Citizens Assembly Blog

Ontario’s Public Education Campaign Launches; U.K.’s Prime Minister Explores Creating a Citizens Assembly

The Citizens Assembly Blog has been moved to iSolon.org.  Please check for all future citizens assembly news at www.iSolon.org.  For a better formatted version of this blog entry, check iSolon.org's Ontario’s Public Education Campaign Launches; U.K.’s Prime Minister Explores Creating a Citizens Assembly.  --J.H. Snider

This blog entry covering citizens assembly news since late May is divided into four sections:

1) Country-By-Country News
2) New Research
3) Launch of  iSolon.org and Personal News
4) Newspaper Articles

Country-By-Country News

As expected, the big news on citizens assemblies continues to come out of Ontario.  All eyes are now focused on the referendum scheduled for October 10, when the public will have a chance to vote up or down on the Ontario Citizens Assembly’s policy recommendations. 

On June 20, Ontario’s Government announced the wording of the referendum question that will be placed on the ballot for the October 10 election.  The question reads:

Which electoral system should Ontario use to elect members to the provincial legislature?

Option #1:   The existing electoral system (first past the post).

Option #2:   The alternative electoral system proposed by the Citizens' Assembly (mixed member proportional).

On August 1, Elections Ontario launched a $6.8 million education campaign on the referendum (this comes out of a total $92.9 million budget for the provincial election).  The campaign is called “Understand the Question.”  Most of the campaign’s big expenditures come after Labor Day.  They include a TV ad blitz, a newspaper and community paper ad blitz (in 25 different languages), and 4.8 million pamphlets mailed to households. Online ads and YouTube videos are also part of the campaign.   

Elections Ontario cannot endorse either of the two referendum choices; it must remain strictly neutral.  Its mandate is to alert the public to the existence of the referendum and describe the mechanics of the two types of electoral systems.  Its special campaign website at http://yourbigdecision.ca says it “provides voters with impartial tools to define and understand both the First-Past-the-Post and the Mixed Member Proportional electoral systems and to assess these systems against individual voter priorities and considerations.”

In addition to the government website, there is a Yes MPP (http://www.voteformmp.ca/) and a No MPP (http://nommp.ca/) website/campaign.  All reports indicate that the Yes MPP is better funded and organized, with much greater grassroots support.  A quick look at the two websites will confirm this impression.

Having said the above, it’s not clear to me how much impact any of this is having on the electorate.  There has been lots of newspaper coverage—since late May more than 300 articles of one nature or another according to a Nexis search.  But most of these articles are reruns of the same article in different publications and many are in the back pages of the newspaper. An Environs poll of 585 Ontarians in early June found that only 28% were familiar with the citizens assembly’s proposal.

On the other hand, the wide circulation Toronto Star has run more than a dozen articles since the middle of May.  Indicative of the relatively high salience of the referendum, The Economist, a high prestige national publication, on September 1 ran an article on referendum.  The Economist’s coverage probably has no local political relevance, but I wanted to note it because I am not aware of any other national U.S. publication that has run an article either about the Ontario citizens assembly or the two other citizens assemblies that preceded it. 

An important feature of the debate over the referendum is that the major political parties are not taking a position on it.  This significantly lowers its visibility during the provincial election campaign.  Only leaders of the small parties, the Greens and New Democrats, have staked out a public position (both in support of the Citizens’ Assembly’s recommendation).

In late June, a flurry of news reports came out of the U.K. that the new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was seriously considering launching a citizens’ assembly to develop a written British Constitution.  In his July 3 speech to parliament on parliamentary and constitional reform, however, the Prime Minister made no mention of creating a citizens assembly.  However, he did say that he had asked his Justice Minister to hold a series of public meetings throughout the fall to discuss constitutional reform.  Thus, there is another opportunity to propose a citizens assembly as a democratic reform mechanism.  Also of note in his speech, he specifically endorsed citizen juries, a related institution based on a randomly selected deliberative body (this should make Ned Crosby—the man who devoted his life to promoting citizen juries—feel that his work might yet pay off.)  The relevant section of his speech is pasted below. I’ve highlighted in bold the points specifically cited above.

While our system of representative democracy - local as well as national - is at the heart of our constitution, it can be enhanced by devolving more power directly to the people and I propose we start the debate and consult on empowering citizens and communities in four areas.

First, powers of initiative, extending the right of the British people to intervene with their elected local representatives to ensure action - through a new community right to call for action and new duties on public bodies to involve local people.

Second, new rights for the British people to be consulted through mechanisms such as 'citizens juries' on major decisions affecting their lives.

Third, powers of redress, new rights for the British people to scrutinise and improve the delivery of local services.

And fourth, powers to ballot on spending decisions in areas such as neighbourhood budgets and youth budgets, with decisions on finance made by local people themselves.

At the same time, we must give new life to the very idea of citizenship itself.
All of us in this House would acknowledge there are very specific challenges we must meet on engaging young people and improving citizenship education - and I hope there will be all-party support for a Commission to review this and make recommendations….

In Britain we have a largely unwritten constitution. To change that would represent a fundamental and historic shift in our constitutional arrangements. So it is right to involve the public in a sustained debate whether there is a case for the United Kingdom developing a full British Bill of Rights and Duties, or for moving towards a written constitution.

And because such fundamental changes should happen only where there is a settled consensus on whether to proceed, I have asked my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for Justice to lead a dialogue within Parliament and with people across the United Kingdom by holding a series of hearings, starting in the autumn, in all regions and nations of this country - and he will consult with the other parties on this process.

Mr Speaker, the changes we propose today and the national debate we now begin are founded upon the conviction that the best answer to disengagement from our democracy is to strengthen our democracy.

It is my hope that this dialogue of all parties and the British people will lead to a new consensus, a more effective democracy and a stronger sense of shared national purpose.

Scotland, one of Europe’s leaders in implementing e-democracy, may also be a good prospect for a citizens assembly.  On August 14, 2007, the Scottish Government released a white paper on the future of governance in Scotland, which included a call for a “National Conversation.”  Unlock Democracy, a democratic reform advocacy group, has used that call to call on the government to create a “Citizens’ Convention” modeled after the citizens assemblies in British Columbia and Ontario.

In many other countries, leading Green Party candidates have called for the creation of a citizens assembly to implement electoral reform.  Green parties presumably endorse citizens assemblies because they believe they are a way to get proportional representation, a type of electoral system that favors small parties.  Since the last issue of the Citizens Assembly News Digest, these Green Party calls have come from Manitoba (Canada), Nova Scotia (Canada), and New Zealand.  These calls raise the visibility of the citizens assembly reform idea.  But because the Green Party is not a major party in any of these jurisdictions, they probably have little more political salience than a newspaper op-ed calling for a particular democratic reform.

In the Netherlands, despite the high repute with which the citizens assembly has been credited with conducting its business, the Parliament appears unlikely to pass its recommended reforms.  This is ironic because the recommendations of the Netherlands Citizens Assembly were far more modest than the recommendations of the British Columbia and Ontario Citizens Assemblies.  The key difference may be that in the Netherlands the Citizens Assembly’s recommendations were purely advisory, whereas in British Columbia and Ontario they were put on the ballot as a referendum.  In an e-mail to me on September 5, 2007, Professor Henk van der Kolk, a political scientist from the University of Twente, describes for this Citizens Assembly New Digest the dismal odds of Parliament passing the Citizens Assembly’s recommendations.

State of affairs, Dutch Burgerforum

The new government (formed after the November 2006 elections) is still discussing its position towards the proposals of the Citizens Assembly. The new minister of the Interior and Kingdom relations (PvdA) has shifted responsibility of this file to the junior minister (or ‘state secretary’) (CDA). Since the PvdA is officially in favor of the change (see below) this probably indicates the minister does not see a chance within the coalition to change the electoral law and/or is not willing to fight for it.

The CDA junior minister has three options: to accept the proposal, to indicate ‘she will not take actions to implement the change’, or to reject the proposal. The third option means she has to explain her decision in parliament and the opposition (especially D66 and GreenLeft) will use this decision to criticize the undemocratic attitude of the government. The first option means she has to implement a proposal which she and her party probably do not like very much. So the most likely option is the second; leaving the decision to parliament. In that case, D66 [the small party that pushed for creating the citizens assembly and endorsed its recommendations] will take a parliamentary initiative, which will subsequently be rejected by a majority in parliament (maybe supported by PvdA and GreenLeft). 

Professor Henk’s conclusion was based on the following data that he compiled.

Party	Party family	Votes 2006	Seats	Current coalition	Position of the party
Christen Democratisch Appèl (CDA)	Christain democracts	2.608.573	41	X	No known (official) position, probably not very positive towards institutional change
Partij van de Arbeid (PvdA)	Social democrats	2.085.077	33	X	The proposal to introduce a ‘party vote’ in addition to the personal vote, was already an element of the party platform of the PvdA before the CA proposed this idea. However, enthusiasm for this promise within the party seems to be lacking.
Socialistische Partij (SP)	Socialists	1.630.803	25		No known (official) position, probably not very positive towards institutional change, not very positive towards the idea of a CA http://www.sp.nl/nieuws/ spanning/200605/ binnenstebuiten.shtml
Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie (VVD)	Conservative liberals	1.443.312	22		No known (official) position, probably not very positive towards institutional change
Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV)	Right wing	579.490	9		In favor of a fully open list system (see www.pvv.nl), unknown position towards the CA
GroenLinks (GL)	GreenLeft	453.054	7		Unknown, may be positive however.
ChristenUnie (CU)	Orthodox Christian	390.969	6	X	Not known for its positive attitude towards institutional change, probably not in favour
Democraten 66 (D66)	Progressive liberals	193.232	3		D66 was strongly in favor of introducing the CA and will support the proposal; http://www.d66.nl/9359000/ 1/j9vvhc6cwgbojx9/ vhfopcgltuq0?ctx=vhdrkxw42lyy
Partij voor de Dieren (PvdD)	Animal party	179.988	2		Unknown, at least in favor (like most other parties) of PR
Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij (SGP)	Orthodox Christians	153.266	2		Most likely against this institutional reform
		9.654.475 (turnout 80%)	150

New Research

There has been a burst of scholarly work on citizens assemblies, and I intend to list that scholarship and on occasion review it in future issues of the Citizens Assembly News Digest.  Please send me any work you have done in this area so that others can benefit from it.

My own book review essay on democratic theorists who have proposed legislative bodies made up of randomly selected citizens, From Dahl to O'Leary: 36 Years of the 'Yale School of Democratic Reform', was published in the current issue of the Journal of Public Deliberation, which is also looking for other work on citizens assemblies.  The book review essay was stimulated by Kevin O’Leary’s new book, Saving Democracy: A Plan for Real Representation in America (Stanford University Press, 2006), which calls for government sponsored randomly selected citizen bodies in every congressional district in the United States. 

The 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, held in Chicago over Labor Day weekend, had two panels that substantially focused on citizens assemblies.  One panel consisted of electoral system experts; the other democratic deliberation experts.   The panel on electoral systems had an excellent turnout, with 27 folks in the audience and a vigorous question and answer session.  Those who regularly attend APSA panels will know how rare it is to have an audience of such size and quality.  Both panels were dominated by Canadian scholars. 

The 2007 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association had one paper presented by three authors intimately familiar with the Ontario Citizens Assembly. 

These papers and other are listed in the Academic Conferences and Academic Publications sections of my new website and non-profit organization, iSolon.org.

In general, there has been a recent shift in the literature on citizens assemblies from time series studies of a paricular citizens assembly (British Columbia) to comparative studies of the three citizens assemblies to date (British Columbia, the Netherlands, and Ontario).  Of course, this type of analysis wasn’t possible even a year ago because British Columbia was the only case study available. 

This expansion in the scope of study is a welcome development, but I believe it doesn’t go far enough.  I suggest that we divide the citizens assembly process into three macro stages; the pre-citizens assembly stage (e.g., where the members of the citizens assembly are selected), the citizens assembly stage (where the members of the citizens assembly deliberate and come to judgment), and the post-citizens assembly stage (e.g, where the public is educated about the pros and cons of the citizens assembly’s recommendations).  The studies to date have all focused on the citizens assembly stage.  I believe we need to see more work on the pre- and post-stages.  This may require that political scientists with other types of expertise (such as in public opinion, political communication, and political behavior) take an interest in citizens assemblies.

On the pre-citizens assembly stage, I’d like to know more about why less than 10% of randomly selected citizens agree to participate in a citizens assembly.  Who exactly are the folks that participate and don’t participate?  For example, if a citizens assembly is based in Vancouver, is someone 1,000 miles away near the Artic Circle less likely to participate than someone who lives in Vancouver?  To what extent is money and age a factor in participation?  What do people learn at the informational sessions that lead a large fraction to decide not to participate?  It seems to me that if we don’t know why people do and don’t participate, we cannot take effective steps to bolster the participation rate, which is vital for the democratic legitimacy of this type of institution.  The stratified random sampling partially compensates for the low participation rate, but it is not enough.   Unfortunately, it is too late to gather data to answer many of these questions.  The data have to be gathered upfront as part of the citizens assembly’s institutional design. 

On the post-citizens assembly stage, I’d like to know more about what types of communications are most influential and why citizens vote for or against the referendum.  One thing we have learned from the three citizens assemblies is that party elites are unlikely to take a public stand on a citizens assembly’s recommendations.  This is a big problem because the press tends to heavily rely on elite disagreement in choosing what to cover and how to cover it. 

Nevertheless, in Ontario there has been substantial press coverage of the citizens assembly.  However, the press focuses its coverage on the strenghts and weaknesses of the citizens assembly’s final recommendations.  But it might be that voters primarily make their decision based on their trust of the citizens assembly process.  The press seems to expect that the voters will replicate the decision making process of the citizens assembly members.  But that may be asking an uncreasonable amount of voters.  It would be great if on October 10 we could get a well designed exit poll that would seek to answer some of these questions.  What percentage of voters know of the ballot item by election day?  Are voters that have the most knowledge most likely to support or oppose the citizens assembly’s recommendations?  Do voters vote for or against the referendum item based on their knowledge of electoral systems or their trust in the citizens assembly process?

In February 2008 Cambridge University Press is publishing Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly, a collection of scholarly articles on the British Columbia Citizens Assembly.  I’ll have more to say about this book as its publication deadline approaches.  A look at its table of contents demonstrates that it’s going to be a book of great substance.

