Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future

Final Report Available in French

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 12:00:00 -0400

The Commission's Final Report is now available in French [PDF, 94KB] as well as English [PDF, 84KB].

Actual Election Results Converted to a MMP Result

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

This table converts the actual election results from 1970-2003 to a MMP result. The table is merely an illustration and not truly comparable as there was no second party ballot in any of these elections.

Three Easy Plebiscite Web Addresses

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Here are three easy-to-remember web addresses to get information about the Plebiscite on Mixed Member Proportional Representation System:

vote.electionspei.ca - where to vote
results.electionspei.ca - results (starting Nov. 28th after 7:00 p.m.)
display.electionspei.ca - results suitable for display with a projector

Clarification

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Please note that the Commission originally released the proposed mixed member proportional model in May and added supplemental information in September. In October, the model was changed as outlined in this press release in English and French. We have updated the information posted on this page in May and September. For a detailed explanation of the change that occured in October, please refer to page 9 and 10 of the Commission's Final Report.

Audio of CBC Forum

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 23 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Audio excerpts [RealPlayer, 15:48, 4KB] from the CBC Public Forum on Electoral Reform are available.

Voting Information Available

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Elections PEI has general information about the plebisicite, including information on where to vote.

CBC Website Plebiscite Feature

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

CBC Prince Edward Island has prepared a feature about the plebiscite on its website.

Events Related to the Plebiscite

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Events related to the plebiscite are posted online.

Final Report Available

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

The Commission's Final Report [PDF, 84KB] is now available.

Submitted by: Gail Wellner, CGA

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Electoral Reform

WE SHOULD VOTE NO

Having read the many issues presented on voting in our province I have come to the conclusion that we should vote No on November 28th. There are a number of very simple reasons to defend the present system of voting as a best system in Prince Edward Island:

My first reason to champion the existing method of voting is that we live in a representational democracy whereby we elect a person who represents us in the legislature and who makes decisions on our behalf when first elected and from then on into the unknown future. This representation is a very important part of English parliamentary democracy that we follow. Canada is not a republic like our neighbour to the south, the USA. Parliamentary Democracy has been extremely successful in England for almost one thousand years. It depends on the importance of each individual in society. Our current system is based on each individual having the right to vote for a representative. The concept of the importance of an individual, that is, each of us in a society, started in early political theory in the Greek City State environment in 400 BC where the famous philosopher, Plato, talked about the Body Politic. Thus, from then, to 2005 is a very long time to have democracy being used and to stand the test of time. The fundamental issue in a democratic society is that each person or member of that society has a vote and a right to vote on an issue or for his or her representative.

