Talk:2007 Ontario electoral reform referendum

General
I wish to flag that I have done considerable new work on this Wikipedia page, using what references I could find on line. While I have made many changes of a significant nature, I have not discussed all of them on this Talk page (which now appears inactive), although you will find a number of comments below. Should anyone want to track the changes made and the reasons for them, please use the View History page. Basically, my aim was to make this Wikipedia page as complete as possible and to include enough analysis so that readers could understand the result. --Reallavergne (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Side-box
Hey Schwede66 can you help me with something technical? See the side-box on the right of the page? It says No / Yes, but the choice was not between No or Yes. It was between FPTP and MMP. However, if I just change the words, the results disappear. It seems that the template is set up with just No / Yes, and I don't really have the skills to get involved in complicated graphics. Do you think this can be solved, or do we just have to live with it?--Reallavergne (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is still an issue. Madg2011 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

103 Ridings?
According to yourbigdecision.ca, "Ontario is divided into 107 electoral districts" not 103 ridings as indicated under the Elections Ontario education campaign subtitle. Should I change that? --Mayfare 03:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are currently 103 ridings. Effective the election, there will be 107.  Should you change it?  It depends whether the government is funding one part-time education officer in each of the current ridings, or one in each of the future ridings.  Since every other element of the election is organized around 107 ridings (since there are 107 candidates being elected), I strongly suspect it's the latter, but I don't have a source.  In fact, I'd say that last paragraph of that section needs a source, or it should be deleted. Sarcasticidealist 03:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. The last paragraph lacks a source. Instead of deleting it, should we label that paragraph with a box (or template) claiming that it lacks a source? --Mayfare 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Referendum question
The text that said that the Referendum question came as a surprise is too blunt. ("The question took many by surprise, including Fair Vote Canada, who were expecting a question requiring a Yes or No answer as had been the case in B.C."). It begs the question, Why does this matter? If it does not matter, why is this said? A bit more context is needed. For now, I have just removed this sentence. It could perhaps be reinserted with some explanation of why this matters. --Reallavergne (talk) 13:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now reinstated some material on this topic, comparing the BC and the Ontario question and showing how the latter is subtly more neutral in wording. Others may judge for themselves if "neutrality" was a good thing or whether the wording was intended to discourage voters from supporting a resolution that they would have like to pass, but to say that the Ontario wording is more neutral seems to me the most unbiased way of putting it. --Reallavergne (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Who forms government
I have reverted this edit. I have three major problems with it:
 * The party with the greatest number of votes will not necessarily be the one with the greatest number of seats, even under MMP. To take an absurd example, but one that illustrates my point, suppose that Party A wins sixty-nine ridings by a single vote over Party B, and loses the seventieth to Party B by ten thousand votes.  Party A will wind up with sixty-nine of the province's 109 seats, despite having received 9931 fewer votes than Party B.
 * There is no guarantee that the party with the greatest number of seats will be asked to form government. First of all, the party which was in government before the election is always entitled to attempt to continue governing until it is defeated in a confidence vote.  No government in Canada that I am aware of has availed itself of this option since 1925, but it is nevertheless a possibility.  Besides that, the Lieutenant-Governor is obligated to call on somebody he believes can command the confidence of the provincial parliament to form government; if there are (for example) two left-wing parties with very similar platforms and thirty seats each and one very right-wing party with forty-nine seats, the Lieutenant Governor would be perfectly entitled to call on the leader of one of the left-wing parties after concluding that the right-wing party had no chance of commanding the provincial parliament.  This is true even if there was no formal coalition agreement between the two left-wing parties.
 * The remark "as is the likely case" is unsourced and speculative - for example, I think coalitions are much less common than most people are predicting, simply because Canadian political culture is much friendlier to minority governments and more hostile to coalition governments than political culture in other MMP jurisdictions. Now, this is speculation on my part, and would be inappropriate for inclusion in the article's mainspace, but it also demonstrates why the paranthetical is inappropriate for inclusion. Sarcasticidealist 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The information in question was taken from this video put out by the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (forgive the 'kiddie' nature of the movie, it's actually quite well done), which states:
 * 5:15: "...what types of governments are likely?" "...Based on other countries that use an MMP system, we know that they usually produce coalition majority governments."
 * Perhaps a better way of phrasing the line would be "In a majority of cases, the party with the highest number of seats or a coaliton with the highest number of seats forms a government", with the video being the citation? Morgan695 14:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, under MMP, the list members will help a little to offset the difference between the popular vote and the number of ridings won. --Mayfare 15:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of *seats* won, yes, but not he number of *ridings* (of which there would be seventy). It would be quite possible, as in my example, for a party to win sixty-nine of seventy ridings with less than a plurality of the popular vote.  Now, instead of having every seat but one, as would happen under the status quo, that party would have only sixty-nine of 109 seats, because all forty party list seats would go to other candidates.  But it will still be in a position to win a majority government with not even a plurality of the popular vote. Sarcasticidealist 20:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well regardless, the statment that "the conventions as to which party is asked to form a government would remain unchanged" is fairly untrue, as exceptions and different situations will exist. Morgan695 06:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Existing conventions are that, if the government resigns after losing an election (as every federal government defeated electorally has done since 1925, although I'm not sure about provincial), the Crown will ask the leader of the largest party to form government, unless a formal coalition larger than the largest single caucus has been arranged, in which case the Crown asks the leader of the largest coalition partner to form a government.  Which of these would be changed by MMP?
 * Of course, you could suggest that my above paragraph is crystal balling unbefitting Wikipedia, in which case I'd be happy to either preface the "existing conventions" sentence with "Most experts expect" (and then properly source it) or delete it entirely. I'm just not comfortable with Parliamentary convention being characterized as certainty, as it was in the edit that I reverted. Sarcasticidealist 06:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Greens
"The Green Party of Ontario, who would have benefited the most from a proportional system in the 2003 election,[5] have also lent their support.[6]"

