Claim: Poor Education Campaign led to “Unmitigated Disaster”

The Globe and Mail states that MMP proponents say Ontario’s referendum on electoral reform was an “unmitigated disaster” plagued by voter and media apathy, a poor education campaign, and an impossible threshold for passage.
Dennis Pilon, assistant professor of political science at University of Victoria and author of The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System named the referendum as a waste of money because the education campaign focused on how the referendum would work, not what was being considered:

“Selling a voting system is like selling a car. Most of us don’t look up under the hood. We recognize that there are professionals who will take care of that. What we want to know is performance.”

Is this true, or just sour grapes?

Tip: YouTube Videos On MMP and The Referendum

YouTube has a number of videos tagged “MMP” in its “News & Politics” selection including videos of speeches and debates.

Elections Ontario Criticized For Lack of Public Awareness

The Canadian Press (via Canoe.ca) has an article describing how MMP supporters believe that the government and Elections Ontario are doing a poor job of informing the public about the referendum. They believe holding the referendum as the same time as the provincial election was a mistake as the media coverage of the election drowned out that of the referendum.

Similarly, writing in the National Post, Dennis Pilon, assistant professor in the political science department at the University of Victoria and the author of The Politics of Voting: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System and MMP supporter states that the government and Elections Ontario have bungled educating the public about the referendum and to fix this Ontario broadcasters should televise a debate on between MMP supporters and opponents.

Debate Tonight At University of Toronto

The Churchill Society for the Advancement of Parliamentary Democracy is holding a debate 7pm today (October 2) at Innis Town Hall, University of Toronto 2 Sussex Avenue (NW corner of St. George & Sussex, one block south of Bloor).

Speakers are Ed Broadbent, former leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada on the pro-MMP side versus Charles Harnick, former attorney general of Ontario on the pro-FPTP side

Update: October 3, 2007

The Toronto Star has a report on the debate which was attended by about 60 people. Charles Harnick, a former P.C. cabinet member stated that the NDP would repeatedly hold the balance of power under MMP.

Both Harnick and Broadbent agreed that there would be more coalition governments under MMP and that the government made a mistake by piggybacking the MMP referendum on the provincial election which is drawing the media attention.

Is Harnick right? Are Liberals or Conservatives for MMP killing their parties’ chances of ever being in government without depending on the NDP for support?

MMP vs. FPTP Debate on TVO

Last Thursday’s episode of The Agenda With Steve Paikin on TVO covered MMP vs. FPTP with a live debate at the Munk Centre for International Studies at Trinity College, University of Toronto.

On the pro-MMP Side

• Rick Anderson – the chair of the Vote for MMP campaign.
• Marilyn Churley – former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Registrar General in the Ontario NDP government from 1990-1995. She served as a New Democratic Member of Provincial Parliament for 15 years and two years as a Toronto City Councilor.
• Dennis Pilon – professor of Political Science at the University of Victoria.

On the anti-MMP Side

• Sheila Copps – columnist with Sun Media. She is a former Liberal MP, deputy prime minister and minister of the environment.
• David Fleet – director of the No MMP campaign.

There was a post-show video chat with featuring the guests taking viewer questions.

Previously The Agenda With Steve Paikin’s Election Battle Blog had a debate been bloggers.

Update: October 5, 2007

This episode of The Agenda with Steve Paikin covering the debate will be rebroadcasted on Monday 08 October 2007 8:00 PM

The Great Debate: Toronto Edition – Part 1

The Great Referendum Debate: Toronto Edition organized by The Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen’s University was held yesterday, September 28, 2007 at the MaRS Complex in downtown Toronto.
For MMP were:

• Andrew Coyne – National Post political affairs columnist
• Marilyn Churley – former NDP provincial cabinet minister, nominated NDP for next federal election

Against MMP were:

• Christina Blizzard – Toronto Sun Queen’s Park columnist
• Charles Harnick – former PC provincial cabinet minister

Moderated by Tom Axworthy with introductory remarks by George Thomson, Chair of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly.

The proceedings were taped by CPAC for later broadcast. Check local listings…

George Thomson initially spoke on the selection of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly and the depth of study of the various alternative systems they looked at. He agreed with a common theme throughout the evening, too few people knew about the referendum or about MMP. He specifically criticized the rules that Elections Ontario’s education campaign was operating under – informing people that the referendum was occurring but not the pros and cons of MMP.

Following Thomson the moderator gave each speaker ten minutes to speak. This post gives my take on their positions. Part 2 will cover their answers to the moderator’s questions and questions from the floor.

Radwanski On Lack of Public Awareness

Adam Radwanski who is a member of the Globe and Mail’s editorial board and former managing editor of Macleans.ca looks at why people on both sides of the referendum believe that the government wants the other side to win:

Those in favour of the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system are convinced that the Liberals, having promised to bring it forward but unenthused by the prospect of it actually coming to pass, have deliberately doomed the reforms by tacking the referendum onto a provincial election that completely overshadows it. Those against MMP are equally convinced that the province’s entire political system is about to be overhauled by stealth – that something Ontarians otherwise wouldn’t vote for might slide through because the seriousness of it is being undersold.

Radwanski thinks the former is more likely and is very concerned that a possible change to MMP may occur without the public fully understanding what is happening:

Whether Liberal or Conservative, the next government will be overwhelmingly similar to the one we’ve had the last four years. But adopting MMP, with its likely stream of minority governments and its end to the domination by the two major parties, would radically change the way the province is run.
It’s completely irresponsible to be settling that question in this way. It’s not just people actively on one side or the other who should be peeved; it’s everyone else being denied a proper debate that allows them to form their own opinions.

Globe And Mail to Host Online Forum with Ontario Deputy Chief Electoral Officer

The Globe and Mail will have an online Q&A with Ontario Deputy Chief Electoral Officer Loren A. Wells today from 1-2 p.m. See their announcement for details on submitting a question.

Toronto Star Says Elections Ontario Should Expand Education Campaign

The Toronto Star has an editorial decrying the lack of public knowledge about the referendum and calls upon Elections Ontario to request an expanded budget to beef up its education campaign.

The editorial also present information about the question, and the proposed MMP system.

People Still Unsure of What is MMP

The National Post has an article suggesting that much work still needs to be done to educate the voters on what is MMP. The article notes the task facing Elections Ontario:

Brad Hutchinson, one of 107 referendum “resource officers” hired to get word out about the referendum, visited the Goodyear Toastmasters club in Etobicoke last Thursday to explain MMP. He tells the small crowd he wore a grey shirt and tie to appear neutral; they laugh. As his presentation wore on, it was clear the topic had left the accomplished speakers so befuddled, they were almost speechless.

Maybe they started too late:

As the discussion wears on, the Toastmasters are surprised that with less than one month before the referendum vote on Oct. 10, the details are just beginning to reach them.
“The first I saw was the pamphlet that came in the mail today,” Mr. Zary says. “And I want to know more.”
“The majority of people don’t know it’s going on,” another member adds.
“But maybe it’s not meant to go through,” another pipes up.