Proportional Representation denies us, the individuals in society, the right to vote for a representative. In the 10 member list and 17 elected concept for the Legislative Assembly we, the citizens, will lose the right to vote directly for someone to represent us. The right to vote for a representative is a fundamental democratic right.
My second reason for being against PR is that we have had a non-balanced legislature off and on for only the last thirty years. Having a bit of a problem for thirty years is a relatively short time when we think of the thousands of years that democracy has been used as a political system. Why would we change something that has had a few short-term baubles when in the long term the English system of first past the post has worked so well? We are making a dramatic change for just a very brief problem. As an accountant I can remember some times in the 1970?s when the presentation of financial information had to be changed from the historical cost model to accounting for purchasing power, etc. after just a few years of financial problems. The change did not survive and now financial statements are presented in the historical cost model. It was very foolish to change a solid model to cope with a short-term problem. I see uneven legislature numbers as a short-term aberration that will right itself within the next decade.
The Power of a political party in selecting list members. Most Prince Edward Island residents have not had the experience of living under totalitarianism or communism or any other society other than democracy. I lived in 1958 in Yugoslavia, a totally communist country, for over two months as part of a Canadian academic group evaluating political and economic issues. The Party controlled every facet of life in Yugoslavia. I could not choose where to have my breakfast, my passport was taken at every restaurant I entered to have a meal. It was given back each time I left. The green spaces in cities were reserved for the "people" but no one dared to walk on them. There was no right for any one to protest or to express any opinion other than what was the opinion of the Communist Party headed by Tito. We all know what happened to that political system as many people on PEI helped with the relocation of persons from Kosovo. For us to allow a political party to select 10 of the 27 members of our legislature is absolutely tantamount to letting a political party like the Yugoslav Communist party run our affairs. Ten out of twenty-seven seats is almost forty percent of our legislature. This is a travesty of the right and the dignity of each individual Islander.
Today major wars are being fought to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so that each citizen there would have the right to vote for a representative in the democratic manner. It seems ludicrous to me that PEI is trying to take away the precious right of each individual Islander to be able to vote for a representative to represent him or her in the Legislative Assembly, our political institution. To vote for Proportional Representation is a step backward in the ways of freedom. We will lose our freedom as individuals to choose. Do we want to be like any police state with no rights? Most of us can remember the power of Britain as she stood against all odds in the Second World War and saved us here in Canada from a vicious totalitarian system. Many Islanders had family who went to War and many Islanders went to War to give us the chance to be able as persons, and as individuals, to express our wishes on a free ballot. Most families lost someone special to protect the democracy that Great Britain stood for. Great Britain and its English Common Law system have stood the test of time and of war. The manner of voting in Parliamentary Democracy calls for all citizens to have a vote. The candidate with the most votes wins. We accept the results. We also expect that through this system we will get the best persons to represent us.
There has been an unfair distribution of tax-payer dollars to one side of the discussion. The NO position has had absolutely little administrative support, no research support, and no office space. The side for change has had vast sums of money for meetings, space, research, and advertising. All of this has come from the public purse. Fairness is something we should expect. Both sides should have been given more parity in financing and in media coverage. We, Islanders, are now faced with a massive marketing campaign for one side only that is funded from all of us through our tax dollars. This is the final indignity of a system that has gone grossly wrong. We have no other choice but to vote No.

Submitted by: Edith MacLauchlan

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

I believe that the plebisite should contain two questions. One question should be "Are you in favor of a change in the electoral system?" The second question could be "Are you in favor of the MMPS proposed by the Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future?" These two questions would give voters the opportunity to vote for, or against, change and to vote for, or against, the "proposed" system.

Edith,

Thank you for your comments.

In its mandate, the Commission was asked to recommend a plebiscite questions re: a choice between First Past the Post and MMP. This is the reason for the singular plebiscite question.

Sincerely,

Blair Weeks

Commission on P.E.I.'s Electoral Future

Submitted by: Louis Desjardins, Belleville, Ontario

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

I believe that proportional representation and its offshoots are just accidents looking for other places to happen. But rather than listing the many reasons why I hope that Islanders will vote against the MMP system recommended by the Commission, I would like to suggest three reforms that would make the Assembly much closer to the democratic ideal.

The first is the preferential ballot, which would ensure that each member of the Assembly was supported by a majority of electors who voted in each riding.

The second is to elect each member for a six year term. This would encourage more and better people to take the risks involved in seeking office, and would make members more independent from the influence of their party leadership.

The third is to have one third of the seats contested every two years. This would make government much more accountable than it is today, when voters have to wait up to five years if they want to make changes.

Additional details can be found at http://www.democraticrenewal.com. It discusses a new democracy for Canada, but the ideas for improvement apply to any elected assembly.

If by chance you would like to contact the author, you can do so through the web site, or by e-mail.

Louis Desjardins

Belleville ON

Submitted by: Sandy Clarke, Mt. Stewart

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Hi,
I have a question for you...
If there are 17 seats set for district elections and the candidates for Party Y are elected in all 17 districts with 55% of the vote in each district. Then, as I understand the proposed system the party popular vote would also only be 55%, however they have already elected more than 55% of the seats in the house? How is this situation handled?

Cheers,

Sandy Clarke (Mr)

Sandy,

Thanks for your question.

The list seats are designed to compensate for parties who do not receive at least the same number of seats as they received in popular vote (measured in per cent). Therefore if party Y already won 55% of the seats in the legislature through the district elections they would not receive any list seats unless its popular vote (per cent of vote on second ballot - vote on party preference) was around 58.5 per cent or greater.