Launch of iSolon.org and Personal News

After close to seven years at the New America Foundation, where I held the titles of Senior Research Fellow and Research Director, I finally left in August (although I am still officially listed as New America staff on its website).  I submitted my resignation last March but agreed to stay on while a replacement was sought.  My last report for New America, “The Art of Spectrum Lobbying: America's $480 Billion Spectrum Giveaway, How it Happened, and How to Prevent it from Recurring,” was released at an event in mid-July and as a glossy report in mid-August.   

In February of this year. I incorporated a non-profit, iSolon.org, and this week I launched the iSolon.org website.  Please check it out at www.iSolon.org.  That website includes a clearinghouse of information on citizens assemblies, which I hope will be of use to members of this community.  In addition to launching iSolon.org, I am writing an e-democracy book for a major public affairs press and will have the title of Affliated Researcher at Columbia University’s Institute for Tele-Information.

On July 3, 2007 my daughter was sworn into office as a school board member for the Anne Arundel County public schools, a school district with close to a $1 billion budget and 10,000 employees.  Although she is the student member of the Board, she has full voting powers like the adult members.  The occasion of her taking office led the Baltimore Sun to run a profile of the Snider family on the front page of its Maryland Section, which has a claimed circulation of more than a million people.  By late October my daughter hopes to launch a state-of-the-art e-democracy website for the students, including a discussion forum, e-petitions tool, and digg.com-style review of articles about the school system.  A beta version of the website can be found at www.aacstudents.org .

Newspapers Articles

Below is a smattering of news articles that had valid links within a few weeks of when this Citizens Assembly News Digest was published.  For a much more thorough listing of articles, consult a database such as Nexis or Factiva.

Sept. 4, 2007

Let's get proportional for Newsdurhamregion.com - Durham,Canada By Geoff Daw The Ontario Citizens Assembly was a randomly chosen group of 103 Ontarians from across

Reform's on the ballot: Now if only they cared Toronto Star - Ontario, Canada While the 104-member Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform held months of public hearings

Sept. 1, 2007

Let's look at ward system The North Bay Nugget - North Bay,Ontario,Canada

Silence of the lambs Hamilton Mountain News - Ontario, Canada

Questions surround MMP Toronto Star - Ontario, Canada

Aug 28, 2007

Vote for MMP Online drive launched: Ontarians invited to give ... Canada NewsWire (press release) – Canada

Aug. 27, 2007

Proposed reforms are far from perfect Waterloo Record - Waterloo,Ontario,Canada

Aug 22, 2007

Local election campaign kirks off SooToday.com - USA

MMP would be more representation, not less Cambridge Times - Cambridge,Ontario,Canada

A duty to be informed Guelph Tribune - Guelph,ON,Canada

Aug 21, 2007

MMP system can work here: reader Orillia Packet & Times - Orillia,Ontario,Canada

Aug 20, 2007

Electoral reform map clarifies the issue but not the outcome Vancouver Sun - British Columbia, Canada

Aug 17, 2007

Defence of old vote system weak: reader Orillia Packet & Times - Orillia,Ontario,Canada

Aug 16, 2007

Panel recommends boosting number of BC MLAs by two Globe and Mail – Canada

Get informed on Referendum 2007' Fort Frances Times - ON, Canada

Aug 10, 2007

Ontarians to participate in referendum vote this fall Orangeville Citizen - Orangeville,Canada

Aug 9, 2007

Grey County cool to electoral reform—Anita Droog Bayshore Broadcasting News Centre - Owen Sound,Ontario,Canada

Cast a smart vote on election reform Toronto Star - Ontario, Canada

Get informed on reform Toronto Star - Ontario, Canada

Could make world of difference when you vote Cambridge Times - Cambridge,Ontario,Canada

Aug 3, 2007

MMP would provide better representation: local supporter Orillia Packet & Times - Orillia,Ontario,Canada

Aug 2, 2007

Elections Ontario Launches Referendum Public Education Campaign ... Canada NewsWire (press release) - Canada

Deciding democracy Globe and Mail – Canada

Aug 1, 2007

Voters: verify the claims of electoral reform critics before Oct. 10 Orillia Packet & Times - Orillia,Ontario,Canada

July 29, 2007

Think long and hard before deciding on electoral referendum Orillia Packet & Times - Orillia,Ontario,Canada

July 12, 2007

Are you informed on electoral reform? Huntsville Forester - Ontario, Canada

July 9, 2007

Why Traditions Matter or Why MMP is Wrong for Ontario pt. 8 By aginsberg(aginsberg)

July 4, 2007

Un-democracy; Proposed electoral system will undermine the voting ... Sudbury Star - Sudbury,Ontario,Canada

July 2, 2007

Campaigns for referendum on electoral reform gear up Toronto Star - Ontario, Canada

June 30, 2007

No 'radical' change: prof The Kingston Whig-Standard - Kingston,Ontario,Canada

June 29, 2007

Changing how we vote; Why a group of citizens is pressing for ... The Kingston Whig-Standard - Kingston,Ontario,Canada

June 26, 2007

Electoral reform critic doesn't grasp benefits Peterborough Examiner - Peterborough,Ontario,Canada

June 25, 2007

Ontario government releases referendum question on electoral reform Fort Frances Times - ON, Canada

June 23, 2007

Vote for change Rabble.ca - Montreal,QC,Canada

Ontario government releases referendum question on electoral reform Canada East - Canada

Yes Campaign pushing for political change; Group pushing citizens ... Owen Sound Sun Times - Owen Sound,Ontario,Canada

June 21, 2007

Yes Campaign pushing for political change Owen Sound Sun Times - Owen Sound,Ontario,Canada

Ontario referendum question formulated Globe and Mail - Canada

McGuinty Government Announces Referendum Question Canada NewsWire (press release) - Canada

June 19, 2007

A more positive way of voting Northumberland Today - Cobourg,Ontario,Canada

June 18, 2007

Electoral system overhaul proposed Hamilton Spectator - Ontario, Canada

June 16, 2007

Proposed new voting system explained Mon. Northumberland Today - Cobourg,Ontario,Canada

PCs delay on vote changes London Free Press - Canada

No evidence that adding MPPs gives better government Peterborough Examiner - Peterborough,Ontario,Canada

Learn of possible voting changes Monday Northumberland Today - Cobourg,Ontario,Canada

June 14, 2007

Cost of adding MPPs is astronomical Hamilton Spectator - Ontario, Canada

June 9, 2007

New voting system works well

June 6, 2007

Meeting on proposed new voting system Northumberland Today - Cobourg,Ontario,Canada

Residents look at proposed election changes parrysound.com - Parry Sound,Ontario,Canada

Bolton woman seeks local Green nomination Caledon Citizen - Caledon,Ontario,Canada

Monday, June 4, 2007, at the North Carolina General Assembly Myrtle Beach Sun News - Myrtle Beach,SC,USA

SES students receive awards at assembly News-Democrat & Leader - Russellville,KY,USA

Bolton woman seeks local Green nomination Caledon Citizen - Caledon,Ontario,Canada

June 3, 2007

Electoral reform: how much is really needed? Orangeville Citizen - Orangeville,Canada

Planning Council to debate Ontario's proposed voting system Sudbury Star - Sudbury,Ontario,Canada

Bar set high to change outdated system of electing MPPs Peterborough Examiner - Peterborough,Ontario,Canada

June 2, 2007

Democratic advance Peterborough Examiner - Peterborough,Ontario,Canada

Voting reform focus of meeting Sudbury Star - Sudbury,Ontario,Canada Susan Pigott from the Citizens' Assembly Secretariat and Citizen's Assembly members Richard Bowdidge

June 1, 2007

Ontarians to vote on electoral change The Charlatan - Ottawa,Canada

May 30, 2007

Questions, criticism at electoral reform night Peterborough Examiner - Peterborough,Ontario,Canada

May 29, 2007

Another Ill-Informed Toronto Columnist Agoravox - Paris,France

May 28, 2007

Midland Says Yes! By Chris Tindal

May 26, 2007

Referendum will determine whether changes to Ontario's electoral ... Huntsville Forester - Huntsville,Ontario,Canada

May 25, 2007

One ballot, two votes: a new way to vote in Ontario Northumberland Today - Cobourg,Ontario,Canada

May 24, 2007

Electoral reform issue is 'under-reported' King Township Sentinel - Beeton,ON,Canada

May 22, 2007

Why electoral reform won't work Toronto Star - Toronto,Ontario,Canada

If Gordon Brown doesn't listen he'll entrench public mistrust Guardian Unlimited - UK

May 20, 2007

Citizens' panel recommends overhaul of electoral system Hamilton Spectator - Hamilton,Ontario,Canada

Passing judgment on election system Waterloo Record - Waterloo,Ontario,Canada

Hampton lauds final report on electoral reform Fort Frances Times - Fort Frances,Ontario,Canada

Voters will decide on electoral reform Orillia Packet & Times - Orillia,Ontario,Canada

Panel of citizens recommends Ontario overhaul electoral system The Chronicle Journal - Thunder Bay,Ontario,Canada

Ontario Approves Referendum and Launches Education Campaign

Since the Netherlands finished its citizens assembly last December, citizens assembly news continues to be driven by events in Ontario.  Of the more than 300 published news stories mentioning citizens assemblies since late February, more than 90% have been about Ontario’s Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

Perhaps the major news is that Ontario’s Assembly finished its deliberations and submitted its recommendations to the government without any major surprises.  The entire process operated according to a carefully planned and strict schedule.  Its recommendations, which evolved in bite sized chunks over the last nine months, developed in a similarly orderly and predictable way.

Ontario Highlights
In chronological order, here are some highlights from Ontario’s Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform.

April 1.
On the question, “What is the best alternative system for Ontario: Mixed Member Proportional or Single Transferable Vote?” the members of the Assembly vote:

75 for Mixed Member Proportional

25 for Single Transferable Vote

1 spoiled ballot

(2 members absent)

April 14. 
On the question, “Should Ontario keep its current electoral system or adopt the Assembly’s Mixed Member Proportional system?” the members of the Assembly vote:

16 for current system
86 for Mixed Member Proportional
(1 member absent)

April 15. 
On the question, “Do you want to recommend the Assembly’s Mixed Member Proportional system to the people of Ontario?” the members of the Assembly vote:

94 yes
8 no
(1 member absent)

April 17.

By a margin of 55 to 28, Ontario’s legislature passes Bill 155 to set an October 10 referendum date.

May 15.

The Assembly releases its report, One Ballot - Two Votes: A New Way to Vote in Ontario.

Dr. Jonathan Rose, the Assembly’s Academic Director, sent me the following update for the News Digest.

On May 15, over 60 of the 104 Ontario Citizens' Assembly members were present when their report was given to the Minister of Democratic Renewal.  The hand off occurred at Hart House at the University of Toronto.  After the Minister received the report, members of the Citizens' Assembly walked across the street to the legislative assembly where their hard work was acknowledged by all members during Question Period.  To have one assembly finally meet the other was, I thought, a suitable ending to their process.   

While the Assembly's work is done, the government has committed itself to a robust public education campaign for the referendum at the next provincial election on October 10, 2007.  The final report marks the end of one phase of this remarkable experiment in citizen deliberation and the beginning of another equally important phase -- a public educational campaign leading up to a province wide referendum.

The twenty seven page final report is available (in French and English) on the Assembly's revamped website here:

http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en/default.asp

You will also find a draft of the 280 page background report that documents the entire process called  "Democracy at Work" under the Resources tab on the website. 

The third volume, "Citizen Deliberative Decision-Making: Evaluation of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform" prepared by the Assembly's independent evaluator, the Institute on Governance, will also be on the website shortly.

Jonathan Rose

Academic Director,

Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

Comments from Two Assembly Members

I asked Assembly members Anita Droog and Pat Miller what advice they’d have for policymakers in other jurisdications planning a citizens assembly, and they came back with the following comments:

[From Anita Droog]  I have tried to think about what you asked re: what should be changed the only thing I can think of is give more time. Eight months to learn, consult & deliberate is a really short time. We did it though & I would not change a thing, that we did.

I really proud of our outcome of 94 to 8 to present our results to the government. This shows that we were not brainwashed in our studies. As a matter of fact I could not tell you how anyone of the secretariat feels about any electoral system let alone the decisson we made.

If any other country/community should decide to have a Citizens' Assembly I hope you find the same caliber of people as we did.

I don't know if this is what you are looking for but i hope it helps

Arita Droog

Proud Assembly Member

[From Pat Miller]  All the group sessions I attended were well-run, focused and very rarely off topic. The facilitators had the knowledge necessary to make sure we understood what the particular issues were all about. There was never any attempt to lead us to a particular conclusion. 

What concerned me was that, in these sessions, over the course of 15 separate days of meetings, there were some of our Citizens Assembly members that I never shared a single session with.

I felt that the more people we met in close contact during the learning phase, the faster we were gelling as a team In my opinion if we’d been in the small groups with every member, before the break for the holidays, the dynamics that we reached toward the end of the deliberation phase, would have been arrived at sooner

Jim, I hope this is clear – it isn’t that I was disappointed with the group sessions (they were enormously important to us all). It is rather that it might help the other Citizens Assembly groups, as you suggested.in your E-Mail   

Best regards

Pat

It is noteworthy that Gordon Gibson, the architect of the British Columbia Citizens Assembly, echoes Ms. Droog’s observation in his Pepperdine University speech (see below) that Ontario may have cut the process short a bit in comparison to British Columbia and that this may not have been desirable.  In the same speech, Gordon Gibson also observes that British Columbia rotated the membership of its small groups to encourage the type of intermixing Ms. Miller recommends.  Ontario also did this to some extent.  The most noteworthy exception was a relatively small group of about 10 with poor English skills who met as a separate group.

Looking To The Future
Going forward, the next major expected event is the referendum on October 10 to support or oppose the Assembly’s recommendations.  To win, the referendum will need 60% of the votes in 60% of Ontario’s legislative districts.  (If the referendum passes, the new electoral system would not come into effect until 2012.)

Meanwhile, there are expected to be major privately funded yes and no campaigns to educate the public about the recommendations of the Assembly.  If there is one major difference between the British Columbia and Ontario citizens assemblies, this is it.  In British Columbia, there was a deathly silence after its Assembly finished its deliberations.  When the referendum took place in May 2005, the level of ignorance within the general population remained high.

