of course change very difficult to pull off.

From a very pragmatic point of view, let's say this mandate lasts two to two-and-a-half years until new elections--I don't think anyone would bet it will run for four, unless the Liberals somehow scrabble together a majority through floor-crossing or by-election wins down the road, both of which are unlikely. By late 2013 or early 2014 the Eglinton underground LRT will be well past the point of no return, at least for the first, central phase. The new streetcars will be entering service in significant numbers. The current, amazing progress on the Waterfront will be even further advanced, with development and infrastructure improvements substantially underway. The Pearson rail link will be almost open. Some significant portion of the promised all-day two-way GO service will be in place, and very hard to remove without huge consequences in the 905.

Perhaps most importantly, if things go the way they appear to be going, Rob Ford will be heading for the door, if not already gone, removing the risk of a tag-team Ford-Hudak wrecking crew for any significant amount of time. This may be wishful thinking to some degree--I don't think it's impossible Ford could salvage his mayoralty and be competitive for re-election--but that seems unlikely.

Two other less Toronto-centric points. The first is that this election shows the Tories will have to be much more centrist and pragmatic to have a shot at winning seats in what I would call the Core 905 of Mississauga, Brampton, Markham etc, let alone in the 416. That's good for anyone who cares about keeping this province on a long-term centrist track.

Second, this election is dramatic evidence of the need for an ongoing discussion about electoral reform. The turnout was abysmal, and Tories have every right to be frustrated that a reasonably close race in terms of the popular vote yielded such a lopsided seat count. I am not saying I necessarily believe our system needs to change, just that it's a conversation we should have again, and which will be much richer if it can be decoupled from the notion of partisan advantage. Previously it was seen as a bit of a left-wing cause, and perhaps that will change.

So all in all, not bad. Certainly the first good electoral news we have had for a while.
 
All good points, allabootmatt.

Further, I do not expect any sort of Liberal-NDP coalition, but I imagine that the two parties may unite on certain issues. The NDP drew significant support in Hamilton and in Central / downtown Toronto, and as a result I think Horwath may prop up any pro-transit initiatives that still exist at the provincial level.

The long and short of it is that Transit City may spring back to life, depending on how Toronto politicians handle the issue. I think Rob Ford and his disciples are losing their grip by the second, now. Let's observe for a while.
 
One other point, gleaned from clicking around the CBC's interactive map. The Tories didn't just lose in the outer 416 and inner 905; it was a blowout. The Liberals seem to have won by gigantic margins in those places, which happen to be the ones that most resemble what the Ontario of the future will increasingly be: suburban-to-urban and extremely culturally diverse. On the other hand, the Tories were utterly dominant in rural seats. The Liberals' losses were pretty much entirely in the country. This is a very, very polarized political landscape.
 
One issue around electoral reform has to be mentioned - the rural vote worthing more than the urban vote. Politics and priorities in Ontario (and indeed Canada) will remained skewed until this has been addressed.

AoD
 
Talking about electoral reform? Okay, I'll bite.

Almost everybody agrees that the "fairest" electoral system, in terms of reflecting the votes of the electorate, is Proportional Representation (PR). But people also want to have a representative who was elected from their own riding, which traditional PR does not provide (it tends to be a party list system).

So why not combine the two? In particular, have double the total number of seats as there are ridings, with the total number of seats going to each party determined by the total popular vote, but half of the seats allocated by the traditional First-Past-the-Post (FPtP)system already in use.

So, using the (preliminary) results from yesterday's Ontario election, we would have 214 seats in total, with the Liberals (37.54%) winning 80 seats in total, the PCs (35.34%) winning 76 seats, the NDP (22.89%) winning 49 seats, the Greens (2.95%) winning 6 seats, and the remaining 3 seats divided between the smaller parties (the vote breakdowns for them are not yet available, but presumably the largest 3 minor parties get 1 seat each). Of these seats, the Liberals have won 53 seats outright, leaving 27 seats to be allocated from the Liberal party list (presumably an ordered list of all the candidates for election, possibly with non-candidate party functionaries interspersed, and all the candidates who had won their ridings passed over since they have already made the Legislature). The PCs have won 37 seats outright, leaving 39 seats to be allocated from the PC party list, the NDP have won 17 seats outright, leaving 32 seats to be allocated from the NDP party list, and all 6 Green seats will be allocated from their party list. This way, every riding has a specific representative, elected by the FPtP system, while the total seat counts are determined by the popular vote.

Of course, under this system a majority government would be very difficult (although not impossible) to achieve. This is not a bad thing in my opinion, since it would mean that government policies would need to be more broadly based, representing more of the electorate, in order to gain the support of the needed number of MPPs. While PR-based electoral systems can be unstable, with frequent elections, this is not always the case. Coalition-based governments work perfectly well in such countries as Germany, where elections are about as frequent as in Canada.