The list seats would go to, for example, parties y and z to ensure that they receive seats in the legislature that are proportional to the popular vote they receive.

Blair Weeks

Submitted by: John Eldon Green

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

During the Commission's opening session introducing its report, I observed on what I thought was a key weakness in the proposal. I've been following press reports of public meetings and attended last night's session at the Rural. I couldn't help but think that if it takes 50 minutes to make the proposal comprehensible, though not convincing, then the issue is lost.
For that reason I have this evening forwarded the following comment to the Guardian. The approach I've suggested here is what I said initially, except now there seems more justification for it.

I'm wondering why the party lists of 10 candidates. I had to leave early last night and couldn't wait for a chance at the microphone. It seems that the list is a bit like playing Simon Says. Under what circumstances would the last 2 names ever be selected? Rather than hanging that carrot on the end of a stick, why not go with the losing candidate who drew the most voting support?

My only reason for writing is that I think you need to do something to save the principle of PR. Otherwise the cause is lost for at lreast another generation.

Respectfully, and with congratulations -- and appreciation -- for your efforts.

J. E. Green

THE DOOR SHOULD NOT BE CLOSED ON PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

I think there are few people who believe we can have effective government on PEI with only one person in Opposition, despite the self-congratulatory views by Pat Mella and Ron MacKinley, both of whom were in that situation. They can hardly be expected to acknowledge doing an inadequate job, in an impossible position, or admit to receiving leaks from within the public service in order to stay abreast of current issues. Good government should not have to rely on information covertly provided by public servants whose oath of office contraindicates that practice.

It should not require any argumentation to establish that a system in which an opposition party may get almost 40% of the electoral vote, and yet only one seat in the Legislature is not a good system. What if Pat and Ron had also lost in their Districts?

However, while I support the concept of proportional representation, I have great difficulties with the proposal that will be put to the public next month. My concern is that in rejecting the specific proposal, it may be assumed that Islanders are against some modification of our present system. I believe that is not the case. We may want something different, but not what is being offered to us.

I believe the proposal before us will fail on several counts. It is almost a certainty that most, if not all, all of the current MLAs will oppose it, for obvious reasons. Also, having already secured the trust and confidence of the electors, their influence among the latter will be very telling when the referendum is taken.

It will also fail because of the certainty that the PR component does not ensure the Leader of a minority party a seat in the Legislature. We would expect that the leaders of the NDP and the Green Party would nominate for a regular seat, but given the near certainty of a defeat, they would then not be eligible for a PR seat. Effectively, in naming the PR slate, the Party would automatically be naming a new post-election leader. My preference would be to name the PR selections on the basis of losing candidates who garnered the greatest measure of electoral support. Thus only those who had gone through the fire of a nominations process and a campaign would serve in the Legislature.

It will fail because, though simple enough in itself, it still required a 50-minute presentation by the Commission Chair at the final public meeting this week, which still left issues unresolved. Most people are not going to give it that much thought. Gut decisions will finally prevail.

It will also fail the basic operating principle on PEI, which is that we should never do anything for the first time. I had a Minister who asked me once, "if this is such a good idea, how come no one else is doing it?" Islanders could choke on too much of a good thing.

The Commission erred in accepting that a Cabinet system of governance can function within the limitations of a 27-member assembly, which number was a bad decision by an earlier electoral reform initiative. It was based on the need to reduce costs for the Assembly, although the cost of those five dropped seats was insignificant in terms of the total cost of Government. Now, in the event of a 14-13 split, similar to what occurred in 1978, the Premier will have only 12 members in Caucus from which to select a Cabinet, or eleven if both a Speaker and Deputy Speaker are named. This does not provide the Premier with enough options. Premiers cannot very well be held responsible for a Cabinet when they have little choice in its selection * perhaps only in its seating arrangement.

The Commission should have left the 27-member Assembly as is, while restoring the five seats discontinued with the last reform. These could have constituted the PR seats and restored a margin of safety for formation of a government, while avoiding the opposition of the 27 sitting members. It is still not too late to do that, for surely they read the opposition to their proposal.

