The Citizens Assembly Blog has been moved to iSolon.org. Please check for all future citizens assembly news at www.iSolon.org. --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
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 |
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. |
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/ | ||
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/ | |
Partij voor de Dieren (PvdD) |
Animal party |
179.988 |
2 |
Unknown, at least in favor (like most other parties) of PR | |
Orthodox Christians |
153.266 |
2 |
Most likely against this institutional reform | ||
9.654.475 (turnout 80%) |
150 |
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.
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 .
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
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
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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
Fourth meeting of Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (Word, 50KB)
Electoral reform Assembly connects with Citizens (Word, 40KB)
Expert tells Ontario Citizens’ Assembly members electoral system review is long overdue (Word, 44KB)
Expert Panel to Address Ontario Citizens' Assembly Members (Word, 50KB)
Former MPPs to Address Ontario Citizens’ Assembly Members (Word, 48KB)
First meeting of Ontario's first Citizens' Assembly inspiring and invigorating (Word, 615KB)
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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."
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."