Actually, I just now found out as I was writing this that Germany uses this exact system, with half the seats chosen in FPtP elections and the other half selected from party lists to cause the total numbers to reflect the popular vote. From Wikipedia:

The Bundestag nominally has 598 members, elected for a four year term. Half, 299 members, are elected in single-member constituencies by first-past-the-post voting, while a further 299 members are allocated from statewide party lists to achieve a proportional distribution in the legislature, conducted according to a form of proportional representation called the Mixed member proportional representation system (MMP). Voters vote once for a constituency representative, and a second time for a party, and the lists are used to make the party balances match the distribution of second votes.

One effect of this system that I would expect to see is that minor parties would become larger, since people would have much less reason to "vote strategically". There are a lot of people who would prefer to vote Green or NDP, but feel forced to vote Liberal (or possibly PC) in order to keep the PC (or Liberal) candidate from winning their riding. Under the proposed system, party seat numbers are determined by the popular vote, so there would be little incentive to vote strategically, everybody would serve their wishes best by simply voting for the party of their choice (either via their local candidate, or as in the German model, by separate votes for the local candidate (FPtP) and for the party (PR)).
 
Last edited:
On electoral reform; while highly desirable, given the referendum defeat of a few short years ago, and that it was not in anyone's platform, I don't think it sees the light of day in next legislative session.

That's a shame, but I think fairly realistic assessment.

******

On the urban/rural split, however, the Feds are anxious to pass the bill creating new Federal Ridings to represent increased population and get closer to rep-by-pop in BC, AB and Ontario.

Assuming this passes this time, redrawing riding boundaries will happen prior to the 2015 election cycle.

As Ontario, provincially, uses the same boundaries as the feds, this could have some notable consequences.

It will add many new seats in the '905', more in the 'core 905' than any other portion thereof, but will also add new seats in the 416 and urban Ottawa, and K-W.

The proportion of rural seats will thusly decline.

It will likely impact future political campaigns at all levels.
 
Talking about electoral reform? Okay, I'll bite.

Almost everybody agrees that the "fairest" electoral system, in terms of reflecting the votes of the electorate, is Proportional Representation (PR). But people also want to have a representative who was elected from their own riding, which traditional PR does not provide (it tends to be a party list system).

So why not combine the two? In particular, have double the total number of seats as there are ridings, with the total number of seats going to each party determined by the total popular vote, but half of the seats allocated by the traditional First-Past-the-Post (FPtP)system already in use.

So, using the (preliminary) results from yesterday's Ontario election, we would have 214 seats in total, with the Liberals (37.54%) winning 80 seats in total, the PCs (35.34%) winning 76 seats, the NDP (22.89%) winning 49 seats, the Greens (2.95%) winning 6 seats, and the remaining 3 seats divided between the smaller parties (the vote breakdowns for them are not yet available, but presumably the largest 3 minor parties get 1 seat each). Of these seats, the Liberals have won 53 seats outright, leaving 27 seats to be allocated from the Liberal party list (presumably an ordered list of all the candidates for election, possibly with non-candidate party functionaries interspersed, and all the candidates who had won their ridings passed over since they have already made the Legislature). The PCs have won 37 seats outright, leaving 39 seats to be allocated from the PC party list, the NDP have won 17 seats outright, leaving 32 seats to be allocated from the NDP party list, and all 6 Green seats will be allocated from their party list. This way, every riding has a specific representative, elected by the FPtP system, while the total seat counts are determined by the popular vote.

Of course, under this system a majority government would be very difficult (although not impossible) to achieve. This is not a bad thing in my opinion, since it would mean that government policies would need to be more broadly based, representing more of the electorate, in order to gain the support of the needed number of MPPs. While PR-based electoral systems can be unstable, with frequent elections, this is not always the case. Coalition-based governments work perfectly well in such countries as Germany, where elections are about as frequent as in Canada.

Actually, I just now found out as I was writing this that Germany uses this exact system, with half the seats chosen in FPtP elections and the other half selected from party lists to cause the total numbers to reflect the popular vote. From Wikipedia:

The Bundestag nominally has 598 members, elected for a four year term. Half, 299 members, are elected in single-member constituencies by first-past-the-post voting, while a further 299 members are allocated from statewide party lists to achieve a proportional distribution in the legislature, conducted according to a form of proportional representation called the Mixed member proportional representation system (MMP). Voters vote once for a constituency representative, and a second time for a party, and the lists are used to make the party balances match the distribution of second votes.

One effect of this system that I would expect to see is that minor parties would become larger, since people would have much less reason to "vote strategically". There are a lot of people who would prefer to vote Green or NDP, but feel forced to vote Liberal (or possibly PC) in order to keep the PC (or Liberal) candidate from winning their riding. Under the proposed system, party seat numbers are determined by the popular vote, so there would be little incentive to vote strategically, everybody would serve their wishes best by simply voting for the party of their choice (either via their local candidate, or as in the German model, by separate votes for the local candidate (FPtP) and for the party (PR)).