John Eldon Green is a former Deputy Minister in the PEI Government and a long-serving management consultant.

Submitted by: Hubert Pierlot, Morell

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 02 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Abandon the present system and consider the province as one electoral district with 27 seats.
Minimum requirements as per present system to allow a person to be a candidate.
The list of the candidates offering themselves for election would be posted in all access PEI centres. Each candidate would be assigned a different 4 digit number beside his name on the list.

If a candidate wished to show his or her allegiance to a party, they could add this in the form of a letter designating the party: e.g. #4002C for conservaive, 3227L for liberal, 2112J for independent, or 1110 for no declared allegiance to any party. The ballot format would be the number, which would avoid the need for the voter to write out the name of the chosen candidate.

The public would be given one week to vote, which would be done by computer, at any access centre. No results would be released until the close of voting.

The 27 candidates receiving the most votes would automatically become members of the legislative assembly.

If in the unlikely event that there would be fewer than 27 candidates that would be voted for across the province, the candidates who received the most votes would each choose a candidate from the candidate list to bring up the number of the elect to 27.

Example:

23 only candidates were voted for, leaving 4 positions to be filled...

The most votes were received by #2003C - 40,000 votes

the next most voted on number if #3562L - 39,000 votes

the nest most voted on number is $1245 - 15,000 votes

the next most voted on number is #4016J - 5,000 votes

Each of these four candidates would then choose one candidate each from the voter's list, who would then become members, thus bringing the elected members to 27.

Advantages:

The voters could vote according to person as well as party allegiance. The voters could vote for anyone on the one list of candidates for the province, which might contain 300, 400 or more names. The system would allow voters to vote for persons from anywhere in the province. In this day and age, all members of the legislative assembly have a broad responsibility for all provincial affairs, not just their local parish. The system would allow the persons to be elected that voters consider the most capable and worthy of office, regardless of their place of residence.

Public Submissions

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Additional Public Submissions have been added to the website.

Submitted by: Mark Greenan

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Dear Mr. Russell and fellow Commissioners,
On behalf of the Yes on MMP Coalition, I am writing you to encourage your Commission to preserve the electoral model you have been presented to the public at your meetings to this date.
First, we believe it is important that you preserve the existing model because it clearly fulfills your mandate of designing a mixed-member proportional electoral system for PEI. While some intervenors have been calling for an increase in the number of district seats, to do so without a parallel increase in the number of list seats would greatly limit the system's ability to deliver proportional results.

There has also been much debate at the public meetings organized by your Commission on the merits of open and closed lists. Our group would like to see you retain your recommendation of closed lists. Closed lists are the best way to ensure that an MMP legislature will provide balanced representation in terms of gender and urban/rural interests. While some have expressed concerns that closed lists will strengthen party control, we believe that parties will undoubtedly follow your Commission's recommendation that their lists be determined in a fair and transparent manner at a province-wide convention, even in the absence of legislation to that effect.

Also, concerns have been expressed regarding dual candidacy - the ability of candidates to offer their names for both individual districts and the party list. Your commission recommends that practice be allowed and our coalition hopes that will be preserved in your final report. It should be noted that no jurisdiction currently using MMP bans dual candidacy and that to do so would likely make it very difficult for smaller parties to field quality district candidates, as it is unlikely they would win district seats but are quite likely able to elect list candidates.

Finally, and most crucially, if the model were to be changed, the valuable work your group has done in educating Islanders on the particularities of the model would have to be repeated, we believe to the detriment on public education and debate on electoral reform.

We thank you for your excellent work on this Commission and the important and historic role you have played in the development of Island democracy. Best of luck in your deliberations and in the future.