That’s not going to happen in Ontario, partly because the level of publicity during the Assembly’s deliberations was much greater.  This is reflected not only in the number of media impressions but in the level of open partisan disagreement about the Assembly’s recommendations (open partisan disagreement is good for publicity).  Most important, going forward, the Province’s leadership appears to be committed to educating the public about the Assembly’s process and recommendations.  The government has introduced legislation that, if passed, would require Ontario’s Chief Electoral Officer to undertake a comprehensive non-partisan public education campaign leading up to the referendum. The campaign would raise awareness of the referendum and educate the public about the alternatives under consideration.  The general mindset is reflected in the Assembly’s May 15 report, which observes: “A comprehensive, well-funded public education program, beginning in May and continuing through to the referendum is vital.”  Insiders expect the campaign’s budget will be $4.5 million to $6 million—almost as much as creating the Citizens’ Assembly itself. 

A lot of folks are also acutely aware that this is the first referendum for the Province of Ontario since 1921 (the last one was on prohibiting alcohol consumption).  This is not California or even British Columbia where citizens are used to seeing multiple or even onerously numerous referendums on the ballot.  Just the fact that there is a referendum on the ballot is a newsworthy event.

All was not peaches and cream for Ontario’s citizens assembly.  Going in to its April 15 vote, there was plenty of criticism in the mainstream press of its expected recommendations.  However, since that vote, the press has been almost uniformly positive toward the Assembly’s work.

An unexpected criticism of the Assembly’s recommendation is that it leaves a lot of details, such as how the party lists will be chosen, to be worked out by the government that takes office after October 10.   The fear is that the details are important and that this thus creates an opportunity for abuse.  I think this is a fair concern, but I also think that the scope for abuse is relatively small and not significantly different from what already exists.

As October 10 gets close, a major poll funded by the national Conservative government is expected to release results debunking a regional poll conducted in March that was generally favorable to the citizens assembly.  All that I definitively know right now is that the Conservative government has hired pollster Conrad Winn to conduct the poll.  The Conservative government has also hired a think tank, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, to convene focus groups across the country to address a variety of democratic reform proposals, including electoral reform.

Nevertheless, my sense right now is that the yes campaign will be a lot louder than the no campaign, so the referendum’s success or defeat will largely hinge on whether the public understands and trusts the citizens assembly process and respects the judgment of the most visible spokespeople for the yes campaign. 

I have little idea how the battle over the referendum will play out, which should make the next four months interesting.  I expect to provide at least one update between now and the October 10^th referendum. 

Ontario Becomes The Citizens Assembly Gold Standard
Overall, I would say that Ontario now replaces British Columbia as the gold standard for a well conducted citizens assembly.  Ontario closely observed British Columbia’s procedures and improved upon them, with the possible two caveats noted above.  Most important, Ontario proved that the success of British Columbia was not an aberration.  Citizens asked to participate in a citizens assembly will take the process very seriously and collectively perform as well if not better than our so-called professional legislators.

One of the most important findings from the experience of both British Columbia and Ontario is what an extraordinarily complicated and costly undertaking a well executed citizens assembly can be.  The amount of effort and the diversity of skills necessary to pull off a successful citizens assembly are immense.  This is well documented in the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly’s 280 page report, and I’d encourage you to read it.

What does this difficulty and expense mean?  Citizens assemblies cannot be casually entered into.  Reformers in Canada, California, and elsewhere now want to create “citizens assemblies” to deal with a host of different issues.   Can society afford dozens of different citizens assemblies on a host of different issues?  I doubt it very much.  The quality will deteriorate and we will begin to see failures.  Thank god that British Columbia and Ontario proved that the concept can be a success so when others implement it and fail, the blame will be placed on the implementation and not the concept. 

The Citizens Assembly Concept
Ideally, I’d like to keep a clear distinction between “citizens assemblies” and “deliberative opinion polls.”  As the phrase “citizens assembly” now has such cachet, that distinction appears more and more difficult to keep.  For an example of the muddling of the two concepts, see recommendation #5 of the January 15, 2007 report of the Liberal Renewal Commission Task Force on Civic Engagement.  The Liberal Renewal Commission was created by the Liberal Party of Canada and endorsed citizens assemblies on a range of issues from homelessness to global warming.

I think a minimum definition of a citizens assembly should require that a citizens assembly 1) be created by government, and 2) have formal government powers (it is not just an advisory committee).   I’d also make a sharp distinction between citizens assemblies formed to deal with an issue where elected officials have a clear conflict of interest and citizens assemblies on all other issues.  The former I consider “primary” (and highly limited in potential scope) and the latter “secondary” (and virtually limitless in potential scope).  I believe the focus right now should be on creating primary citizens assemblies.

Outside Ontario
Outside of Ontario, the citizens assembly news is slight.  There are lots of incidental mentions of citizens assemblies in English speaking countries but that’s quite different from a powerful political leader endorsing the concept or getting enough signatures to put a citrizens assembly proposal on the ballot as an initiative.

One curiosity is that the decision of Ontario’s citizens assembly to hold a referendum was reported in papers in provinces throughout Canada—albeit in the back pages—but there wasn’t a single mention of the decision in the U.S. press.

Alberta, tucked between Ontario and British Columbia, seems to have incorporated the concept of a citizens assembly in its discourse almost to the extent that British Columbia and Ontario have.  It even has a local policy institute devoted largely to pursuing the concept.  My guess is that if there is another citizens assembly in Canada, that’s where it will take place.  But I defer to those who have a better knowledge of Canadian politics than my readings of the local press. 

In British Columbia, the NDP’s party leader has proposed holding a citizens assembly to determine the appropriate pay of legislators.

California continues to be on hold.  Perhaps the most noteworthy news was a February 23-24, 2007 conference on deliberative democracy, including the citizens assembly concept, co-hosted by Common Sense California, Pepperdine University School of Public Policy, and the New America Foundtion. The featured speaker on citizens assemblies was Gordon Gibson, the architect of the British Columbia citizens assembly.  Gibson is a wise man, and though I don’t agree with everything he said, I’d encourage serious students of the citizens assembly process to read his comments.

In the State of Pennsylvania, a democratic reform group, Democracy Rising Pennsylvania, testified on March 26 before the Senate’s Government Committee on the benefits of using a citizens assembly for a constitutional convention.  The type of citizens assembly proposed is perhaps closest to the citizens assembly legislation Assemblymen Canciamilla and Richman introduced in California in January 2006.

In British Columbia, a story in the April 11 edition of the Sudbary Star reports that a Bruce Krayenoff is filing papers to form a “Citizens’ Assembly Party” for the Province of British Columbia.   This Party would take groups of 20 average citizens to make the major decisions for the Party.  Needless to say, I’m not enamored of attaching the term “Citizens Assembly” to such an endeavor.

In New Zealand, the national Green Party has called on the government to create a citizens assembly, starting in 2009, to address campaign finance reform.

In Wales, a region within the United Kingom, the Plaid Party has called on the regional government to create a citizens assembly to bring issues before the legislature and cabinet.  To my knowledge, this is the first time a fairly high level political authority has endorsed the idea of creating a standing citizens assembly as opposed to an ad hoc one to deal with a particular issue and then disband.

In Bulgaria, a deliberative opinion poll on how to improve the lives of the impoverished Roma (popularly known as gypsies) was conducted under the auspices of Stanford University Professor Jim Fishkin. 

In the Netherlands, the news is slim.  Professor Henk van der Kolk from the University of Twente, who as a first hand observer has submitted numerous posts to the Citizens Assembly News Digest, reports that there is expected to be a parliamentary meeting on citizens assemblies in September or October.  Meanwhile, the minority party that sponsored the advisory only citizens assembly has had difficult getting its recommendations noticed in parliament.

Update on the Consultation Phase of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly

Since December, the major citizens assembly news has come out of Ontario.  From November 2006 to January 31 the Ontario Citizens Assembly conducted its consultation phase, the document submission part of which continued until February 28.  The consultation phase involved reaching out to the public for feedback.   This feedback effort consisted of face-to-face public hearings, face-to-face group outreach, formal document submissions, a students’ assembly, and classroom students’ assemblies. 

 

The public hearings got the most publicity.  These consisted of 41 public hearings scattered throughout the province.  Attendance at the public hearings was partially driven by 122 ads in local newspapers taken out by the Citizens’ Assembly secretariat.  A review of about half the public hearings indicates that public participation ranged from a low of 7 people (Dryden on November 27) to a high of 200 people (Toronto on January 17), with the median attendance under 50.    In some cases the public in attendance were fairly homogeneous—e.g., a large group from an old age home. 

   

The goal of the outreach program was to solicit feedback from important groups, such as the poor, that might not provide feedback via the public hearings.  Group outreach included meetings with disability, business, union, government, and social groups.  The disabilities group meeting included the Canadian Hearing Society, Canadian National Institute for the Blind, Canadian Paraplegic Association, and Helen Keller Center.  The business group meeting included the Canadian Club and CD Howe Institute.  The union group meeting included the Canadian Auto Workers, Ontario Federation of Labor, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario Public Service Employees Union.  The government meeting including the Ontario association of municipalities.  The Social Planning Network of Ontario, an association of social groups including the homeless, government assistance programs, and immigrants, orchestrated five meetings scattered throughout the province.   For reasons not clear to me, the business community’s interest in providing feedback to the Citizens Assembly appeared to be fairly weak.

 

Members of the Citizens Assembly also did their own informal outreach in the form of presentations to their local Lion’s Club, Kiwanis Club, Chamber of Commerce, and churches.  No data were collected on this type of outreach.

 

Written comment submissions often overlapped with presentations at public hearings, so it is hard to separate the two.  As of February 24, 2007, 986 comments were submitted, with additional comments being accepted until February 28.  Of the comments submitted, 692 supported a change from the status quo and 78 supported the status quo.    Some newspapers reported the total number of submitted comments at over 2,000 (the citizens assembly website lists the current document number at 2,074), but this didn’t factor in that the document  numbering system began at 1,001, not 0.  One curiosity is that, using the numbering system as the guide, 89 documents--close to 10% of the total submissions--appear to have been deleted or are otherwise missing.

   

More than 50% of the comments were 1 page or less; the longest, submitted by a German, was 142 pages.  More than 50 organizations submitted comments.  79% of the comments were submitted by men; 21% by women.  A total of more than 3,500 pages were submitted.   A fair number of the comments were submitted by residents of British Columbia, which had its own Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform that convened during 2004.

 

The software architecture for reading the comments is quite primitive, essentially forcing users to download and read the documents one at a time.    This difficulty contributed to my impression that most comments were not read by members of the citizens assembly.  Indeed, even the small committee of members assigned to read the comments (I believe the committee size is three) didn’t have time to read all the comments before the beginning of the deliberations phase.  The great majority of the comments were submitted during the last two weeks of the consultation phase, and the committee members were overwhelmed.

 

The Students’ Assembly on Electoral Reform paralleled the adult one and was designed to both educate the general public and provide useful feedback to the adult citizens assembly.   Like the Ontario legislature and the adult citizens assembly, it was made up of 103 members.  It met and deliberated for five days and released its final report to the adult citizens assembly on February 17, 2007.  That report is a very classy document—parts of it brilliantly written—and I’d encourage anyone interested in the Students’ Assembly to read it.

 

The classroom students’ assemblies came on the heels of the Students’ Citizens Assembly and are expected to continue through the spring.  Every interested teacher in the province was provided with materials to conduct a citizens assembly within their classrooms and submit the results to the Students’ Citizens Assembly.  As of February 15, 2,372 student votes had been submitted to the Students’ Citizens Assembly website.   This is a relatively small proportion (.4%) of the high school population within the province, but in absolute terms is probably larger than the number of adults who personally attended the public hearings.  If classroom students’ assemblies continue through the spring as expected, the number of student votes could well end up exceeding 10,000.

 

Overall, the outreach was much more extensive than conducted in either British Columbia or the Netherlands.    The single most creative element was the Students’ Citizens Assembly, which in my opinion was a stroke of genius.

   

A summary of the adults’ Citizens’ Assembly consultation phase was presented to the Citizens’ Assembly members on February 17.   I highly recommend looking at the hour long video of it. It also gives you a good sense of the high seriousness and professionalism of the enterprise.  One of the things I focused on the most was the extraordinary concentration of the 103 audience members during the session.  That told me pretty much all I needed to know: these folks are taking the process very seriously and want to do the best job they can.

   

I’m often pretty cynical of the typical citizen’s capacity for civic participation.   Watching this video demonstrates that such cynicism should be context sensitive.  In the right setting and with the right incentives, even citizens in the largest political districts (in this case, 12.5 million) will engage in civic participation with high seriousness.

 

The deliberative phase began on February 17, with important guidelines established at the first meeting.  Dr. Jonathan Rose, the Citizens’ Assembly’s Academic Director, sent me this summary of the first weekend of the deliberations phase.

   

The first weekend of deliberation was very full.  Over two days, we reviewed our consultation phase, heard from the Students' Assembly on Electoral Reform and the Chair introduced the concept and practice of deliberation.  As well, members made two substantive decisions; first to determine their priority objectives and second to choose a system to work up on weekend two.

 

I described the priority objectives as making concrete the principles that they discussed in the learning phase. These would be their tool kit for a) determining what system to work up;  b) determining how the components of that system fit together and c) comparing their preferred alternative system to the present system.

 

After a discussion in plenary as well as in smaller groups, the members decided on three priority objectives: "The number of seats a party wins should more closely reflect its vote share", "Each geographic area of the province should have at least one MPP" and "Voters should be able to indicate both their preferred party and candidate".

   

The first system members decided to work up to compare to the present system was MMP. Later this week, we will send them documents for them to think about the design decisions for MMP so that they will be ready on weekend two having already given thought about the complexity and number of issues.

   

In addition to designing MMP, next weekend the members will choose whether or not to design another system (for weekend 3) and if so which one.  It's really quite impressive to watch how cohesive the members are and how motivated they remain for the task. The excitement and energy in the room is palpable and incredibly affirming about the capacity of citizens to engage in complex democratic issues.

   

I am told that the members’ only area of the citizens’ assembly is quite active.  It’s possible that the online deliberations will end up becoming more important than the face-to-face deliberations restricted to the weekends.  I hope that at some point in the future the record of the online deliberations will be made public.

 

Local press coverage of the Ontario Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform has continued at a steady clip.  According to Barry Koen-Butt, communications director for the Citizens’ Assembly, coverage included: 1 national television program (CBC News World),  3 province-wide current affairs TV programs, 10 local TV stations, 20+ different radio stations, 50 different newspapers.  This translated into 225 news reports during the consultation phase and 450 news reports since the Assembly began.  In addition, the Citizens’ Assembly website has received 45,000 different visitors.