How would the Greens have benifitted the most? They did not receive the 3% required to gain any seats.Priester 02:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not know anything about the Green Party's support last election. However, today's polls suggest that the Green Party has 12% support, equating to 4 seats if an election were held today. --Mayfare 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Greens pretty well always poll above their actual vote totals (my uneducated guess is that it's because a lot of people disenchanted with politics say that they'll give the Greens a shot, but wind up just not voting), but that's irrelevant in any case. The removed quote doesn't say "if an election was held today" (and if it did, it would be violating the portion of WP:NOT that covers crystal balls), it says "in the 2003 election". Sarcasticidealist 06:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The system still does not guarantee that the 'winning party' has a majority of the vote. Majority = Demcoracy ?

Also a democractic system still must ensure that the elected represenatives are controlled by 'the people'. Ironic that the party leader is not elected in the general election, (except one riding) and then he or she controls the parliament. YOu see party leaders using the term, "free vote", suggesting quite clearly that in some cases there is no "free vote". The proposed changes do not address this.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Individual candidate endorsements
I know the table I created is pretty slanted right now, but I just filled it in with the information I came across...please help flesh out all the endorsements. Padraic 15:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the table should contain only current MPPs, lest it be filled with the 107 Green, Family and other minor party candidates (who no doubt support MMP), making the table impossible to navigate. Morgan695 19:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the Greens shouldn't be on there, not because they aren't incumbents, but because their party already has an official position. I created the table because without an official Liberal or Tory position, it creates some context. Padraic 19:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I humbly disagree... While we Greens have always supported proportional representation generally, the Party is prohibited by Elections Ontario from stating a position on the Referendum... therefore only candidates can state their opinions. As it stands now, the table is an ad for the Liberals with a couple PCs thrown in... I'll respect the wiki and not make the edits myself, but I think we should be there. Colin Carmichael 13:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Carmichael (talk • contribs)
 * I would actually urge User:Colin Carmichael to not edit articles related to the upcoming election or the GPO - doing so would be a clear conflict of interest in violation of WP:COI. Morgan695 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then someone should tell Elections Ontario about this and this....Padraic 21:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My involvement in this election does not preclude me from having knowledge that is worth sharing - indeed, if I were going to make nefarious political edits I would hardly have stayed logged in. In fact, I was the first to have each of my opponents included in the candidates list as they were nominated.  Do not assume that simply because we are talking about politics, that everything is negatively motivated. In this case, I specifically DID NOT make the edits I think should be made because the conflict is clear - I will maintain, however, that filtering the list of candidate endorsements to include only Liberals and a few Conservative smacks of a hidden agenda to promote a particular political interest. Regarding those two links, in neither case does the Party advocate that voters choose one system or another. Colin Carmichael 02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Carmichael (talk • contribs)

A valid cricitism, brought up on TV Ontario. Who selecs 'the party representatives to be put into government ? The party leader ? These are valid concerns.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that this issue was never fully resolved. I was intrigued myself about this content when working again on this Wikipedia page. I don't know how complete or representative the current lists for and against MMP are, so that is an issue right there. I can't do anything about that, but I'll add a little qualifier to that effect. Secondly, I'll clarify that NDP and Green support was basically universal since those parties had taken a position on the question. The alternative would be to not include these lists at all, but if we did that, we would have to find another way to show how the Liberal party was divided (and the Conservatives not so divided). The current lists are useful in that respect. We just don't know how representative it is! Take a look at the wording and the additional heading that I have introduced. --Reallavergne (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Opinion polls
Has anyone come across reliable opinion polls as to the possible outcome of the referendum? Flibirigit 21:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Run-off elections.
The most logical conclusion to 'first past the post' is to have 'run-off elections.