Sincerely, Mark Greenan

Submitted by: Steve Withers, Foxton, New Zealand

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Dear Commission on PEI's Electoral Future,
I have read on the Internet via the CBC web site that you are considering changes to the version of MMP to be offered in the plebiscite. I have some ideas I would like to share - based on experience of MMP in New Zealand. I hope you will excuse the informal nature of this communication.
First, let me introduce myself and my interest in electoral reform in PEI: I live in New Zealand and I have been on the National Executive of the Electoral Reform Coalition here for many years. I also served as the National Secretary from 1988 to 1991. As you may know, our organisation lead the successful campaign for the adoption of MMP in New Zealand. I am also a Canadian by birth, born in Sarnia, Ontario and I grew up in Canada. I emigrated to New Zealand at the age of 24.

Indeed, my support for the nascent campaign for MMP in New Zealand, shortly after arriving, was partly a product of my disillusion with respect to Canada's "wasted votes" and sharp regional divisions. I believed then and now that both these failings were directly attributable to the first past the post voting system. Canadians were forever ending up with regional strife and governments most people didn't vote for.

FPP restricts democracy and has politically crippled Canada for a very long time. There seemed to be little prospect of any improvement. For this reason, I am very happy to see more and more Canadians waking up to the possibility of a more fair and more open democracy through proportional representation. I am also a financial member of Fairvote Canada and as "a Canadian who has already succesfully campaigned for PR", I have addressed public meetings in Canada over the past several years, the latest being in June 2005 in Toronto to an audience of more than 250 people.

To the issue at hand: You are being asked to provide a way for voters to directly affect list rankings. This is an area frought with conflicting values and priorities, but well worth examining.

Assumptions: I assume that a person would be required to vote for that party with a party vote before being allowed to express an electoral opinion about the rankings on the list. Otherwise it makes no sense to allow it. Any political party has the right and obligation to put forward their very best list in order to attract votes. The party can take into account regional, ethnic and gender considerations in doing so.

Concerns: There is a concern - not entirely unfounded - that "party bosses" will dominate the composition of the list and use it to extract / enforce compliance from party members. An additional concern is that a list that is composed based on the knowledge, valuies and expertise of committed party members could be overridden by supporters of the party (to the extent they vote for it) who are not party memebrs and who almost certainly will lack the up-close knowledge and experience of those who know the candidates more closely and directly.

I would think you would also want to avoid a three-part ballot: local vote, party vote and list preferences. That would almost certainly see more invalid votes cast. Voting would take longer and counter longer as well.

Possible Solution: A solution that would address both concerns is to require any political party to compose its list rankings by democratic vote of party members - either at a conference, or via postal ballot or some other method. This addresses both the concern about candidates being democratically chosen from the voter's perspective and the concern by party members that people who do not share their commitment, knowlege or values may gazump their list.

Further, the requirement I suggest would encourage people to join political parties in order to have their say over who the list candidates should be. Encouraging more people to participate in the political process can only be a good thing.

At the same time, concern over party list composition is valid in my view and should be explicitly addressed in the legislation. In New Zealand, there is a requirement lists be composed democratically, but no method is prescribed.....and this has been interpreted quite differently by political parties here. Interestingly, it is the new, smaller parties who tend to be more democratic and the older, major parties who tend to be less democratic - though they do comply with the democratic requirement employing electoral colleges or similar devices to ensure wide consultation while also ensuring the people participating in the selection process have good information about prospective candidates.

For a major party in NZ, needing to choose almost 60 list candidates, there can be hundreds or even thousands of would-be candidates to select from. Not really a job for a cast of relatively uninformed thousands if you want it done properly.

Encouraging people to join political parties if they have a concern about list composition and also requiring parties to employ democratic and open processes for selecting and ranking candidates strikes what I think is the right balance between these two competing views.

Thank you for your time.

Steve Withers

National Executive Member

Electoral Reform Coalition

New Zealand

CBC Feature on Proportional Representation

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:00:00 -0400

CBC Radio's Kerry Campbell shares the basics [RealPlayer, 6:28, 4KB] of the proportional representation being presented for P.E.I.

Application of the d'Hondt Method

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:00:00 -0400

The Commission has created an application of the d'Hondt method.

Audio of Final Public Meeting Available

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Audio of the Public Meeting that took place in Charlottetown is now available.

Audio of Public Meetings October 4-6 Available

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Sun, 09 Oct 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Audio of Public Meetings that took place in Montague and Summerside is now available.