 

My own Nexis search found more than 100 articles from mid-December through mid-February.  A large fraction of the stories are of the human interest and letter-to-the-editor variety.  The local public hearings also got a handful of articles.  Perhaps the biggest story was a February 22 front page article in the Toronto Star, the largest newspaper in the province.  The Toronto Star has given the Citizens Assembly lots of coverage, but I don’t recall ever before so prominently.

 

A remarkable development is the extensive website and occasional on air coverage of the Citizens’ Assembly by TV Ontario (TVO), the local public TV station.  All the sessions of the Citizens’ Assembly have been video recorded and made available online. 

   

Jon Bricker, an LL.B. Candidate at the Osgoode Hall Law School in Canada, has written a paper raising an important issue that often doesn’t get adequate attention: what type of public education campaign should there be between the time a citizens assembly finishes its deliberations and the public votes on those recommendations in a referendum?  This turns out to be quite a tricky public policy issue.  I’m not sure that Jon has found a compelling answer.  His contribution—after a fairly lengthy introductory section on the citizens assembly movement—is to highlight the question.

   

Key Websites on Ontario’s Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

·       Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

·       TVOntario (TVO)

·       Students’ Assembly on Electoral Reform

 

Elsewhere, murmurings about creating a citizens assembly appear to be strongest in the province of Alberta, Canada.  Liberal Leader Kevin Taft has endorsed a Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform in his new book presenting his opposition party’s agenda.  An Alberta-based think tank, the Pembina Institute, has also endorsed a “citizens assembly” to deal with certain difficult environmental issues.

 

The U.K. continues its yearlong string of high profile letters-to-the-editor and op-eds endorsing the citizens assembly concept.  But so far there is no evidence of high powered politicians making this part of their agenda.

Update on the Ontario Citizens' Assembly

Three members of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly--David Proulx, Pat Miller, and Arita Droog--have contributed the following observations about the recently completed consultation stage.

David Proulx
The consultation meeting we held in Cornwall had a better than expected turnout. Considering that it was held in the middle of January during one of the season's worst storms. There were approximately twenty people in attendance with seven presenters. Each of whom represented themselves and only one of them representing Fair Vote Ontario.

Although some other meetings had fewer people turnout while others had more, I can only hazard a guess for the reason, and I think that if we did it on a per capita basis the numbers would be closer.

I found the meeting to be helpful and it gave me a better perspective on what the people in my area would like to see happen. I have begun reading some of the written submissions, over two thousand, and am getting a clearer picture of what the people of Ontario want.

If only everybody could be as enthusiastic about this whole process as the 103 young people chosen to mirror us for the Student's Assembly. Their presentation was excellent and they made it clear what they want, CHANGE! They reminded us that any decision that we make will affect them the most because they are the future voters and even dare I say politicians.

Now that the first weekend of deliberation is finished, we now know what intense works lies ahead in the coming weekends. And I would like to finish by saying that all 103 members of the assembly want to get this right the first time!

Until next time,

David Proulx,
Ontario Citizens' Assembly member

Pat Miller
As we enter the third and final stage of this Citizens’ Assembly in Ontario, just a few words to give you my impressions of where we are.

The consultation phase, composed of meetings with the general public, outreach meetings with the disadvantaged and written submissions is completed. There was a slow start, at the end of November and the first two weeks of December. Bad weather, and poor press coverage to advertise the meetings translated into lower numbers for the meetings I attended. On December 5th I attended a meeting in Markham (covering Markham and Oak ridges ridings).

Click here for a link to Pat’s presentation, recorded on video, before the Assembly on February 17. Her presentation begins a little before the midway point (about 25 minutes into the video).

Arita Droog
(note: this is drawn from her op-ed published in the Owen Sound Sun Times on February 12)

Hi there. It has been quite a while since I last wrote an article for the paper.

Yes I have been slacking off in the writing department, but not in the learning department.

Since my last article I have been to three public consultation meetings and appeared on cable TV. The consultations were interesting to say the least.

First off, I would like to thank those who came to the meeting on Dec. 4.

I felt proud that we had as many speakers as we did. To me that means that the message is getting out there and people are concerned about what's happening.

Hooray Owen Sound!

You make me proud to be from this area.

As for the other meetings that I attended, the main focus was on change, either to proportional representation or mixed member proportional.

Some speakers did not want change while others advocated whole new systems.

Some preferred single transferable vote while others liked the two- round system.

So as you can see there are many diverse points of view that need to be considered.

After this first meeting I thought I could handle all the information by sorting through it and using it to help me make my decision.

Then I attended another consultation meeting in Orangeville. There again I was bombarded with thoughts, ideas and information.

Again the subject of fairness of representation came up several times, and stronger voter participation was a major concern too.

In Belleville the theme was change, again most suggested MMP or PR with one or two suggesting no change to the system.

I think though that one of the major concerns, should we recommend a change, was the issue of a public education campaign.

At this point in time there are many people who are not yet aware that we are in the midst of this process.
Hopefully they will be aware sometime before they get handed their ballot in October. This is not part of our mandate, but I believe that as part of the process we can recommend or suggest that a public education campaign should be undertaken.

In looking at the hansard (Nov 16/06) it looks like this is already in place should we recommend a change.
Many other issues were also brought up, like:

We should consider how elections are financed. Unions and business should not be allowed to dominate the funding of politics.

The voting age should be lowered.

The referendum should be held separately from the election to create more interest.
A 60 per cent threshold for the referendum is too high.

These are all issues that are beyond our mandate, but we can choose to comment on them in our final report.

The information is starting to stack up and I have yet to come to some kind of conclusion.
So you see where my dilemma is. Everyone has a good point, every system has its good points and bad points and every person has the right to a vote that counts.

To those of you who know me, you know that I will be wrestling with this until the final conclusion.
To those of you who only know me through this column I hope I will have your support on whatever decision I/we make. Until next time.

On the weekends that we are meeting you can see us in action with live web streaming on the TVOntario website, http://www.tvo.org/ cfmx/tvoorg/citizensassembly/

You can also write the assembly at Citizens' Assembly Secretariat, 1075 Bay St., Suite 830, Toronto, Ont., M5S 2B1

You can also follow along at the website www.citizensassembly. gov.on.ca

Netherlands issues its final report; Ontario starts its consultation phase

The Netherlands Citizens Assembly finished its deliberations and on December 14 reported its final recommendations to the Minister of Government Reform in The Hague. The Citizens Assembly recommended a new electoral system for the Netherlands, but its recommendations (fine tuning the existing proportional representation system) are more incremental in nature than those of British Columbia’s Citizens Assembly (moving to the radically new single transferable vote). For authoritative English language accounts of what happened in the Netherlands, click here.

Ontario’s Citizens Assembly finished up its learning phase and is now entering its consultation phase. The consultation phase includes written submissions from the public plus some 40 public hearings throughout the province. To date, and based only on a handful of the public hearings, the turnout appears to be small. An advantage of the local consultations appears to be that they attract additional local newspaper coverage.

For first person accounts of what happened in Ontario, click here. The three members of the Ontario Citizens Assembly who submitted comments all expressed disappointment with the press coverage. This comes as a surprise because, compared to British Columbia and the Netherlands, Ontario was getting a bounty of press coverage. But it is true that the vast majority of the articles were in small town newspapers. Coverage in the major papers appears to have lessened in the past few months. These observations suggest that press coverage may be helpful in keeping up the morale of members of citizen assemblies.

In late November, the Ontario student citizens assembly convened and issued a recommendation to the adult citizens assembly. Here is its interim report. The student assembly website is located at http://www.studentsassembly.ca. The Student Citizens Assembly recommended a shift from the current system to a mixed member system of proportional representation. A handful of the students involved in the assembly were profiled in their local newspapers. Next, the students who participated in the citizens assembly are expected to take what they learned and share it with their classmates back home. More than 150 schools have already signed up to hold their own deliberations and formal votes on the electoral system. The results of both the students’ citizens assembly and all the local school votes are to be included in a final report sent to the adult citizens assembly next February.

Proposals for citizen assemblies continue to crop up elsewhere in the world. But only in California would I place a “likely” for something substantial to happen in the next 12 months. The New America Foundation’s California office conducted a poll of California citizens in part to assess their attitudes toward such an initiative. The poll found overwhelming support for such a proposal, and the results were cited in a Sacramento Bee opinion column. The Sacramento Bee covers Sacramento, California’s Capitol, and is widely read by journalists throughout California who cover State politics.

New America Foundation Poll Indicates Strong Support for Citizens Assembly

A newly released New America Foundation poll indicates strong support for a Citizens Assembly to reform California's political system. The poll questions and results can be found here; the analysis here.

Update on the Ontario Citizens' Assembly

Please note that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, all first person accounts are simply that; they do not represent any type of official position. The following first person accounts written specifically for this blog are from: 1) Pat Miller, 2) Arita Droog, and 3) David Proulx

1) From Pat Miller, Member of the Ontario Citizens Assembly

Observations re the progress of the Ontario Citizens Assembly

The Citizens Assembly has been a wonderful experience for me as I had been retired for a number of years. At the age of 72, I wondered if I even had the capacity to take in and understand what I needed to make any useful contribution. Surprise, surprise! I found that, having a fair amount of time available during the week, I have been able to cram many months –(or even years) of study into that time. I was very computer literate to begin with and had an interest in politics from my teens. I am at the stage now when I feel confident in expressing the pros and cons of the various electoral systems.

As for the assembly meetings, the organization has been so well managed by the Secretariat that we have been enabled to learn as fast as we are able. The format of plenary sessions and small group meetings has worked well on the whole.

There are different learning styles apparent that impact on our ability to work as efficiently as possible. While the selection of each candidate was at the final stage literally a name pulled out of a hat, the people who accepted the initial request to be considered had to fit certain demographics. Also it was important they were able to commit to the time necessary.

There are about a third of us that are retired, and are more affected by the long days than others. Another difficulty for the older members is the environment in Osgoode Hall at York University. We have several staircases to go up and down to the washroom facilities and the lunchroom at the lower level. For the small group meetings we retire to individual rooms scattered on 5 or 6 levels. Again that poses some difficulties for older and handicapped members. There is one small elevator but it is away from the central area.

The plenary sessions are in Moot Hall and we are seated in a theatre layout. We look down on a stage where teachers and guest speakers address us from. We see little of our fellow members in this kind of seat arraignment. The BC Citizens Assembly met for their plenary sessions in a hall with a circular layout where the members could face each other. I think we are disadvantaged by not having that ability.

I have some concerns about the composition of the small groups; but would prefer to wait till the end of the meetings in May, 2007 to forward you my impressions.

Now for the relations between a) the Assembly members and b) the members and the secretariat

a): With very few exceptions, we have gelled as a team faster than I would ever have imagined. There is a strong effort on everyone’s part to make this assembly successful. The difficulties that arise occasionally have been handled professionally by the secretariat and particularly by the facilitators of the small group meetings. I would like to commend particularly the younger members, most of who have put out an enormous effort. Since I like to think that older members have been bestowed with some wisdom that life (and living it) teaches you, we tend to allow for youthful impatience and sometimes disrespectful behaviour. There has been so little of that from our youngsters; most of them show a maturity beyond their years.

b): The Administrative support (the secretariat and the facilitators) are all, without exception, so wonderfully supportive and considerate towards us all. It shows that they have been carefully selected for their roles

I must make special mention of our Chair, George Thomson. He has the gift of making us feel comfortable while keeping us on our time-lines. He is a concensus maker; the perfect type to get us to final decision in my opinion. Also, Dr. Jonathan Rose is an excellent teacher; his presentations are clean, clear and delivered with energy and enthusiasm, so important to keeping our attention.

We have met the leaders of the Student Assembly, but not the whole group. This meeting is planned for early next year. We have followed their activities and some of the students have attended the public consultation meetings. .

I have attended the two meetings last week and had good input from the public. It is useful to hear first hand how important most of the presenters feel that there is a need for change. At both meetings, there was only one individual who strongly felt that we should stay with our current system.

The most disappointing aspect of this Citizens Assembly is the apparent indifference of the press. There has been little coverage by the major newspapers, and what there has been is often negative reporting.

2) From Arita Droog, Member of the Ontario Citizens Assembly

I have been sitting here at my desk for several hours now trying to come up with an article that is clear and concise. Something that you folks can sink your teeth into but, the more I try, the more I feel I need to explain. So here goes the final draft.

My experience so far with the Citizens’ Assembly is just what I expected it to be. I expected that it would be difficult to get into an electoral mind set. I expected that it would take me some time to be comfortable with the language. I expected that I would need to do lots of homework. And I expected that people would be interested its future.

So far my expectations were right, all except that people would be interested. Don’t get me wrong, once I explain what I’m doing they are interested and ask questions, but usually more of a political nature than an electoral.

I think we need to get more press out there to explain to people exactly what is going on. We have been promised that if we do decide to make a change to the system there will be an educational program set up to inform the public. But in the meantime, we need the press to come to our sessions to see what we are doing, what we are learning, so that there are no misconceptions about it. We have received some rather unfavorable press from some big city papers, if only these reporters had come to see for themselves, then they could report the facts not their perceptions.

Non-partisan teachers, facilitators, professors and many a political scientist have schooled us. We have been challenged to learn from the best. From my way of thinking these folks cannot even agree on a definitive system, so our task will not be an easy one. I don’t think there has been a weekend where there were less than 100 of the 103 members, that’s what I call dedication.

The only thing that I can see that will improve what we are doing is to have a meeting room at the hotel, where we can openly discuss our thoughts on various topics like: values and principles, representation for women and minorities, voter turnout etc., just so we can hash it out amongst ourselves. I believe come next session such a space will be at our disposal. This should help get things out in the open before final decision time.

In conclusion, I feel that this journey we are on will not end when we hand in our final report. I believe, that should we recommend a change, we will be in the thick of it for years to come. I look forward to the challenge.

--Arita Droog, Representative for the riding of Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound

3) From David Proulx, Member of the Ontario Citizens Assembly

Now that the learning phase is complete I feel a little more comfortable in discussing electoral systems but am still far from being a scholar or political scientist. Professor Jonathan Rose provided us with the adequate amount of information to help us make our final decision.

The help that we received from the secretariat team, from transportation to extra information or anything else that we needed, was excellent. The one area that I was disappointed with, and I don't feel that it was the secretariat team's fault, was the lack of media coverage. Something this important was barely covered in the media.

My public meeting isn't until Jan., 07, and maybe by then the media coverage will be more adequate. I just hope that the posters and word of mouth will provide a good turnout for the meeting. From what I have heard there has been fairly good turnout and response in other meetings.