The proposed changes do not alter the 'first past the post system' that allows winners to win with less than a majority of the vote. The changes totally ignore the use of a runoff voting system, a system used by the political parties to elect their leaders.

I hope someone can find this in some other reliable source...

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While it's true that this article doesn't address run off voting, that's because this referendum isn't about run off voting (nor is it about, for example, single transferable vote, which is also an alternative to first past the post and which also isn't addressed in this article). This is not an article on electoral reform; it's an article on the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007, and the article should confine itself to discussing that referendum. Sarcasticidealist 15:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To evaluate the changes, logic would suggest that we deal with the inheret problems and then deal with them. Logic would, should and must be used.  To ignore the alternatives is somewhat black and white thinking.


 * For example, the new system has a vote for the party, ie leader, however the other vote goes to the leader as well, ie party discipline.  So why not vote directly for the party leader, as such, as we do in municipal elections ?


 * --Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 15:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * These are all reasonable questions (although you seem to be under some misapprehensions as to how municipal politics work in most Canadian cities). But they are not appropriate for inclusion in this article unless they are discussed by reliable, third party sources in the direct context of the Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007.  Think about it: should we include discussion of all available electoral reform options in this article, British Columbia electoral reform referendum, 2005, New Brunswick electoral reform referendum, 2008, and any other such referenda that may have occurred on the subject anywhere in the world?  It's much more reasonable to deal with these issues in the electoral reform article, and simply link to that from each of these referendum articles. Sarcasticidealist 15:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.

I chekced with the British Columbia reform and there they also had an alernative that is not mentioned in this listing, or at least not mentioned as an option in selecting 'the winner'...

* In order to pass, the referendum had to receive 60% of the province-wide popular vote and a simple majority in 60% (48 of 79) of the electoral districts.

Listing options, allows one to understand the options....ie 'thinking outside the box'....

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 16:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't understand that last comment at all. Could you clarify what you mean by the bolded bit?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcasticidealist (talk • contribs) 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

For the motion to pass, it must win by 60% plus one vote in a riding, and 60% plus one ridings must pass it. That is an extreme majority in my view, but a 'majority of the vote'.

--Caesar J. B. Squitti :  Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 19:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that. Something very similar is true of the Ontario referendum.  I just don't understand what that has to do with what you were saying earlier. Sarcasticidealist 19:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I might understand - you might be misreading that bit. That 60% bit is what it took for the *referendum* to pass; it wasn't an additional option for electoral reform.  Does that clear anything up? Sarcasticidealist 19:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Results per riding
A quick update on the long entry below. This information was finally included in a separate Wikipedia page, and a link was make to it. --Reallavergne (talk) 13:05, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I was considering a table of results of the referendum for each riding by alphabetical order (I will specify the region). First I can create a table of results in a sub-userpage and maybe post it here to see if it is good to post it in the article.-- JForget  16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I've made a table like this, I know it's not the sexiest table, but I've basecially put the riding of the name, the region based on the election's article of the candidates per region and the two columns showing the results. I've you prefer only the link rather then the full table, please let me know. The source is this.

Finally the number in brackets means that not all results are, so I've left an indication of the number of polls counted for those not fully done. JForget 18:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The split of Toronto
The devolopment and necesities of Toronto diverges for the rest of the provinces, the electoral reform is obiusly need for Torontians, where the old sistem is no representing they diversity; in the other hand the rest od the province still filing well reprersented with the actual sistem. Isn't time to split this overgrown province? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.95.10 (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061223042900/http://www.ontla.on.ca:80/hansard/committee_debates/38_parl/session1/ElectoralReform/ER003.htm to http://www.ontla.on.ca/hansard/committee_debates/38_parl/session1/ElectoralReform/ER003.htm#P473_151284
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080202185256/http://www.liberalsforelectoralreform.com:80/2007/10/liberal-mpp-lorenzo-berardinetti.html to http://www.liberalsforelectoralreform.com/2007/10/liberal-mpp-lorenzo-berardinetti.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071012044611/http://nommp.ca/about.shtml to http://nommp.ca/about.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Background
The first paragraph of the background section included a comment on whom each elected MPP represents: "and is charged with representing all voters in the electoral district, except as limited by principles of party control". While this is not inaccurate, the question of how representation works under FPTP is more complicated than that. For instance, there is a distinction to be made between the service function of MPPs (represents all constituents) and the policy function (votes usually with the party as a representative of the party; party represents its base, seeks to maintain and grow that base and considers what is best for the province through the lens of that party's and the party leadership's values). It seems to me that a discussion of this subject is not necessary to understand the mechanics of the system, which is the subject of this paragraph and that adding a few words alluding to local representation and party control is a distraction. I have removed the comment. Reallavergne (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)reallavergne