Ontario Finance Mininster Greg Sorbara was in town yesterday, and he took some time to call yours truly (originally he was to stop by the office, but that ended up not fitting his schedule).
He was here to attend a campaign fundraiser for Mississauga South Liberal candidate Charles Sousa, who's running against incumbent and former Liberal Tim Peterson, who is, as you remember, running as a Progressive Conservative this time around.
I spent most of my time asking Sorbara about education funding, because it's what I know most about, but I also asked him about the referendum on electoral reform that we'll all be taking part in on Election Day (Oct. 10).
After saying he was "certainly interested in a fulsome debate and getting the opinion of Ontarians," he said that, on a personal level, he prefers the the current first-past-the-post system.
He has four main worries about the proposed Mixed-member Proportional system.
First, because 39 of the MPPs (30 per cent of them) would be elected from lists created by the political parties, and because they wouldn't represent specific ridings, he fears there would be "two categories and two classes of members."
Second, he worries about the size of the legislature. There are currently 103 members. After the October election there will be 107 seats.
If the proposed MMP system is put in place, there will be 129 members, 22 more than there will be after October.
"The proposed system would create a larger parliament and at this stage I don't think a larger parliament would help Ontarians," said Sorbara.
As an MPP who started his career at Queen's Park in 1985, Sorbara knows that there were, in the 1990s, 130 seats in the Legislature. It took Progressive Conservative Premier Mike Harris to cut that back to 103 in 1999.
By no means does that prove Sorbara's wrong, though I do believe he is.
He is right that more MPPs for the sake of more MPPs would in no way help Ontarians. But if there are more MPPs because that's what is required to make the votes of all Ontarians count, and to make the Legislature reflect the true desires of the voters, then I think it would help Ontarians. It would help them regain confidence in the system. It would help them convince themselves that voting is worthwhile.
Sorbara's main worry regarding the size of the Legislature is money.
"I'm concerned with even modest expenditures where they're not necessary," he said.
Fair enough, but, again, if money's spent to improve democracy in our province, it is worthwhile.
He's also worried about the MMP system creating perpetual minority governments.
It is a valid concern, and one I share with Sorbara, but I feel that if everyone knew there would be perpetual minority governments, and there surely would be under the MMP system, the MPPs would simply have to be mature enough to sit through the full session.
Finally, Sorbara's worried about the proliferation of small parties in the Legislature.
The Green Party might get a seat. The anti-abortionist, anti-gay marriage, pro-Christian Family Coalition Party could take a seat. The Marxist-Leninists could rally their troops and get a seat. Who knows what other parties would spring up and get a seat.
I think this argument is simple fear-mongering.
Under the MMP system, to get a seat in the Legislature, a party must have three per cent of the popular vote.
It is not easy to get three per cent of the popular vote.
In the last election, with significant media coverage and an established party infrastructure that's been in place since 1990, the Green Party only received 2.8 per cent of the popular vote.
The next closest party, the Family Coalition Party, received just 0.8 per cent of the vote.
Sorbara's argument is that if you have a system that encourages small parties, and discourages strategic voting, you will have a proliferation of small parties.
The argument holds water. If people who wanted to vote for the Green Party could do so (instead of voting for the party they consider the lesser of two evils), the Green Party would surely break the three per cent barrier. (In fact, they'll likely break it this election anyway).
But could other parties get that much support, which equals roughly 140,000 votes?
I'm sure some could, but, if that's the case, do they not deserve a seat if 140,000 voters agree with their policies?
There's also the possibility, and Sorbara is worried about this too, that the main parties will split into smaller parties. The centre-left will become one Liberal Party and the centre right another Liberal Party. The right wing Progressive Conservatives could become a Reform-Alliance type party.
I think this is also fear-mongering, and an underestimation of the power of branding.