I hope that I was able to provide you with some useful feedback and will try to keep in touch as I progress through this very important democratic process of getting the citizens involved in the electoral system design.

Thank you,

--David Proulx

Update on the Netherlands Citizens' Assembly

Please note that, unless explicitly stated otherwise, all first person accounts are simply that; they do not represent any type of official position. The tollowing first person accounts written specifically for this blog are from 1) Henk van der Kolk, and 2) David Hulshuis.

1) Observations of Henk van der Kolk, a Political Science Professor at the University of Twente, The Netherlands

The advice
On December 14, 2006, the Dutch CA officially presents its proposal for an amended version of the current electoral system. The CA decided on this proposal the weekend of November 10-11. The CA’s proposal is to introduce the option of a 'list vote' and to abolish the individual threshold currently used in The Netherlands. In addition, the members proposed to change D'Hondt for Hare, which will slightly benefit the smallest parties. The members clearly signaled a dislike of 'districts' : the CA proposed to keep the current single district. Even the 'German' mixed-system was in the end not strongly supported. STV or SMD systems were seen as very remote from current (party) politics, without offering a solution to the current political problems. The advice, prepared by the office supporting the CA and amended by the members, is short (about 10 pages in print) and is (even by some critics) conceived to be coherent and to the point.

The final stages of the decision making process
Final decisions were made in the weekend of November 10. The meeting started early to discuss the two remaining alternatives; (1) a slightly amended version of the current system (reintroducing Hare and lowering the individual threshold to 12,5%) and (2) an alternative introducing the party vote and abolishing the individual threshold. These two alternatives were supported by relatively large groups. Other alternatives (two rather complicated ‘new’ systems, a system where voters were ‘in a way’ able to panache and a mixed system) were voted down in the weekend in October.

The final votes were on Friday afternoon in order to make the evening news. Several television stations indeed paid some attention to the decisions taken with animations of the system (prepared by the office of the CA and with short interviews, mainly with the chairperson Jacobine Geel). In a semi final vote, the two remaining alternatives were put to vote. In that vote, alternative 2 appeared to be supported strongly compared to alternative 1. In a final vote, alternative 1 appeared to be preferred to the current system. The members decided to put some specific guidelines about the operation of the system in the final report, which is therefore quite specific.

The most contested part on Friday and Saturday was a discussion about ‘additional recommendations’. Some members wanted to include advice about a directly elected prime minister, referenda etc.. Others thought this would harm the proposal and claimed these issues were not discussed enough. One additional recommendation (adopted on Friday evening) was the ban on ‘leaving the party’ (crossing the floor). After this vote, some members realized this would lead to an even stronger position of parties and factions, while abolishing the individual threshold. Friday night and Saturday morning some members strongly lobbied to get this element out of the report. This create some tension in the group and the chair asked all members whether they wanted to vote again. A majority asked for a revote and after this the additional recommendation was indeed dropped from the document. After this sequence of events one of the members left the assembly (although some claimed he was already planning to leave the assembly early). Most other additional recommendations were then not adopted by the members. Even some very mild suggestions for additional research are not in the final report.

The CA as an experiment
This was the first CA in The Netherlands and it has always also been seen as an experiment. As an experiment, it was a success. It was shown that a randomly selected group (although the ‘random nature’ can be discussed, since only about 1,500 out of 50,000 were able and willing to participate) of citizens, supported by a staff of civil servants and a chairperson, can agree on an acceptable document containing a reasonable opinion about a very complex issue. During the process, all aspects of decision making were intensively discussed and evaluated and the bureau is planning to make an extensive written evaluation. Since the analysis of a series of surveys among members is not finished yet, an overall evaluation of the process is still tentative.

The expertise of the members
Whether this group was in the end better able to think about and discuss electoral systems than, for example, my students in the university, is not entirely clear. Many (I even think most) members were in the end not really ‘experts’. The fact that even the final votes were strongly influenced by some discussions on the final days, suggests that many members still did not have strong opinions (or knowledge).

However, some members were experts, knowing perfectly what they were doing. The course of events, however, forced the ‘experts’ to narrow down the range of alternatives quite soon. Since districts and individualized systems (like STV) were disliked more or less from the start, while proportionality (and political parties) was almost sacrosanct, no-one was really interested in the details of these non-PR systems and expertise on these systems did not really develop. Even expertise about panache and cumulating votes (aspects of PR systems) was virtually absent, since most members did not like this idea. Many experts therefore headed for a viable, not too different, and simple system. Thus, expertise was limited and largely developed on the basis of the viable alternatives as seen at the beginning of the summer (after the consultation phase).

There is therefore at least a grain of truth in the often heard assessment that CAs are no experts and that this kind of deliberative democracy has its limits. But again, this was a complex issue.

Comparison with the CA in BC
The Dutch CA was an echo of the CA in British Columbia, but was in several respects very different. First of all, it was less intense. The number of meetings was smaller and the length of all meetings was shorter. Secondly, there will be no referendum. Thirdly, probably because the issue of the electoral system was not as much on the agenda as it was in BC, it was hardly discussed in the media. Newspapers, “experts,” and others were hardly giving clues, ideas, or comments. The CA more or less operated on its own. It will therefore be interesting to see how the opinions of its members developed compared to those in BC.

Future
The advice is given to the government on Tuesday, and since the advice is so close to the current system, will hardly harm parties and already was the choice of one of the most likely coalition partners (social democrats of the PvdA) there is more than a small chance it will be adopted.

--Henk van der Kolk, Professor, University of Twente, The Netherlands

2) Observations of David Hulshuis, Member, Netherlands Citizens Assembly

The Dutch citizen's assembly has reached consensus and has presented its proposal for a new electoral system! The assembly has come up with an electoral system that retains the strengths and simplicity of the current system - such as high proportionality, a low electoral threshold, one district, one vote and open lists - while at the same time giving the voter the choice of voting on a party or a person and giving more influence on who will gain a seat in parliament.

On November 10 and 11, the assembly held its final weekend in The Hague. Friday the 10th was an important day for the assembly as it voted for it's final proposal. After some final discussions and clarifications the two proposals that were still "in the race" after the previous weekend were put to the vote: one being the final proposal, the other being a system very similar to the current system with a lower preferential threshold. The final proposal was voted for by an overwhelming majority of 82% of the total votes. Subsequently, the proposal was compared to the current system and voted for with a large majority of 89%. In other words, there clearly seems to be consensus among the members as to what would be the best electoral system for the Netherlands!

During the voting, camera crews and journalists were present to report on the event. The same night, the assembly and its proposal were main topics on various major national news bulletins and current affair programs. That evening, the assembly voted on additional advice to be included in its report. Although many proposals for additional advice had been done, only a few made it in the final report, all focusing on the responsibility and credibility of MPs and the involvement and participation of citizens. One advice was to organize citizens' assemblies more often as it is a great way to involve citizens and to let the people speak. The next day was spent discussing concept texts for the report and proposing alterations. The weekend, and thus the assembly, was concluded with a dinner and a party afterwards. Clearly, most members were sorry that the assembly was over. It seems to have been a very inspirational and enriching experience to all, with the added joy of meeting many new people.

So what does the proposed system look like? It is a proportional system where the voter can choose to vote either on a party of his choice – supporting the party list, or to give a preferential vote to a specific candidate. This means, that when a party wins 30 seats - based both on party and people votes - and 30% of the votes were votes on the party, 10 seats will be assigned according to the party list order. The other 20 seats will be assigned to those 20 candidates with most preferential votes. Instead of the current system for distribution of residual seats according to largest averages, the method of largest surpluses will be used, in order not to give preferential treatment to the largest parties.

The system remains simple and very proportional like the current system, but it also assures that all MPs have a mandate: they either win their seat based directly on preferential votes (without a preferential threshold), or they gain a seat based on party votes, which is an indirect mandate as voters have implicitly agreed with the list order. This is different from our current system where most MPs have no real mandate and seats are nearly always assigned according to the party list. Voters thus have more influence on who will be on a seat. Also, there will no longer be confusion on what votes are votes on the party leader and what are party votes. For politicians, the system means that it will become even more important to gain credibility and to communicate with the voter. It also opens up new possibilities for candidates to campaign for specific regions or professional groups for example. Although content should be the foremost concern, this system also acknowledges the growing importance of individual candidates.

Although at first it seemed the assembly would come up with more drastic changes, perhaps a mixed member system of some sorts, along the way it became clear that most members were rather content with the current system, particularly its proportionality and simplicity. By radically changing a system, you will never know for sure what effects it will have on elections and the political culture and climate. At the same time, many of the perceived problems in politics are attributed not so much to the systems, but rather to the activities of MPs and parties. These problems cannot simply be changed by altering the electoral system. The proposed electoral system may therefore not seem very radical, but it does include some serious changes when it comes to the mandate of MPs.

In the days after the final assembly weekend, many newspapers, both national and regional, have reported on the citizens' assembly advice. However, the report has not officially been presented to the government yet. As national elections were held on November 22, the report came out during the campaigning period. The official presentation of the report to Minister of Government Reform Atzo Nicolaï will therefore take place in The Hague on December 14. It is now up to politicians to take the next steps, but what will happen with the advice is yet unclear as coalition formations are currently taking place and will probably take long due to surprising and difficult election results. The (centre) right-wing Christian Democrats are once again the largest party, but the Socialist Party have nearly tripled in parliament and there has been a shift towards the political left with a social / centre-left majority for many issues. It remains unclear what coalition will form and what it will do with the advice. The assembly's initiator, Democrats 66 (D66), has nearly been wiped out, with only two seats left in parliament. Although it might take some time before anything is done at all with the advice, a group of assembly members will follow the process and make sure the advice does not end somewhere gathering dust.

Overall, I think the assembly has been a success. Even if nothing will be done with the advice, this project has still shown the possibilities of citizen participation. I had never expected that such a diverse group of people would come up with such a widely supported, well-founded advisory report. Even though the topic of the assembly was rather complex and very abstract at times, most participants have put in a lot of effort to understand the matter at hand and critically discuss the issues at length. Although I am sure that some people will have had difficulties understanding - even in the final phase, the majority of the members have learned a lot and have invested much time and energy in the assembly. What struck me most in the whole process is how emotionally involved many people get in the assembly. This probably emphasizes how important the assembly was to many of its members. It was very clear from the beginning that the assembly's success was dependent on its members, but also for a large part on the chairwoman and the secretariat, in order to keep on schedule and to keep the assembly together. They have done a wonderful job! I surely hope there will be more projects like these in the Netherlands, and should I ever have the chance to be part of a citizens' assembly again, I definitely won't need to think twice!

thoughtful critique of the Netherlands citizens assembly electoral reform recommendations

Professor Matthew Søberg Shugart has written a thoughtful critique of the Netherlands citizens assembly electoral reform recommendations. For his blog, with accompanying comments, click here.

Netherlands winds down; Ontario roars ahead

The major citizens assembly news continues to come out of the Netherlands and Ontario. The Netherlands Citizens Assembly only has one more meeting left on its agenda and will issue a report to the minister of government reform in early December. As the Netherlands Citizens Assembly has approached its last lap, Dutch language press coverage of its activities appears to have increased.

The Ontario Citizens Assembly continues to roar ahead, with lots of local press coverage and some important milestones being reached. On October 25, 2006, legislation was introduced to allow for a referendum question on next year’s ballot. The referendum will be held on October 4, 2007. The most controversial feature of this legislation is that it requires a 60% majority for the legislation to pass. Many people argued for a 50% threshold.

The Ontario Citizens Assembly has announced that it will hold 37 “public consultations” around Ontario during its next phase. To facilitate public participation, it has set up an excellent website. An especially impressive overview document on this website is “Citizens Talking to Citizens.” George Thomson, Chair of the Ontario Citizens Assembly, described his public engagement philosophy in a late September op-ed that ran in multiple local newspapers: “Assembly members know that the process will only be truly successful if their fellow citizens are learning with them and if the assembly learns from them. It isn’t enough to wait for the assembly’s report before focusing on an issue that takes some time to learn and understand.”

One striking innovation in Ontario is the introduction of a high school students citizens assembly to run parallel to the official, adult citizens assembly. The high school student citizens assembly is being run out of the same office as the adult citizens assembly and has been allocated a budget of $200,000. The student citizens assembly has two components. First, instructional materials so individual high school classes can run their own assemblies. Second, a province wide assembly constituted of 103 students—the same size as the adult citizens assembly. Unlike the adult citizens assembly, students must submit their names to be part of the citizens assembly lottery pool. The recommendations of the student citizens assembly will be formally submitted to the adult citizens assembly.

In my judgment, the student citizens assembly idea is a brilliant marketing and civic participation strategy. It brings the public into the debate in a very meaningful way while creating many additional opportunities for press coverage of the adult citizens assembly.

On September 25, 2006, the Center for Ethics at the University of Toronto put on a distinguished public issues forum titled Democratic Legitimacy in Crisis: Are Citizens’ Assemblies the Answer?

Other provinces in Canada, notably Alberta and Prince Edward Island, continue to evince interest in having their own citizens assembly modeled after British Columbia’s and Ontario’s.

A major worry of mine is the proliferating use of the “citizens assembly” term in contexts in which it wasn’t originally used and in which I don’t think it's appropriate. I would like to see the term reserved for situations when a randomly selected body of citizens has government standing to propose legislation on an issue where elected officials have a direct conflict of interest. However, this may be a quixotic hope.

In general, there seems to be a trend toward convergence between “citizens assembly” and “deliberative opinion poll” terminology. The deliberative opinion poll concept, like the citizens assembly, is based on a randomly selected group of citizens coming together to deliberate on an issue. But whereas a deliberative opinion poll could deliberate on any issue and without government standing, a citizens assembly had a narrowly tailored jurisdiction and was a complement to existing formal government institutions.

Typical of the new citizens assembly usage, the prime minister of British Columbia has proposed a “citizens assembly” to discuss health care policy. A mayoral candidate in the town of Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario wants to convene a citizens assembly to deal with government waste. Others want to create a citizens assembly with completely overlapping jurisdiction to an elected legislature.

Update on the Netherlands Citizens' Assembly

The following report is from David Hulshuis, a member of the Netherlands Citizens’ Assembly.

Here is another update from the Dutch citizens' assembly. The assembly has moved fast in the last two months and, with only one assembly weekend left, an advice is within reach! It seems that the assembly is being mentioned more often in nationwide media, perhaps partly as a result of other initiatives on democratic reform. Meanwhile, Dutch politicians are busy campaigning and preparing for the national elections on November 22. It sure is an interesting moment to present our final advice, which is planned for November 10.

