Ontario MMP referendum: response to Prof. Dan Usher's article in the Kingston Whig-Standard

Letter to the Editor:

In Professor Dan Usher’s article on the October 10^th referendum question (A flawed proposal for reform, Kingston Whig-Standard, Monday Sept. 24, 2007), he stated that the current first-past-the-post electoral system favours large parties and, conversely, that the proposed reform (MMP) is biased against large parties and in favour of small parties. I think there is another bias to worry about.

It seems to me that one problem with the current system is that it favours politicians or parties who have a geographically concentrated base of support and who are advocating for a particular region. A good example of this (looking federally for a moment) is the Bloc Quebecois who have a large number of seats in Ottawa compared to their share of the national popular vote, and who are especially concerned about Quebec. Conversely, the current system is biased against those who are especially concerned with issues that affect people all across the province, or country, but whose supporters are not concentrated in any particular region. An example of this is the Green party who might win up to 10% of the vote in the Ontario or next federal election but not win any seats because their supporters are well spread out.

Is it fair that an electoral system should favour a “Quebec First” party over an “Environment First” party?

Some important political issues may concern just a few ridings and others are of concern to voters across the province. For that reason it doesn’t seem unfair or unrepresentative to me that we supplement our provincial legislature with new members having a province-wide constituency. It might even better represent, in Prof. Usher’s words, “the interests of the people of Ontario in the policy of its government”.