Electoral Future Commission Television Commercial

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:00:00 -0400

You can now watch the Electoral Future Commission Television Commercial [WMV, 942KB].

Audio of Public Meetings September 26-29 Available

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Audio of Public Meetings that took place in Morell, Kinkora and Charlottetown is now available.

Audio of Public Meetings Now Available as a Podcast Feed

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 28 Sep 2005 12:00:00 -0400

We are now making the audio of the Public Meetings available as a podcast feed. This allows suitably equipped citizens to automatically transfer the audio to their local computer and, optionally, their portable music player.

You can learn more about "podcasting" from this Wikipedia article and subscribe to the Commission's Public Meetings podcast feed at the following URL:
http://www.electionspei.ca/electoralfuture/rss/audio.php
Future recorded materials from the Public Meetings will be added to this podcast feed as they become available.

Audio of Public Meetings September 19-22 Available

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Audio of Public Meetings that took place in Abram-Village, Kensington and Charlottetown is now available.

Audio of Public Meetings September 12-15 Available

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Audio of Public Meetings that took place in Hampshire, Rosebank and Souris is now available.

Commission to Kick-off Public Meetings; Information Brochures Available

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Fri, 09 Sep 2005 12:00:00 -0400

The Commission on P.E.I.'s Electoral Future will kick-off its public meeting schedule Monday evening, September 12th at Bluefield High School from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM. The Commission has been given the mandate to propose a Mixed Member Proportional System for consideration by Islanders. That proposal was released on May 27th.

Government has also asked the Commission to conduct an education program designed to increase, among the general public, an awareness of the present First-Past-the-Post System and the proposed Mixed Member Proportional System. One of the key components of the education program is the series of 12 public meetings to be held over the next four weeks across the province. At the meetings the Commission will present information on both electoral systems. Following the presentation the public will be invited to ask questions and provide comments.

The Commission is providing each Island household with an information brochure via Canada Post. The public can also call the Commission's toll-free number 1-866-380-9090. Radio and television will provide information which will provide insight into the two electoral systems as well. At the conclusion of the education program, Islanders will be asked to vote in a plebiscite, to be held on November 28th to determine which electoral system they prefer: the currently used First-Past-the-Post system or the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system.

On Tuesday September 13th, the Commission will conduct its second public meeting at Westisle Composite High School 7:00 - 9:00 PM. The meeting in the western end of the province will be followed by a public meeting at Souris Regional High School on Thursday September 15th 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM.

Supplemental Information Added to the Mixed Member Proportional Model

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Supplemental Information has been added to the Mixed Member Proportional Model (en français) originally proposed on May 27th.

The Commission on P.E.I's Electoral Future has provided more information on its model and plan of proceedings, specifically: the date of the plebiscite, the wording of the "plebiscite question" which has been recommended to Government and the d'Hondt Formula which the Commission has recommended for use in the allocation of "List Seats" (see d'Hondt calculator).

Please Note: Since this information was originally posted the proposed mixed member proportional model has been changed as outlined in this press release in English and French. The change is reflected in the links above. For a detailed explanation of the change, please refer to page 9 and 10 of the Commission's Final Report.

Public Meetings

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:00:00 -0400

The Commission on PEI's Electoral Future is fulfilling its mandate in launching an intensive public education program over the fall months. Public meetings are scheduled across the province. The Commission's information campaign suggests that Islanders take this opportunity to "Listen-Learn-Participate" and by doing this, "Take Control" of our electoral future.

Submitted by: Marlene Hill, Hampton

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 31 Aug 2005 12:00:00 -0400

To whom it may concern:
Have reviewed the sample of the revised method of conducting elections. This seems like a more equitable way of doing things and for representing the populations wishes.
As a cost-saving measure (which the government is attempting to encourage) the following points should be investigated and implemented:
That consideration be given to take the election process to a higher level, also, while the process is being revised. It would be fairer to all parties and less costly to the tax payers of PEI if it became mandatory for a provincial election to be held the first Monday of November (for example) every four years instead of the present system of waiting until the polls indicate when the party in power is at a high point, sometimes it can be just over the 3 year period.

