And now for Saskatchewan?
Just when you thought I was done blogging Canada’s PR movement.
According to the Ballot Access News, Saskatchewan’s Premier has pledged a Citizens’ Assembly if voters return him to office on November 7. And if the Assembly proposes proportional representation, he’s pledged to fund public education efforts about the proposal.
How might a Saskatchewan referendum end differently from Ontario 2007 (MMP) or British Columbia 2005 (STV)?
Premier Lorne Calvert is leader of the provincial New Democratic Party. New Democrats were key proponents of the Ontario measure. Though a viable “minor” party, the NDP regularly gets the short end of the winner-take-all stick nationwide and in provincial assemblies (from the perspective of strict seats/votes proportionality). And Saskatchewan is the NDP’s historical heartland.
A successful referendum on PR there would make an interesting point. Despite the above, the provincial NDP regularly wins seat shares far in excess of its vote shares. Is it naive to suggest the party would be ‘taking a hit’ at home to make a national rhetorical point?
Linuxluver on 24 Oct 2007 at 10:14 pm #
The Ontario referendum outcome wasn’t based on an informed electorate casting votes.
For a start, the report of the Citizens’ Assembly that made the recommendation was effectively supressed. Elections Ontario wasn’t allowed to discuss it or distribute it. By contrast, in British Columbia, their CA report was delivered to every home in the province…..wih a VERY different referendum result as a consequence.
In Ontario, the electronic media ignored the referendum until the final days (with the exception of TVO) and the daily newspapers followed the direction of their owners with the Metroland and Sun media groups being unanimously opposed to MMP for verifiably incorrect reasons that paid no heed to the evidence of actual practice or the Citizns Assembly report. For example, Sun Media groups’ London Free Press (oh the irony!) did not publih a single significant story on the approaching October 10th referendum after September 16th. When asked why, Greg van Mosel, the Managing Editor, replied that the Free Press publishes stories on topics people are interested in.
So much for robust public debate!
The Ontario referendum was sabotaged. End of story.
MSS on 25 Oct 2007 at 4:33 pm #
Jack, thanks for this info on Sask. Hard to imagine it will get far, unless there is a very odd outcome in the upcoming election. But as as I noted in the post that you graciously linked to, that’s certainly not out of the question, given recent performance.
Contrary to the comment before mine, the report of the Citizens Assembly was mailed to every home in Ontario. It is true that the referendum was, by all accounts, largely invisible. That was true also in B.C., however.
The BC result was different qualitatively, having won more than 20 percentage points more than the one in Ontario. However, it’s a binary result. In both places it needed 60% and in both places it failed.
Note that in NZ, where there was an extensive and government-subsidized campaign on both sides–unlike in the Canadian cases–the MMP proposal obtained only around 54%. There a majority was sufficient to result in enactment of electoral reform.
Visibility in NZ was aided not only by the subsidized campaign, but presumably also by the fact that there had been an earlier advisory referendum that was not coinciding with a general election. So, it had more attention than in either B.C. or Ontario.
But most of all, electoral reform was impelled by how discontented the electorate was. Very much so in the two jurisdictions where it got over 50%, but obviously not much in Ontario.
It is highly unlikely that a more visible campaign would have pushed MMP in Ontario over 50%, let alone the required 60% (which, as I noted, even the NZ proposal could not reach).
MSS on 25 Oct 2007 at 4:33 pm #
Oops, I should have said the BC result was different quantitatively. Sorry.
It was the same result (NO won).
Mark Greenan on 25 Oct 2007 at 8:20 pm #
Prof. Shugart, I don’t know where you’ve been getting your information but it’s off. The Citizens’ Assembly report was certainly NOT mailed to every household in Ontario.
The government effectively suppressed the work of the Assembly, only printing 500,000 thousand copies of their main householder brochure - about one for every 16 voters!
Gary on 27 Oct 2007 at 6:39 am #
“Contrary to the comment before mine, the report of the Citizens Assembly was mailed to every home in Ontario. It is true that the referendum was, by all accounts, largely invisible. That was true also in B.C., however.”
You’re either grossly misinformed or you’re just lying through your teeth to score cheap points. The report was never mailed to any households in Ontario. Neither was the OCA brochure.
Jack on 27 Oct 2007 at 1:00 pm #
I don’t think anyone’s knowingly lying here…
Bob Richard on 31 Oct 2007 at 5:01 pm #
As enthusiastic as I am about the Citizens’ Assembly idea, I think there’s an important lesson here. Voter education has to be designed into the process from the beginning. Obviously, this means adequate funding for the referendum as well as for the Assembly’s own deliberations. But it also means spending this money effectively. The only solution I can see so far is public financing, in equal amounts, of the Yes and No campaigns.
Without these measures — plus some means of insuring that the funding isn’t reduced after the Assembly has been formed but before the vote — Citizens’ Assemblies can easily become the opposite of what their proponents want, and end up being a mechanism for dissipating reform energy.
Jack on 31 Oct 2007 at 7:35 pm #
I like your point about public financing. One might even need to supplement it with equal time-style restrictions. I don’t remember what the laws in Canada are like on that - or on soft money contributions.
I don’t wholly disagree with your point about CAs, but I would refine it. Absent the above conditions, referenda can become excuses for detractors to say, “The people have spoken on PR; there is no further need for discussion.” We saw a lot of that in the aftermath of October 10.
Which raises a question about a “gap.” (Comparative politics loves that word.) Why do 100+ “average” deliberating people converge on some form of PR when the wider population thinks its a bad idea?
Bob Richard on 01 Nov 2007 at 1:05 pm #
As a first cut, I would say the gap reflects the fact that issues like PR take time and energy to come to terms with. A few sound bites aren’t enough. This basically restates my point about the importance of the referendum campaign period.
It’s not clear how many people in the wider population think PR is a bad idea, and how many don’t really know what to think.
Jack’s question is an important one, and should get more attention.
MSS on 02 Nov 2007 at 12:41 pm #
It appears I was mistaken. While there was (I am told by a contact in Ontario) some sort of pamphlet mailed out to homes in the province, the actual complete report of the Assembly was sent only to those who requested it. I was misled by a letter that was sent to me (as an interested non-Ontarian) that implied it was a mass mailing.
I regret the error, and I deeply appreciate those above who so politely pointed it out.
The rest of the points I made in the first comment still stand.