Citizens Assembly Blog

Typical local newspaper profile of an Ontario citizens assembly member

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

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

Attention News/Assignment Editors:

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

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

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

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

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

Date: Saturday, September 9, 2006

Time: 6:00 p.m.

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

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

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

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

For the article, click here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ontario’s Citizens Assembly Convenes; Netherlands Enters Last Lap

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

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

Press release announcing first meeting of Ontario's citizens assembly

Attention News/Assignment Editors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date: Saturday, September 9, 2006

Time: 9:15 a.m.

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

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

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

Two eyewitness accounts of citizens assembly developments in the Netherlands

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

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

September 6, 2006

Dear Jim,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

David Hulshuis

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

September 6, 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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