A few years ago, my husband and I were travelling through Ontario during a provincial election and noticed a major difference in signage of candidates. On PEI large, multi-coloured signage is normal along with the many, many, less-formal signs along the highways. In Ontario, the signage was much more less subdued and there were way less signs. Something for the tax payers of PEI to consider. Do all these signs on PEI really influence the voters????

Hi Marlene:

I am acknowledging your e-mail letter of August 5 which dealt with a mandatory 4-year term for government in this province. I appreciate your recommendation on the fixed-date issue and your comments on signage.

Our mandate is quite specific and I'm not sure that it extends to recommending a fixed date for elections. None-the-less, I will ensure that your comments are taken to the Commission. On the signage issue, those decisions now are made by political parties within the framework of the total dollars that they are permitted to spend on election-related activities.

In early September, we will be forwarding an introductory mailout to each household in the province. Part of that will be a schedule of public meetings to be held during the September and October. I hope you will be able to attend one of these meetings. The role of the Commission is to ensure that voters understand the First Past The Post model currently in use and the alternative Mixed Member Proportional model that we are presenting. Hopefully, you will play a role in making this decision.

Sincerely,

Leonard Russell

Public Submissions Now Online

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:00:00 -0400

The first Public Submissions to the Commission's website are now online.

Submitted by: Ralph Yeo, Summerside

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:00:00 -0400

Even though this new format would not be my choice, it will probably be the one Islanders choose. My basic problem, is that party politics still rule the day. Some of us feel that we would be better represented by strong independent candidates. The old system buried such people, and the new one is no help. A system where voters got to scale all candidates in their district with a 3-2-1 rating could help break down party line voting. Trying to "spoil" the ballot wouldn't be permitted. This would allowing some seemingly 2nd place candidates to win the seat. This would be done by having a very broad base of support.

Since only the proposed system is going to fly, the public needs more education on the following points.

1. How exactly do the 10 list members represent anyone? Who are their constituents?

The 10 list members will represent Islanders as a whole as they will be determined by the collective voice of Islanders. They may also represent a segment of the population, such as a female member advocating women's issues, or a farmer ensuring that the interests of the agriculture industry are addressed by government.

Literature on Mixed Member Proportional systems suggests that list candidates will have a broader perspective and might campaign on province-wide issues.

2. Who; other than their own party leader are they accountable to?

List members, having equal power (one vote) in the legislature, will be held to the same standard as local district candidates. A Government-side list member will be accountable to the Opposition. A list candidate will be accountable to the political party of which he/she is a member. Finally, and most importantly a list candidate will be accountable to the citizens of the province, the electorate. A list candidate who performs poorly will be less attractive to the political party in future elections. It is in the interest of all political parties to field a list of candidates which is viewed favourably by the electorate. A strong list of candidates means a higher popular vote.

3. The minor parties ( surely more will emerge now) need only garner about 5% vote to have a member. They could virtually have the same member for life, if they chose to go that course. It would not matter how annoying/inept/or other miserable qualities they had, it is not hard to grab that many protest votes. For that matter the major parties could do the same. The public has to be assured the list seats are not just for deadwood and recycled political hacks. Surely the committee realizes it may take some tweaking of the process over the next number of elections, before the voting public feels the process is effective.

Political parties cannot afford to take votes for granted. The popular vote of all three political parties in the province fluctuates. By taking the electorate for granted and continually presenting less capable candidates, the votes for a party are likely to decrease, and perhaps to the degree that a party falls below 5 per cent.

If the scenario you describe above does occur, the public has the opportunity to participate in party politics and do something to prevent it from occurring in the future. Options for the public include expressing dissatisfaction with the member, working to present better quality candidates or offering themselves as candidates.

The public's awareness of the functioning of an MMP system will increase over time. The public will observe the process by which list candidates are determined and will make demands regarding the process and demand quality candidates on the list. If the political parties adopt a process for determining the list which involves all party members, involvement in the party may increase. It will be in the interest of the engaged citizen to do what he/she can to increase the quality of candidates.