All it does it creates more politicians and bureacrats... and end result? Still a minority government - as this current system is - and they will still need to '
work' with each other. The 'idea' sounds great, but when you break down the actual math, proportinal wise, it reall is no different no?
 
i think that this low voter turnout will provide greater impetus for opening up online voting

I feel that not being able to vote online (and further, being restricted to voting at a specific polling centre, at a specific poll booth or whatever) really hinders ability to vote.

As an anecdote, I live in Markham, but own two properties in Toronto, so I would have been eligible to vote in the mayoral election. However, voting would have required me to go all the way from my home in Markham to the polling centre in downtown toronto. I considered that to be too much work, so simply skipped voting.

I consider myself to be conscious of civic duty. Im sure there are good reasons that these restrictions are in place, but where there is a will there will be a way to solve this problem.

As an aside, I like the idea mongo presented that is used in Germany...however I doubt the electorate would go for it as it would double the cost of MP/MPP/councilor salaries which concerns me as well
 
All it does it creates more politicians and bureacrats... and end result? Still a minority government - as this current system is - and they will still need to 'work' with each other. The 'idea' sounds great, but when you break down the actual math, proportinal wise, it reall is no different no?

The total number of MPPs can be set to whatever value is desired, if it is decided to keep the total number of seats about the same as it is now, then that is what number of seats it will be.

And I see nothing at all wrong with it producing minority governments, in fact that is a far better result than majority governments which can completely ignore the wishes of everybody who did not vote for them -- which even in a majority government, is usually over half the electorate. Minority coalition governments, as we see in countries like Germany, are much better at representing the wishes of the electorate as a whole than single-party majority governments can ever be.

So in my opinion, this sort of electoral system would produce a more representative, more responsive government than what we see with the current antiquated nineteenth-century FPtP system. There really is no excuse for continuing the current electoral system, other than inertia and fear of change.

p.s. -- If you want a more radical, and even more representative system, take a look at sortition -- which is what the ancient Athenians preferred, and is still used in selecting Juries (at least in principal, in practice it has become dominated by lawyer manipulation). If I had the choice, sortition is the method of choosing representatives that I would choose -- guaranteed to be completely representative of the citizen body by whatever criterion you choose, FAR less subject to manipulation by special interests, much less expensive to operate, and if the selected representatives are placed in committees responsible for a single area of responsibility, with much more expertise in their area of responsibility than today's MPP can possibly have. Not to mention that it gives the average citizen a much greater stake in the system than they have now. Experiments where this method has been tried invariably result in a much more involved and interested populace, and the quality of the decisions made is always first-rate, based on the issues themselves instead of on political maneuvering and optics.
 
Last edited:
i think that this low voter turnout will provide greater impetus for opening up online voting
ll


So many security problems and potential for Fraud. Would you risk the potential verdict of a city/province/country to be determined by a group of fraudsters, or even better, a single hacker?
 
I am glad that it was a minority government. I, for one, happen to like the concept of minority governments in general, reason being is that it takes out what I call the 'dictator factor' associated with majority governments.

Why do I call it the 'dictator factor'? because in our canadian political system, the party that has the most seats get complete control, with no-one able to object or stop them. This usually means that the leader of the party is the dictator supreme and can do whatever he or she likes with none being able to stop them. At least in a minority government the party in power has to reach out to other and try to come up with concensus and agreement among others, a quality severly lacking in majority governments!
 
So many security problems and potential for Fraud. Would you risk the potential verdict of a city/province/country to be determined by a group of fraudsters, or even better, a single hacker?

I, for one, would love to have the ability to vote online. It can be done. If we can pay bills and handle money online then why can we not vote online.
 
With regard to on-line voting. With exceptions for the truly immobile I don't want to hear from people who are too damn lazy or disinterested to get off their ass and vote, their opinion is not worth recording.
 
Did anybody see the cover of the Toronto Sun Today? I couldn't help but LOL.

It's a bitter and hateful cover that so clearly portrays The Sun as tabloid trash and nothing more. It's not a newspaper and now even many of their own readers recognize it.

I'm pleased with the result as well, although I would have been happy with the stability a solid 4 year term would bring. The Liberals will need to transition from McGuinty to a new leader and because of this minority, it won't be according to their schedule. This opens up the possibility of a PC government. Both Hudak and Horwath won't be rookies anymore, while the new leader will likely still be trying to gain public perception when an election is triggered by the other 2 parties. I would love to have another decade of Liberal and/or NDP rule, a complete shutout of the PC's but this Minority gives Hudak another shot, an idea I'm not comfortable with.

Ford is in serious trouble now. He threatened McGuinty and McGuinty came out on the other side of this election still his boss. Ouch.

I'm betting that many of City Council's mushy middle and even those on Ford's executive were holding out for the results of the provincial election. If they got on Ford's bad side and then had to deal with Hudak, they'd be in trouble. Now that Ford is surrounded by adversaries -- including McGuinty -- I'm optimistic that several more councillors will come out against Ford. I imagine TransitCity will be looked at again when councillors vote on it in the coming months and now they needn't be afraid to bring it up for a vote knowing they have a partner at Queen's Park.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top