More thoughts on MMP
I’ve been putting some thought into Ontario’s referendum on electoral reform. The more I think about it, the more I think it was a lost cause from the start. Let’s visit a few reasons…
No Official Explanation of the Proposed System
During the closing days of Ontario’s referendum on whether to adopt a new electoral system, I heard two ads on (cough) CFRA.
The ad first came from the No side. It featured two people talking, aghast that those evil minions in Queens Park wanted to add seats to the provincial legislature. There was no discussion of what those new MPPs were meant to do, or how those politicians would actually be selected, only that “party insiders” would choose them. Instead, it closed by saying that Ontario doesn’t need any more politicians. Simple, visceral, approaching accurate, and playing on peoples existing fears.
The second ad came from the Yes side. It provided a quick summary of how the new system would work, playing up the proportionality of the result. It had to jam why the system was worth supporting into an explanation of how the system would work.
These ads show one of the weaknesses of the referendum structure: the pro and con sides were expected to explain the proposed system at the same time as they agitated for or against it. This allowed the No side to sidestep the reasons why the new system was proposed, and spin with fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
In an ideal world, Elections Ontario would have been responsible for explaining the new system, and why the Citizen’s Coalition proposed it. Instead of their useless how-to-decide pamphlets, they should have sent out similarly sized explanations of the new system, and why it was selected. Perhaps they even could have bought a little air time on radio and TV to explain the mechanics.
The Media Loves Conflict, But Abhors Conflicting Ideas
The referendum happened at the same time as the provincial election. For political reporters, that gave two potential races to follow.
In the election, there were a bunch of well-known politicians doing what the media expects them to do: disagree. Reporters just had to show up at pre-planned events and provide a play by play of the arguments. Best of all, the “defining issue” of the campaign was visceral – should Ontario fund religious schools? It’s an issue that everyone has an opinion on, and is easy to report, as anyone with a child or a religious view is fair game for an interview.
Meanwhile, in the referendum, there were two conflicting ideas, that required a fair amount of background work to understand. Understanding the proposed system required a certain amount of legwork. What’s worse there were no easy events to hang stories on: the Yes side was too disorganized, and the No side benefited from an uneducated public. Instead of reporting easy “he said, she said” stories, reporters were reduced to talking to boring university professors, and people with funny accents from other countries.
The referendum was a bigger issue than the election, as its result would have a much larger impact; but it was much harder to report. Reporters have deadlines, and want to make their stories “interesting” (ie, conflict filled and easy to understand) within a 24 hour news cycle. What did the media cover? The easy story was the election, allowing reporters to forget about the referendum.
Wherefore art thou, proposal?
The Citizen’s Assembly was similarly ignored by the media. In the coverage that I heard and saw, I didn’t hear a peep from the people who proposed the new system. Most importantly, I didn’t hear why they chose MMP over the existing system (FPTP), or over the other possible systems.
In the media’s defense, the Citizen’s Assembly was chosen from regular folks, who may not have had time or interest in being interviewed. Although I doubt that all 102 weren’t interested in taking the occasional phone interview.
This brings us to my proposal for our next referendum on electoral reform:
-
The referendum must be stand-alone. It should not occur at the same time as elections, hockey playoffs, summer, or the Olympics. The media can’t be trusted to do a decent job with any distraction.
If possible, media outlets should be forced to carry public service announcements explaining the new system.
There must be three organizations involved in the referendum: Elections Ontario, which is responsible for explaining the new system, and why it is proposed; a “pro” side, responsible for trying to get the system passed; and a “no” side, responsible for explaining why the system should not be passed.
The referendum period must be long. 35 days is not long enough to discuss actual ideas. The referendum period should be long enough that each organization in the election has a chance to present their position, and effectively respond to the positions of the other organizations. Ideally the period would be a three or four months long.
