All posts by Chris Tindal

MMP, Inaccuracy

democracy and good government, ontario referendum on mmp,

Somewhere, there must be opponents of MMP who are able to argue their case without resorting to misleading statements and inaccuracies. The Sudbury Star’s Claire Hoy does not appear to be one of them. In yesterday’s paper he writes a frustratingly irresponsible attack against MMP that contains numerous fallacies which beg to be corrected.

First, he claims that MMP would result in “considerably more politicians.” What he doesn’t say is that under MMP Ontario would still have fewer representatives than we did before the Harris years, and still less political representation per person than any other province or territory in Canada. Either way, most Ontarians will recognize stronger representation as a positive thing.

Second, he makes the equally inaccurate but often repeated claim that the list representatives under the new system would not be elected, but would rather be chosen in secret. In fact, it is our current system which allows parties to choose candidates in back-rooms without any transparency; the new system requires them to open up the process so that voters can make informed decisions. Parties will nominate their list candidates as they nominate candidates under our current system, but they’ll also be required to make public the process by which their list is chosen, making it all but impossible for “party hacks” to control the list in secret.

Third, Hoy inaccurately claims that MMP leads to minority governments. In reality, countries that use MMP (like Germany and New Zealand) experience coalition-majority governments that have proven to not only be stable (Germany has had exactly the same number of elections since adopting MMP as Ontario has had in the same time period), but also to do an extremely effective job of reflecting the will of the electorate.

Finally, Hoy feels the need to mock the Citizens’ Assembly itself, which is most objectionable. The Citizens’ Assembly–103 every-day Ontarians chosen at random from each riding–worked for eight months on our behalf learning, consulting, and deliberating about all of the world’s many electoral systems, including our current system and France’s system that Hoy favours. This represents an unprecedented exercise in democratic engagement for our province and should be applauded. The citizens who made up the assembly know more about the advantages and faults of MMP than any other group of people in Ontario, and yet they voted over 90% in favour of recommending MMP as being the best system for Ontario.

Of course, Mr. Hoy is free to disagree with them. However, he should do it using facts, and with a respect for the overwhelmingly democratic process that was used to arrive at the conclusion that Ontario should vote for MMP.

There Is Hope

democracy and good government

I find American politics to be profoundly discouraging. While Stephen Harper has made it clear that he will not hesitate to stoop to the lowest of political tactics to get his way (as John Ibbitson has written, “there is nothing, nothing Mr. Harper won’t do to win”), he has at least been kept in check to a certain degree by a Parliamentary system that, while not perfect, could be much worse, and by a media that has refused to stop asking questions even when Harper stopped taking them.

There are now glimmers of hope appearing for the majority of Americans who would take back their democracy. If you read any other political blogs, you’ve probably already seen Keith Olbermann’s special comment as broadcast Tuesday night on MSNBC. If not, it’s embedded below and is required viewing. Thanks to Mr. Olbermann for reminding us that dissent can be patriotic, and that opposition to American government policy is not in itself anti-American.

As If It Wasn’t Expensive Enough

energy

As if nuclear power wasn’t expensive enough, $1.2-million of Ontario tax dollars have gone into marketing it and other forms of generation.

[Ontario Power Generation] has dramatically stepped up the advertising that promotes various electricity sources. In 2004, it spent only $25,000, almost entirely for its nuclear program. This year, up to May 16, the total had already reached $661,000, with $261,000 earmarked for promoting nuclear power, $250,000 for hydroelectric power and $150,000 for coal.

How much did the OPG spend on promoting conservation, the cheapest and most realistic answer to our energy crisis? Around $150K — eight times less than the amount spent promoting the other sources.

In May 2005, Dwight Duncan, Ontario’s Minister of Energy, called for an “open and public debate” on nuclear power. It’s bad enough that the government is now planning to spend a minimum of $40,000,000,000.00 on new nuclear power having had absolutely no public debate of any kind, they don’t need to also use my tax dollars to try and convince me it’s a good idea.

In related news, the federal government recently used some of our money on focus groups to find out what people think of the Ministry of Public Safety’s website. The focus group told them they didn’t like the emphasis placed on Stockwell Day’s photo while using the word “propaganda” a few times. The photo is now gone from the front page.