The assembly has had two more weekend meetings in the last month (on September 29/30 and October (20/21). During the first weekend of September some 30 or so proposals for reform were presented by members of the assembly. The core functions, conditions, and requirements of an electoral system were also established. The last two weekends focused more on working out the different proposals and narrowing down their number.

During the weekend of 29 and 30 September the assembly worked in smaller groups in which members discussed the five main variants of the proposals. Three groups paid attention to other themes, which may be applied to one of the variants: possible influence on coalition formation, an anti-vote, and topical voting. Although there still were significant differences in opinions, there were in-depth discussions resulting in more specific, sometimes reshaped, proposals. By the end of the weekend an indicative poll was held to see which proposals and themes garnered the most support.

In between the weekends, a structured online chat discussion was held among the members in order to elaborate on the arguments for and against the different proposals.

On October 20 the assembly traveled once more to the World Forum Convention Centre in The Hague for another exciting weekend. Some concept texts for the final report were discussed and some political science experts reflected on the assembly proposals, raising some questions and generally giving some useful feedback. The next morning we discussed topics related to the electoral system, including the role and value of abstentions, the electoral threshold, size of parliament, session length, and distribution of residuals seats. After another discussion on the system reform proposals, the assembly went to the vote in the afternoon, reducing the number of proposals to two. The rest of the afternoon was spent on making an inventory of additional recommendations the assembly wants to include in its report. This resulted in a whole shopping list of additional recommendations that definitely will have to be narrowed down during the final weekend as well.

The last two or three weekends were exciting as we now had to turn our general ideas into concrete plans and finally make choices. There seems to be a general consensus that the remaining variants held something for everyone and most members seem to be content with the direction we are going. However, seeing little support for your own proposal or finding out that ideas you advocate will not be included in the final advice, was of course disappointing for some members. This final phase does seem a bit rushed compared to the time we spent on learning about electoral systems and consulting with the Dutch people. To some it indeed seems to go too fast, but I think the majority of the assembly is glad that we are eventually moving towards our advice.

The assembly has gotten more attention in the media lately, at least that is the impression that I get. Often, the assembly is mentioned in connection with other democratization topics. For instance, there has been a "National Convention," a group of 14 independent members, backed by 30 advisors, that looked at the state of politics in the Netherlands and at ways to close the supposed gap between citizens and politicians. The presentation of their report on October 5, in which they recommended a stronger role for parliament and a sharper divide between the cabinet and parliament, yielded quite some press coverage. Hopefully, the citizens' assembly will face similar attention once the advice is ready!

Particularly interesting is the fact that the National Convention advised the government to install citizens' assemblies on important topics more often, as they provide a great opportunity to bridge the gap between citizens and politicians. Also, the Convention said, assemblies give citizens the much wanted opportunity to participate and to give a fresh view of the matter that politicians need. However, they also warn that it should be clear beforehand what role the results of an assembly will play in formal decision-making, as otherwise trust will be let down if results are pushes aside (A risk, I think, of the current assembly too). The Public Prosecution Service seems to lead the way, as it is planning to install an assembly on sentencing in the Netherlands, in order to hear citizens' opinions on penalties, as it is a much heard assertion in media and jurisdiction that penalties do not always fit crimes well.

The final assembly weekend will be held on November 10 and 11. On Friday, the assembly will vote for the final proposal and the additional recommendations. The citizens' assembly will publicly announce their proposal for the first time on prime time national television on the same day. The next day we will spend time on revising and adapting the contents of the advisory report. The weekend will be concluded with a party. In the following days there will be more TV coverage and hopefully a lot of press coverage as well. The actual report will be finished afterwards and presented to Minister of Government Reform Atzo Nicolaï in early December, when coalition formation will be taking place.

Best regards,

David Hulshuis

Recent press releases from Ontario Citizens' Assembly Secretariat

October 27, 2006

Fourth meeting of Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (Word, 50KB)

October 26, 2006

Electoral reform Assembly connects with Citizens (Word, 40KB)

October 15, 2006

Expert tells Ontario Citizens’ Assembly members electoral system review is long overdue (Word, 44KB)

October 13, 2006

Expert Panel to Address Ontario Citizens' Assembly Members (Word, 50KB)

September 29, 2006

Former MPPs to Address Ontario Citizens’ Assembly Members (Word, 48KB)

September 11, 2006

First meeting of Ontario's first Citizens' Assembly inspiring and invigorating (Word, 615KB)

Typical local newspaper profile of an Ontario citizens assembly member

Title: Helping boost democracy; Mountain resident eager to serve on citizens' assembly for electoral reform Date: September 22, 2006 By: Mark Newman For the article, click here. Jennie Stakich enjoys a long walk each day to stay healthy. Now the central Mountain resident and retired Ontario Hydro employee will have a hand in recommending how Ontario's electoral system should (if at all) be reformed. Those reforms could lead to a healthier turn out at the polls in future provincial elections. "It seems quite interesting," said Ms. Stakich last month after she was named to the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. Ms. Stakich will represent the riding of Hamilton Mountain on the assembly which features 52 female and 51 members from the 103 ridings across the province. The assembly's first meeting was slated to be held in Toronto Sept. 9. "I'm going to wait and see what transpires at the meetings," said Ms. Stakich, who added she has no preconceived ideas about how to reform the province's first-past-the-post electoral system. Ms. Stakich said the assembly will meet twice a month in Toronto between September and May. A report to the McGuinty government is expected by May 15. It's expected the group will consider a variety of options to the current system for electing provincial governments, including some form of proportional representation. "I'm hoping to make some contribution," said Ms. Stakich, who has worked federal, provincial and municipal elections in the past as a poll clerk, deputy returning officer and supervisor. She feels it's a privilege to serve on the assembly and remains hopeful the outcome will lead to more Ontario residents casting ballots in the future. "I think more people should get out to vote," Ms. Stakich said. The McGuinty government has pledged that any proposed changes to Ontario's electoral system will be put to a referendum within the government's current mandate. Assembly members were randomly chosen by Elections Ontario from the Permanent Register of Electors of Ontario (voters' list). Citizens whose names were chosen were sent letters asking if they were interested in serving on the assembly. Those who expressed interest attended a meeting in their area where details about the assembly and the responsibility of its members was explained. From there, those who still wished to serve had their names put in a ballot box for their riding from which one member and two alternates were drawn.

Lieutenant Governor of Ontario will host reception for The Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

Attention News/Assignment Editors:

Media Advisory - Lieutenant Governor to host reception for the members of The Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

TORONTO, Sept. 8 /CNW/ - The Hon. James K. Bartleman, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, will host a dinner reception for The Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform at the Lieutenant Governor's Suite, Queen's Park, Toronto on Saturday, September 9.

The Assembly is comprised of 103 randomly selected Ontarians and the Chair, George Thomson, who will examine the province's current electoral system to determine if it should be retained or replaced with an alternative system. Based on what the Assembly hears and learns, it will recommend whether Ontario should keep its current electoral system or change to a new one.

This Assembly process gives average citizens a direct voice in determining the options we have when we vote and how our votes are translated into seats for Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs).

Location: Lieutenant Governor's Suite, Queen's Park, Toronto

Date: Saturday, September 9, 2006

Time: 6:00 p.m.

Meeting schedules, Assembly member photos and profiles are available on-line at www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca.

For more information visit www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca

Commentary in Toronto Star Calls for Strengthening the Legislature, Not Changing the Electoral System

Publication: Toronto Star
Title: Beware citizens' assemblies on electoral reform: Giving back power to MPPs would solve problems
Date: September 9, 2006
By: Ian Urquhart

For the article, click here.

Ontario is about to take a leap of faith into electoral darkness.

At a lecture hall today on the campus of York University, a "citizens' assembly" of 103 randomly picked individuals (one per riding in the province) begins its deliberations on proposals for a new way of picking MPPs to fill the seats in the Ontario Legislature.

In a series of weekend sessions, the assembly will spend the next couple of months getting up to speed on the issue before holding public hearings, with the aim of making a recommendation next spring.

The recommendation is to be put to the voters in a referendum, probably coincident with the next provincial election in October 2007.

What the assembly will recommend is anyone's guess, but bet on a call for radical change from our centuries-old system, inherited from Britain.

Two years ago, a similar assembly in British Columbia recommended a loopy new system called the "single transferable vote," which hardly anyone understood.

British Columbians were saved from the fate of an incomprehensible electoral system only because the government required a super-majority (60 per cent) for the measure to be approved in a subsequent referendum. The proposal fell barely two percentage points short of that threshold.

(An aside: The Ontario government has not yet said whether a super-majority will be required here. This week, Marie Bountrogianni, the minister responsible for electoral reform, promised an answer to that question in a bill to be put before the Legislature soon after it resumes sitting on Sept. 25.)

The Ontario government says it has learned from some of the mistakes made in B.C., where, among other things, the research director for the assembly was an individual who was already predisposed toward the single transferable vote.

Accordingly, steps were taken to avoid the appearance of bias as the Ontario assembly was put together.

The government appointed as chair a man with impeccable credentials — George Thomson, a former judge and senior bureaucrat. He, in turn, appointed a secretariat headed by Jonathan Rose, a Queen's University professor of political science with no published record on the issue of electoral reform.

Both men say they are approaching their tasks with their minds open to every possibility, including the status quo.

"We're talking about the strengths and weaknesses of all systems," Rose says. "I don't think it's a slam dunk that one system will come out ahead of the others."

Nonetheless, there are reasons to suspect the playing field is already tilted against the status quo.

First of all, the citizens' assembly itself — culled from an initial appeal for volunteers mailed out to 123,000 Ontarians — is comprised mostly of retirees, part-time workers, students, homemakers and computer nerds looking for some excitement in their humdrum lives (not to mention a stipend of $150 a day).

In quotes supplied for distribution to the media, many of the assembly members talk of their desire to be a part of "making history," "something that would be groundbreaking," or "something that could effect great change."

They won't make history or break ground by recommending the status quo.

Secondly, the assembly will be advised by a 13-person panel of experts, which, with one or two notable exceptions, reads like a who's who of advocates of proportional representation.

That is the system whereby candidates run on party lists, rather than in constituencies, and are selected to the Legislature in proportion to that party's share of the popular vote.

It is the system favoured by most critics of our constituency-based, first-past-the-post system, which has been blamed for a range of calamities, from the Mike Harris regime to the low proportion of women in the Legislature to the declining voter turnouts in elections.

But the proposed cures, including proportional representation (a recipe for permanent minority government), are worse than the disease, and they do not address the real problem in politics today.

That problem is the presidentialization of our system, with power being centred in the office of the premier, and other MPPs, even cabinet ministers, being pushed to the margins.

The solution to the problem is not electoral reform but legislative reform, with ordinary MPPs being re-empowered.

The governing Liberals used to call for legislative reform, when they were in opposition. But now that they are in power, that option has lost its allure.

Meanwhile, they had another one of their ill-advised election promises to keep — the creation of a citizens' assembly to study electoral reform. Where the process will take us, no one knows.

Ontario’s Citizens Assembly Convenes; Netherlands Enters Last Lap

In recent months citizen assemblies in Ontario and the Netherlands have made great progress. During the summer the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly selected its members and then convened for the first time the weekend of September 10-11, 2006. The Ontario Citizens’ Assembly Secretariat has an excellent website describing these events. The Netherlands, meanwhile, finished its “consultation” phase and began its final “deliberations” stage the weekend of September 1-2. Click here for detailed first person accounts of w hat has been happening in the Netherlands.

Compared to both the British Columbia and Netherlands citizen assemblies, a major distinguishing feature of the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly is the large volume of news coming out in its early stages. This difference can probably best be explained by the efforts of the PR office in Ontario’s Citizens' Assembly Secretariat. This is in stark contrast to the Netherlands, where there appears to be little or no organized PR effort. British Columbia eventually had substantial news coverage but not until it was well underway. It will be interesting to see whether making the citizens assembly members feel like important public personages impacts their subsequent behavior and the appeal of serving in such an assembly.

Press release announcing first meeting of Ontario's citizens assembly

Attention News/Assignment Editors:

Media Advisory - Innaugural meeting of the Ontario Citizens' Assembly on electoral reform

TORONTO, Sept. 7 /CNW/ - The Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform will meet to launch Ontario's unprecedented exercise in direct democracy in Toronto on Saturday, September 9.

During the next eight months, the Assembly, comprising 103 randomly-selected Ontarians and their Chair, George Thomson, will examine the province's current electoral system and other systems. Based on what the Assembly learns and what it hears from fellow Ontarians, it will recommend whether Ontario should keep its current electoral system or change to a new one.

This Assembly process gives average citizens a direct voice in determining the options we have when we vote and how our votes are translated into seats for Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs).

If the Assembly proposes an alternative electoral system for the province, the Ontario government will hold a referendum on that alternative, on or before the next provincial election on October 4, 2007.

Location: Moot Court, Room 101, Osgoode Hall, York University (Keele campus) 4700 Keele Street, Toronto

Date: Saturday, September 9, 2006

Time: 9:15 a.m.

Meeting schedules, member profiles, and useful educational resources about the Citizens' Assembly and electoral systems are available on-line at www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca.

For more information visit www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca

For further information: Media Contact: Barry Koen-Butt, Executive Lead, Communications, Citizens' Assembly Secretariat, (416) 325-0752, (416) 993-2415

Two eyewitness accounts of citizens assembly developments in the Netherlands

Both of the accounts below are from eyewitnesses of the Netherlands citizens assembly.

Eyewitness Account #1: From David Hulshuis, a member of the citizens assembly.

September 6, 2006

Dear Jim,

I hardly know where to start as a lot has happened since my last e-mail. There have been three more assembly weekends, over a dozen regional meetings throughout the country, and, meanwhile, the Dutch government has collapsed! I will try to give a succinct, chronological account of what happened in the last few months.

In my last update I reported on the regional meetings that were being held in order to hear the opinions of fellow citizens. In total, 12 meetings organized by the assembly's secretariat were held all over the country, as well as several meetings that were organized by members of the assembly themselves! One of the meetings was especially aimed at "new voters": both young people about to turn 18 and immigrants. The meetings on average drew between 50 and 100 people each and generated very vivid discussions.

It was very striking that many Dutchmen seem to have very little faith in politicians. While most attendants agreed the electoral system has to be changed in order to bring politics and citizens closer to each other, it was also clear that many people feel it is not the system itself that causes problems, but the politicians themselves.

