This is it. By this time tomorrow, Ontario will have decided whether to replace its single-member winner-take-all system with mixed-member proportional representation. It’ll be the second time a Citizens’ Assembly convened, studied the options and recommended a PR alternative. It’ll be the second time a ballot question on PR faced a threshold higher than the vote shares of the single-party governments that stoked interest in reform. Will it be the second time a referendum fails?

Judging from the Google alerts, the pro side became more vocal from this time last week. Some major dailies have lined up against reform, though. Here’s a recap:

Liberals for MMP call on voters to “choose change,” highlighting the Citizens’ Assembly process and why it recommended reform.

The Progressive Conservative party urged rejection in an e-mail blast, appealing to fears about the accountability of MPPs elected from lists and a provincial parliament with more members. (A 1980 referendum to repeal semi-PR in Illinois capitalized on similar sentiments about an overpaid, too-large state legislature.)

OntarioMMP notes a divided Liberal Party.

The Toronto Star urges rejection, black-boxing PR and preferring (non-)majority governments over coalitions including Greens and “other fringe parties.” Accused of “fear mongering” in its opposition, the editorial board defends itself, maintaining MMP “could lead to constant electoral chaos.”

A Globe and Mail poll finds 52 percent intend to vote ‘no,’ and some prominent columnists reject MMP because the “list seats would be inhabited by elites” and coalition governments would become the norm.

A former Citizens’ Assembly member tells CTV Toronto that the government didn’t do enough to get the word out.

As for the election going on, Ontario Liberals enjoy a 12-point lead over a Progressive Conservative party that campaigned on faith-based funding for schools.

In 2003, the Liberals won 70 percent of seats on 46 percent of votes. In 1999, the Progressive Conservatives won 57 percent of seats on 45 percent of votes. The last time a majority government came to power on a majority of votes was 1937. That says a lot about why the parties aren’t on board. With first-past-the-post, they don’t have to reach out very far to win relatively unfettered governing power. That itself raises interesting questions about which arrangement more empowers elites.

UPDATE:

A National Post columnist says MMP is for anarcho-syndicalists who think they’re smarter than everyone else. And those darn list tier elites again.

Another National Post columnist cites my old FairVote colleague on the use of PR to pick Oscar nominees.

Conservatives for MMP accuse the opponents of doublespeak.

And a letter writer to the Toronto Star astutely points out that party elites pick the candidates who run in each riding. So much for the insulated, unaccountable list argument.