This column by
Ian Urquhart ran in dozens of local papers owned by the Star today:
Electoral reform: The good, the bad, the ugly - "Last weekend, the citizens' assembly on electoral reform, which has been meeting regularly with little or no press scrutiny, voted to back an electoral system called "mixed member proportional," or MMP. The system is used in Germany, New Zealand, and a few other places..." [
Toronto Star]
Despite the headline and a few rhetorical flourishes at the start and finish, the article is really just a one-sided review of all of the potential drawbacks of an MMP system with absolutely no reflection on the flaws of the present system. It pains me to say this, because his reporting on many other aspects of provincial politics is usually pretty solid, but I swear he's written exactly the same anti-electoral reform screed at least a dozen times in the past few years, adopting the same pretense of dispassionate analysis each time. Here's
another recent piece on the citizens' aseembly; most of the others I'm thinking of are hidden inside The Star's pay-for-access archive.
I wish I knew more about Mr. Urquhart's personal political views, because my working theory is that partisan Liberals and Conservatives are pleased as punch with the status quo because, even though they may lose and have no power whatsoever, the promise of eventually having total power on the basis of a minority popular vote share is just too tantalizing a possibility. New Democrats, just as obviously, are sick of being marginalized as "fringe" radicals despite the substantial support of the public.
The overall impression one gets from his clippings on the subject is that, like a few other people I know, he is perfectly willing to admit and accept that first-past-the-post is undemocratic; but, what the heck, it sure is convenient and stable! He also fears the decline of "broad based" (read: brokerage, rule-at-any-cost, promise-whatever-it-you-must, i.e. Liberal and Conservative) parties in favour of "fringe" (read: issue-based, principle-driven) parties, and then audaciously claims that minority coalition government is an "oxymoron" despite decades of solid historical counterexample from countries using various forms of PR.
I'm sick of hearing the establishment viewpoint echo back and forth in the press, tempered only by a few dissenting letters to the editor. Wouldn't it be more interesting to find out what the majority of Ontarians -- the disaffected, cynical, politics-is-just-BS crowd that grows bigger every year (for good reason!) -- think about the relative merits of illegitimate yet convenient winner-take-all majorities versus highly representative but tricky and compromise-producing minorities? Or for serious, informed debate on the subject from expert scholars who've devoted their professional lives to the topic?
If people who have seriously weighed the issues were given a public platform, rather than written off as naive, unrealistic wonks, electoral reform might have a chance. But of course, that's not the point. Ontario's Liberals, just like BC's Liberals, designed the citizens' assembly process to fail. With the help of this sort of punditry, it almost certainly will.
Labels: electoral reform, media, queen's park