Visitors raised many other issues not directly related to the electoral system such as referendums, e-voting, populism, and so on. To me it became clear that the opinions heard on the meetings differed little from the opinions in the assembly; we indeed seem rather representative of Dutch society!

Discussions generated rather similar opinions in different parts of the country, except on the topic of regional representation. While hardly anyone in the western part of the country (which is most densely populated and also where government is seated) felt the need of districts, much more people in other areas, notably the northeast and the southwest, believed in the necessity of district representation.

The regional meetings also spawned regional media attention, not least because assembly members approached local and regional newspapers and radio stations. Still, national media do not report much on the assembly yet. Maybe that will change soon as we are getting closer to writing our advice.

Two more assembly weekends were held in June before summer recess. In these two weekends the assembly discussed which elements of the electoral system members feel need be changed and which elements need to remain the same. Discussion topics included possible influence on coalition formation, regional representation, irritation about mp's leaving their party who can keep their seat, the height of the electoral threshold, etc. In the first weekend the British electoral system expert David Farrel paid us a visit. He seemed to be very interested and enthusiastic about the assembly
initiative. Many people were amazed to hear Farrel is very charmed by the Dutch system. Maybe it is not that bad after all?

During the second weekend 3 Dutch MP's and one MP from Luxemburg visited and answered many questions, which gave the members a better insight into the activities of
MP's. It was a bit of a disappointment for some members to find out that the MP's were rather reserved when asked what they are going to do with the assembly's advice.

By the end of June a major event happened that may have a large impact on the assembly: the Dutch government collapsed. The coalition, which was supposed to be in office for another year, collapsed after a crisis around Immigration and Integration Minister Rita Verdonk and the fact that coalition party D66 (also initiator of the citizens' assembly) lost trust in the cabinet and its Ministers resigned. New elections are planned for 22 November 2006, around the same time the citizen's assembly is to publish its report. Until then, the other coalition parties, the Christian Democrats and
the Liberal party, continue as a minority government.

While initially the collapse of the government seemed to pose a threat to the assembly, it now appears that it may actually increase our chances of success. Firstly, it is likely that the assembly is finally viewed as independent from D66. Secondly, it may mean that our advice may be taken into account in the coalitions agreement of the upcoming government.

During July and August the assembly was in recess, although smaller groups worked on researching specific topics of their interest in order to get a better idea about the pros and cons. Topics included the concept of an "anti-vote", the way Ministers are appointed, districts, an elected PM, and many more.

During the last weekend (1/2 September) the assembly met again for the first time after recess and it has entered the final phase of the process: decision making. Many members have done proposals for reform and our task is to bring the number of proposals down to 2 to 4 proposals in the coming weekends. During last weekend the assembly decided on what we believe are the core functions of an electoral system, what the conditions and requirements of such a system should be, and what elements we would like to keep, strengthen, or get rid of in our current system.

While just before summer some tensions arose as some members believed the assembly was moving too slow, would not be able to come up with a proper advice, or would not be taken seriously by politicians, it seems that now that our tasks are becoming more specific and concrete, many members are once more very positive and energetic. However, one member quit because of the above critique and two others left the assembly for personal reasons.

Concerning the actual direction, it seems to me that after an initial urge to drastically change the electoral system, many members of the assembly now seem more interested in retaining the current system and proposing some smaller changes. Apparently, many members feel that the current system of proportional representation with only 1 district and coalition governments, and the current party system, should not be touched.

The following weekend is planned for the end of September. On the 7th of October, the assembly will meet politicians and people from other organizations in order to "test" some preliminary proposals and find out about the feasibility of these proposals. A final weekend will be held in October, hopefully resulting in the publication of our report in November

I may have forgotten some news here, but I think I covered most of it. As the assembly has now reached its final decisional phase, there should be some interesting news coming up, and I will try to give an update more regularly.

Kind regards,

David Hulshuis

Eyewitness Account #2: From Henk van der Kolk, a political science professor at the University of Twente.

September 6, 2006

On Friday September 1 and Saturday September 2, the Dutch Citizens Assembly had its first meeting after the summer holidays and is now entering the decision phase. Between February and April, the members were taught about electoral systems (learning phase). During one of these meetings David Farrell, whose (translated) book on electoral systems is used by the members, visited the meeting, which contributed to the enthusiasm of the members. It was the first time I have seen a political scientist giving autographs and being photographed.

In May and June regional meetings were organized where citizens were asked to comment on some general statements formulated by the members of the CA. Turnout during these meetings was not extremely high; about 30 to 100. Some meetings were rather ‘heated’ (Amsterdam, for example), but most meetings were quiet and constructively contributed to the way CA members were thinking about electoral systems. In addition, members and others contributed to the discussions on the website of the Assembly. All website discussions were systematically analyzed in an extensive report written by a subgroup of the members. In the final meeting before the summer, politicians visited the meeting, telling them about both their work as politicians and about their ideas for the Dutch electoral system. In addition to the meetings, the members also participated in a web-based discussion session of about an hour. During this session, members were (anonymously) allowed to express opinions on the Dutch electoral system. Other members were asked (anonymously) to vote on these statements. Statements that were strongly supported were accepted as something of the group and reported back to the members in a written document.

Since the members are now entering the more ‘down to earth’ decision phase (in which concrete alternatives are discussed), they finally get the feeling they are really heading somewhere. During the summer about 30 (partly overlapping) suggestions for an improved electoral system were formulated by individual members and some small groups. In the September meeting, the members discussed the relevance of several criteria of an electoral system. In this meeting members expressed (again) a strong preference for a proportional list system. Most likely will be the adoption of some kind of open list system (abolishment or at least lowering of the personal threshold) in combination with a small electoral threshold or the option to vote for the party as such (an option currently not available in The Netherlands). It may also be, however, that the assembly will suggest keeping the current system.

Until now, only three members decided to leave the assembly; two for personal reasons and one because he lost confidence in the process. The other members are still very enthusiastic. Most members show up at all meetings, many members visited regional meetings, and some decided to organize their own regional or municipal meeting.

In the next meeting (at the end of September), members will decide which alternatives they will develop further. In October there will be a public meeting, where politicians, interest groups and political scientists will express their opinion on the various alternatives. In October the members will decide which alternative is to be adopted by the Assembly. In November the members will discuss the final texts.

News coverage on the assembly is low. The people I ask have never heard of the assembly. And since the political party which initiated the CA within the coalition (D66) left the coalition just before the summer, the impact of the CA is rather uncertain. Despite the fact that the other parties (VVD and CDA) expressed their support for the initiative, they seem to be unwilling to simply accept the advice given by CA.

Press release with status update from Ontario citizens assembly

For the link to the press release, click here.

Attention News Editors:

Citizens Appointed to Re-examine Ontario's Electoral System

Members Of The Citizens' Assembly On Electoral Reform To Participate In Strengthening Ontario's Democracy

TORONTO, Aug. 15 /CNW/ - One hundred and three Ontarians will be at the centre of the most ambitious and far-reaching democratic renewal initiative in Ontario's history, Minister Responsible for Democratic Renewal, Marie Bountrogianni announced today.

"We believe that the shape of Ontario's democracy is a matter for Ontarians to decide," Bountrogianni said. "That's why we're appointing these members of the Citizens' Assembly, and asking them to lend their talents, creativity and commitment to this citizen-led process of re-examining our electoral system and recommending possible changes."

The 52 female and 51 male assembly members, each representing one of Ontario's ridings, were randomly selected from the Permanent Register of Electors for Ontario by Elections Ontario.

The assembly will operate independently of government. If the assembly recommends a change in the electoral system, that recommendation will be put to a referendum within the government's current mandate.

"These 103 people are at the centre of the process, but I'm hoping that all Ontarians will take advantage of the opportunities we are developing for them to express their views to the assembly," said George Thomson, chair of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

The first meeting of the Citizens' Assembly will be held on September 9, 2006.

The assembly will issue its final report outlining its recommendation on or before May 15, 2007.

For more information about the Citizens' Assembly and its members, go to the assembly's website at www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca.

"This is democracy in action - a democracy that belongs to the citizens of Ontario, not just their elected officials," said Bountrogianni.

www.democraticrenewal.gov.on.ca

Secretariat of the Ontario Citizens Assembly Team releases its first newsletter describing its activities

Today the Secretariat of the Ontario Citizens Assembly Team released its first newsletter describing its activities. I've attached a copy of the newsletter below but recommend you link to the newsletter directly. Note the first statistical profile of the selected members of the Citizens Assembly.

Here is the link to the newsletter: http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/en-CA/Whats-New/The%20Ballot.aspx.

THE BALLOT
Welcome to the first issue of The Ballot!

In this issue:
From the Chair
Selection Meetings Complete!
About the Members
The Ballot Box with Dr. Rose
New on Our Site
Contact Us

FROM THE CHAIR
It’s been a busy couple of months, travelling across the province speaking at selection meetings, and getting to know Assembly members. I’ve been contacting members who were selected at meetings I didn’t attend, and look forward to meeting them all in person in September.

I really enjoyed speaking to everyone who attended selection meetings. It was inspiring to see the number of people who took time out of their summer weekends to learn more about the Citizens’ Assembly. I thank you all for your interest and hope you will take advantage of other opportunities to get involved in the Assembly’s activities by visiting the website for regular updates.

On behalf of the Citizens’ Assembly Secretariat, I want to extend my thanks and appreciation to Elections Ontario for managing the selection process so efficiently and with such enthusiasm.

Staff at the Secretariat are hard at work preparing for the Learning Phase, which begins on September 9th. And I’m developing strategies for what I can do, as Chair, to facilitate the important work that Assembly members will do.

--George Thomson

SELECTION MEETINGS COMPLETE!
Teams from Elections Ontario and the Citizens’ Assembly Secretariat spent the end of May and all of June travelling across the province attending meetings to select 103 citizens to form the Assembly. Twenty-nine meetings and 17 cities later the Assembly is complete!

The selection meetings were very well attended. In some cities, members of the public who weren’t candidates for selection attended meetings to observe the process and learn more about the Citizens’ Assembly.

There was a great deal of media interest in the selection process, and many Assembly members were featured in their communities’ local paper. In fact, the Citizens’ Assembly was mentioned in the news almost every day in June. Here are a few examples:

Assembly to review Ontario’s electoral system (Lindsay Daily Post, June 1)

Electoral reform sparks interest (The Toronto Star, June 7)

From refuge to reform: Kingstonian chosen for electoral group (Kingston Whig Standard, June 12)

Residents play role in election reform (The Mississauga News, June 16)

Your chance to alter democracy (The Sudbury Star, June 28)

Read more about the selection process.

ABOUT THE MEMBERS
Visit Meet the Members to see photos and biographies of our diverse members. Learn about their families, occupations, hobbies and why they’re committed to being part of the Assembly. It’s interesting to see how Assembly members’ ages compare to Ontario’s population:

Age Cohorts 18-24 25-39 40-54 55-70 70+
Ontario’s Population* 12% 29% 30% 17% 12%
Citizens’ Assembly Members 11% 22% 31% 24% 12%

*Source: Statistics Canada

THE BALLOT BOX WITH DR. ROSE
In this section, I’ll share an interesting fact or a mini-lesson on electoral systems. I hope you’ll visit The Classroom section of the Citizens’ Assembly website so you can follow along with Assembly members as they learn together.

Since this is the first issue, it makes sense to examine psephology or the study of elections. I thought it might be interesting to examine the word’s roots.

Psephos comes from the Greek term for pebbles, a reference to the early practice of voting using pebbles. Logos, also Greek, means ‘the study of’. Together they form the term ‘psephology,’ meaning: the study of elections.

Fast forward to the way we vote today, using ballots. The term “ballot” comes from the Italian word palla which means ‘ball,’ a throwback to the days when balls were used to record votes—the original ballots!

There’ll be many more facts, trivia and other information in The Classroom, coming soon, on our web site.

Dr. Jonathan Rose is the Academic Director with the Citizens’ Assembly Secretariat and will be leading the learning sessions for the Assembly.

NEW ON OUR SITE
New content is being added to the Citizens’ Assembly website every week. Recently launched areas include:

The Secretariat Team
Get Involved
Media Room
Contact Us

Questions or comments about The Ballot? Send an e-mail to: theballot@citizensassembly.gov.on.ca

Letter-to-the-editor in London's Guardian

Publication: Guardian (London), Letter-to-the-editor
Title: Radical reform for the second chamber
Date: August 14, 2006
By: Charles Scanlan

Could Billy Bragg explain why he thinks it "radical" to advocate an elected second chamber when the current crisis of our democracy stems from the manifold failures of our elected first chamber (A last chance to be radical, August 9)?

The real problem is not the ridiculous rump of hereditary peers - it is that our elective party system has thrown up a professional political class which not only has its own distinct interests but which is more beholden to corporate, media and other lobbies than it is to the electorate.

A truly radical solution would be to replace the House of Lords with a citizens' assembly chosen by random selection from all members of the public willing to serve for a fixed term. That would really "reinvigorate political participation by bringing fresh perspectives to Westminster".

There is, of course, no possibility that the political establishment would even entertain such a surrender of power and patronage.

That is why, on all questions of constitutional reform, we should follow the recent example of British Columbia, where consideration of a new voting system was entrusted to a citizens' assembly, whose recommendations were then put to a popular referendum. In that instance, the local politicians had the good sense to hand back this power to the people. If our "representatives" prove unwilling to do likewise, there will need to be a grassroots reassertion of popular sovereignty.

Profile of California Assemblyman Richman touches on citizens assembly proposal

Summary: Profile of California Assemblyman Richman touches on citizens assembly proposal (skip to end of article)

Publication: Los Angeles Daily News
Title: Richman frustrated by system; Valley 'mayor': Sacramento is no place for moderates
Date: July 8, 2006
By:RICK ORLOV, Staff Writer

For the article, click here.

When he was elected to the state Assembly six years ago, Keith Richman was no wide-eyed idealist.
A physician, Richman already had built an $80 million health care group and been involved for years in local political issues when he won election to the Assembly in 2000 as a moderate Republican with an optimistic view of politics. Two years later, he won a majority of the vote as the candidate for mayor of the San Fernando Valley during the failed cityhood effort.

"I went up there (to Sacramento) to try to solve problems," the Northridge lawmaker said in a lengthy interview last week. "But the problem in Sacramento for a moderate is that most of the time moderates lose.

"What I found out very quickly is that the special interests - on both sides of the aisle - pretty much call all the shots."

As the 52-year-old Richman serves his final months in office under term limits, he is reflective on his tenure and said he has no regrets - only frustration with a system hemmed in by partisan politics and ideology.

Despite the constraints, Richman is widely credited with playing a key role in pushing through workers' compensation reform, crafting a plan to help the state deal with a $30 billion deficit, and emphasizing state infrastructure investment.

Richman also joined with several Democratic lawmakers in proposing compromises on energy, tax and health care issues facing the state.

But his frustration grew quickly even though Richman, a rare moderate in the Legislature, started on a fast track and earned the title Rookie Legislator of the Year his first year in the Assembly.

He quickly began to hear that Republican Party leaders - as well as the anti-tax and conservative ideologues - did not take kindly to his open discussions with moderate Democrats.

Richman said his Democratic colleagues were receiving the same complaints from public-employee unions and trial lawyers.

"It got so bad that at one point a group of us moderates - Democrat and Republican - left the Capitol to meet so no one would see us discussing issues," Richman said.

"It was so unusual to have people from both parties meeting to discuss solutions to issues. And when folks heard about it, there were editorials written against us."

Bob Stern, of the Center for Governmental Studies, said the lessons Richman learned are a fact of political life these days in Sacramento.

"Moderates are a dying breed," Stern said. "Particularly in the Legislature. You see the governor being more moderate these days, but that's because he wasn't challenged in his primary.

"I am not sure if Arnold Schwarzenegger would be governor if it wasn't for the recall," Stern said. "He didn't have to run in a Republican primary. The same problems hurt Keith Richman. He tried to reach across the aisle to Democrats and he was shot down."

Richman ran unsuccessfully for the GOP nomination for treasurer this year, and thinks his moderate positions hurt him.

"We had a very-low-turnout election," Richman said. "I think it was less than 25 percent for Republicans. That means it was just the hard-core conservatives and they were not going to vote for me."

"It seems like the public has largely given up on the political system. They don't have any trust in Sacramento and the system is collapsing from its own weight. It's like dying from a thousand cuts.

"And I worry about our future. We have tremendous unfunded liability for pensions, but how do we make it important to the people and engage them again in the political process? They are fed up and apathetic and cynical. I saw firsthand why they are so cynical.

"We are at a time when our representative democracy is broken and we need to find a way to reinvigorate it."

Richman, who is married with two daughters, said he is uncertain what he will do after his time in the Legislature is up in December, but hopes to concentrate on government reform and pursuing changes that will reduce partisanship in Sacramento.

"When I look at the problems when I came here - pensions, the budget, workers' comp, education, the health care system, the economy - not much has been done," Richman said.

"We were able to get some workers' comp reforms through, but that was only because of the threat of an initiative that would have forced something on us."

Richman attributes the problems to a variety of causes - from term limits to the unintended consequences of campaign-reform measures such as Proposition 34, which limited donations to candidates but not political parties or outside groups.

"With term limits, the special interests can just wait you out," Richman said. "After I got elected, some of them came to me with demands and I ignored them. They couldn't defeat me in my district, but all they had to do was wait and I'm gone with term limits."

As for campaign reform, Richman said all it did was strengthen the role of political parties and independent expenditure committees.

"When you limit what a candidate can raise, they have to go somewhere to get their funding," Richman said. "That means political parties and special-interest groups."

Richman and Stern, among others, believe one option might be a more independent redistricting system that would provide more balance in districts and set up competitive races.

Because of the way districts are now drawn, Richman said, most races are effectively decided during the primaries.

Another possibility would be creation of a Citizens Assembly to monitor how the state is governed.

Richman has been pushing a state constitutional amendment to convene such a session, but it has been locked up in committees.

"I don't know if it will ever get through," Richman said. "I'm afraid it just might stay bottled up."

San Francisco Chronicle endorses Citizens Assembly proposal

Summary: San Francisco Chronicle endorses Citizens Assembly proposal

Publication: San Francisco Chronicle
Title: Where politicians dare to tread
Date: June 18, 2006
By: Editorial

For the editorial, click here.

GOV. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Year of Reform" came and went without any discernible change to the status quo in 2005. The state Legislature remains unduly polarized, captive to special interests and unwilling to take on many of the most complex and daunting problems facing California.

Schwarzenegger's "reform" effort morphed into a piecemeal package of worthy (independent redistricting), seriously flawed (a rigid budget formula) and transparently politically motivated (restrictions on union fundraising) measures that were all shot down by voters in November. There were two overriding messages from the electorate. One was disenchantment with Schwarzenegger and his "I-am-king'' bravado of the moment. The other was a frustration that voters were being asked, yet again, to address issues that should be resolved in Sacramento.

So, what will it take to produce a Legislature that will do its job?

Let's start here:

-- Politicians should not be drawing their own district boundaries, shielding themselves from competitive elections. The result is a more polarized and less accountable Legislature. California should follow the
lead of other states where redistricting is handled independent of the self-interested legislators.

-- The voter-approved term limits of 1990 are too draconian: six years in the Assembly, eight in the Senate. These limits, which have been valuable in increasing diversity in the Capitol, should be loosened a bit to allow legislators time to develop expertise in complex issues -- as well as a greater motivation to focus beyond the concern of the moment.

-- The June 6 primary was a case study in what is wrong with our campaign-finance system: The special interests spent wildly and shot recklessly; the candidates made a mockery of spending limits in various ways and the public was subjected to a mud fest that depressed voter turnout to near-record lows. Candidates and would-be candidates at all levels complain that the fiscal demands of modern politics are adding to the length, stress -- and unseemliness -- of running for public office. It's time to overhaul the
system so that candidates spend less time raising money and more time talking with voters.

What are the chances that these, or any other, significant reforms will emerge from Sacramento?

"Slim to none," said Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla, a Pittsburg Democrat, who will be termed out of office this year.

Canciamilla said he came to Sacramento six years ago "naively thinking" that legislators could work together to solve problems. It wasn't long before his inclination for bipartisan outreach made him a pariah among his fellow Democrats. Too often, he said, legislators' response to a crisis is to make sure "the other guy got the blame."

Assemblyman Keith Richman, a Republican doctor from Northridge, is equally pessimistic about what he saw in his six years in the Capitol.

"Our representative democracy is broken," is Richman's diagnosis.

Canciamilla and Richman are promoting a measure that might allow these reforms to incubate without interference from a status quo that has proved remarkably adept at fending off change. Their bill (ACA28) would commission a "citizens' assembly" to develop a reform package that would go directly to the ballot. It is modeled after a citizens' assembly in British Columbia that proposed a system of "proportional representation" in elections; itfell just short of the 60-percent threshold needed for passage in May 2005.
It will be on the ballot again this year.

Here's how the California plan would work:

-- Two representatives, one man and one woman, would be selected from arandomly drawn pool in each of the 80 Assembly districts. Elected officials,their relatives, lobbyists, campaign consultants and other politicos would be ineligible.

-- Members of the citizens' assembly would be paid $1,000, plus travel expenses, for their part-time, yearlong exploration of the state's electoral and campaign processes. They would then develop a package of reforms - or not, in the unlikely event they find nothing wrong with the system -- to send to the Legislature, which could offer its comments, but could not change any of the citizens' recommendations.

-- The citizens' recommendations would then be put to a statewide vote.

How has the status quo in the Democrat-controlled Assembly reacted to the Canciamilla-Richman citizens'-assembly plan?

You guessed it. The Assembly leadership has not even allowed a public hearing on ACA28. Meanwhile, bills to accomplish some of these reforms -- independent redistricting, public financing of elections -- are barely
showing signs of life.

"The Legislature is not going to reform itself," Canciamilla said.

Assuming ACA28 goes nowhere this year -- which is what Richman and Canciamilla are betting -- advocates of a citizens' assembly are contemplating a signature-gathering campaign to put the concept on the ballot in 2008.

There is no guarantee that a citizens' assembly will produce the electoral reforms this state so desperately needs -- or even if it does, that the special interests and major parties will not ambush them at the polls -- but it's worth a try. It's outrageous and patently undemocratic that the ruling Democrats in the Assembly will not allow Richman and Canciamilla the courtesy of a public hearing on ACA28.

It's also instructive as to why this populist revolt is necessary.

---------------------------------------------

Express your views

For more information on the citizens' assembly proposal, and the main group behind it, the New America Foundation, go to www.NewAmerica.net/political reform.

You can express your views about the Assembly leadership's failure to hold a hearing on ACA28 by sending an e-mail to Speaker Fabian Núñez at speaker.nunez@assembly.ca.gov.

An update on the Netherlands citizens assembly

A lot has been going on with the Netherlands citizens assembly. The learning phase is now over and it has moved on to its consultation phase. Here’s a report from David Hulsius, one of its members.

June 5, 2006

Hi Jim,

Here's another update from the Dutch citizens assembly! It's a bit long, but a lot has happened since my last e-mail. Feel free to shorten it.

In my last update I told about the first two weekends in which we were introduced to the world of electoral systems. We have done a lot since that weekend, so there's quite a lot of news.

In our third weekend (21/22 April) we looked at pros and cons and the effects of the different types of electoral systems on for instance proportionality, representation of women and minorities, stability of the government, activities of MPs, etc. The subject thus came closer to our central topic: what is it that we find most important in our electoral system and what might happen if we should change elements of that system. Also, during this weekend we prepared for the regional meetings that are currently being held all over the country. We decided on which topics we thought are important to be discussed during these meetings. Main topics were voter's influence on coalition forming, representation of minorities and women, and the role of parties versus individual MPs. Generally, this weekend was seen as very informative and useful by the members.

The next weekend (12/13 May) dealt much less with electoral systems. Instead we looked at the role of ourselves, the individual members, within the assembly process for the months to come. Chairmen, vice-chairmen and spokesmen for the subgroups were appointed as well as a media committee. Although much time, to the annoyance of some members, was spent on electing these people and thinking about one's role in the assembly we also looked at the content: debating positions were put forward in order to generate discussions during the regional meetings. A poll held in the previous weekend revealed some opinions in the assembly: The majority of the assembly does not want to change anything about the proportionality of our current system, the existence of coalition governments and the current high turnouts at elections (of around 80%). Some things the majority thinks should be changed are the number of parties in parliament, the way coalitions and the cabinet are formed, and the role of MPs.

Apart from the assembly weekends, assembly members can attend 1-day courses on dealing with media, using computers, training of debating skills, etc.

As the weekend descriptions show, we have now moved from a learning phase to a consultation phase. As we now know a lot about electoral systems, it is time to ask other people what they feel is important. This consultation phase consists mainly of 12 regional meetings that are currently being held in places all over the Netherlands. It is supported by a website, www.nederlandpraatmee.nl. In the last 2 months a media campaign was launched drawing attention to the existence of the assembly and to the regional meetings. The campaign consists of TV ads, billboards on train stations and large ads in both nationwide newspapers as well as some regional papers. Several members of the assembly have also contacted local media and councils in order to draw attention to the meetings.

The first meetings (in Amsterdam, Groningen and Rotterdam) were successful, although less people turned up than hoped for. During the meetings vivid debates were held. While a large part of the audience was enthusiastic about the assembly and seems to agree that it reflects Dutch society well, much less people feel that it is the electoral system itself that causes problems. There are also some doubts whether parliament will seriously look at the assembly's advisory report. Many people complained about the activities and attitudes of MPs, the power of parties and about how coalitions are formed. That some of these issues can in fact be affected by the electoral system did not occur to everybody. However, it also stresses that reform of the electoral system alone is not a universal remedy in order to solve perceived problems in Dutch politics. As 9 more meetings are planned I cannot draw any conclusions yet, but hearing the opinions of other Dutchmen sure is interesting and useful.

During the next weekend (9/10 June) we will not only be looking back at the first regional meetings, but we will also start discussing extensively what we personally feel should or should not be changed in our electoral system. British political studies author David Farrel, whose book on electoral systems we have read as "homework", will also be visiting. Furthermore, we will look at previous reform proposals that have been done in the past in the Netherlands. We also face the challenge that we will have to think about how the assembly will reach consensus on a final advise in October/November and how we are going to get there.

The assembly still seems very motivated and I feel the assembly is also functioning quite well. I do believe we will be able to come up with an inspired, well-founded advisory report. Unfortunately, the assembly has not received very much attention in national media yet. While assembly members themselves have successfully contacted local newspapers and radio stations, nationwide papers and tv stations have reported very little on the assembly. I think there are two major reasons for this. First of all, the media campaign was only fully launched after the learning-phase was finished, resulting in the fact that few people knew about our activities. Secondly, some media have, incorrectly l think, considered the assembly to be a "toy" of Minister of Government Reform Pechtold as his party D66, being a minor party in the coalition, has seen few of its plans executed so far this term. This is a shame as we are independent from Minister Pechtold and also because I think the very success of the assembly is largely dependent on its reputation and its acceptance by the public. Thus, media attention is in my view essential. Hopefully we can generate more media attention in the coming weeks and months!

Once again, a lot of text, but hopefully informative!

Kind regards

David Hulshuis

New Politics Network Press Release: MPs say elections none of public's business

Publication: Press Release, New Politics Network (U.K.)
Title: MPs say elections none of public's business
Date: June 15, 2006

For the press release, click here.

The New Politics Network has criticised the House of Commons for voting against a proposal that would give the public greater say over the electoral system.

The Parliamentary and Local Elections (Choice of Electoral Systems) Bill would ensure that a referendum would be held on the electoral system at a local or national level if a significant number of citizens petitioned for one to be held. The alternative system proposed in the referendum would be chosen by the petitioners or could alternatively be determined by a Citizens Assembly of randomly chosen members of the public. The Bill was tabled by David Chaytor MP as a Ten Minute Rule Bill yesterday (13 June) and was rejected by the Commons (Ayes 72, Noes 168 - majority 94).

Commenting on the Commons vote, Parliamentary and Policy Officer Alexandra Runswick said:

"This Bill asserts a basic principle: that the electoral system should exist to suit the people not the politicians. By rejecting this Bill, MPs have brazenly asserted that it is none of the public's business.

"Andrew Turner MP's criticisms of the Bill were laughable. If he believes that electoral reform is only of interest to 'political anoraks' then why is he so afraid to put his theory to the test? Polling suggests that a majority of the public favour electoral reform.

"In law we already allow the public to call for a referendum on the creation of elected Mayors and parish councils; this Bill simply expands that principle. If the majority of MPs wish to continue to block such initiatives, they will have to come up with better arguments than the ones we heard yesterday."