Submitted by: Islanders for Democracy

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:00:00 -0400

1. Why is the government paying money to promote the Mixed PR system?
According to the Mandate of the Commission on P.E.I.'s Electoral Future, one of the Commission's task is: to develop and conduct a public education program, designed to increase among the general public of Prince Edward Island awareness of the present First Past the Post Electoral System and a Mixed Member Proportional System; Therefore the Commission's task is to increase awareness of both the current system and the proposed Mixed Member Proportional System. The Commission has not been given the mandate to increase awareness of other electoral systems.

2. How will the "party candidates" be placed on the lists?

On May 28th, at a press conference, The Commission on P.E.I.'s Electoral Future made three suggestions regarding the list:

The Commission suggests that the make-up of the party list reflect the population of the province.

The Commission suggests that the nomination process to determine the party list be open to all party members.

The Commission suggests that List members be determined at a convention open to all party members

Unless required by legislation to proceed in a given manner, the political parties will determine how the party candidates will be placed on the list.

3. How much money is being spent on this project? Can people interested in other electoral systems be given equal funds to "research their ideas and bring them forth to the public?

$280,600 is the total budget of the Commission on P.E.I.'s Electoral Future. The budget includes the cost of Commission meetings.

Our budget was not intended to provide funding to interested individuals or groups to research their ideas and bring them forth to the public.

d'Hondt Method Calculator

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:00:00 -0400

The Commission has prepared a d'Hondt Method Calculator to allow citizens to see how various combinations of district and list seat election results would result in the assignment of seats under the proposed Mixed Member Proportional System.

Commission Welcomes Submissions by Email

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:00:00 -0400

The Commission on P.E.I's Electoral Future invites the public to make submissions on electoral reform at the following e-mail address: submit@electoralfuture.pe.ca.

Updates from Commission Available by RSS

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 12:00:00 -0400

We are now making the updates that appear on the website of the Commission available as an RSS feed. This allows suitably equipped citizens to automatically receive and view updates using a "newsreader".

You can learn more about RSS from this Wikipedia article and subscribe to the Commission's RSS feed feed at the following URL:
http://www.electionspei.ca/electoralfuture/rss/feed.php
As new updates appear on the website, they will simultaneously appear in the RSS feed.

Commission Podcast Feed now Available

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:00:00 -0400

We are now making the audio of the Panel Discussion on Electoral Reform in Prince Edward Island available as a podcast feed. This allows suitably equipped citizens to automatically transfer the audio to their local computer and, optionally, their portable music player.

You can learn more about "podcasting" from this Wikipedia article and subscribe to the Commission's podcast feed at the following URL:
http://www.electionspei.ca/electoralfuture/rss/index.xml
Future recorded materials from the Commission will be added to this podcast feed as they become available.

Panel Discussion on Electoral Reform in Prince Edward Island

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Wed, 15 Jun 2005 12:00:00 -0400

The Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future hosted a Panel Discussion on Electoral Reform in Prince Edward Island on June 15, 2005.

The audio of the introductions, presentations, question and answer session and closing remarks is available for download as MP3-format files by clicking on the links below:

Introductory Remarks, Leonard Russell, Chair (11:10, 2.1MB)

Dr. Bill Cross, Mount Allison University and Director of Research New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy, 2004 (25:04, 4.6MB)

Honourable Norman Carruthers, Chair - Prince Edward Island Electoral Reform Commission, 2003 (20:44, 3.8MB)

Dr. Jennifer Smith, Chair, Political Science Department, Dalhousie University (16:13, 3MB)

David McLaughlin, Chair, New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy, 2004 (42:04, 7.8MB)

Roundtable Discussion (40:44, 7.5MB)

Question and Answers and Closing Remarks (1:01:05, 11.2MB)

Video of the introductions, presentations, question and answer session and closing remarks is also available for download as RealPlayer-format files by clicking on the links below (note that these files are quite large, and will take time to download, especially on slower dial-up connections):

Introductory Remarks, Leonard Russell, Chair (11:10, 17.2MB)

Dr. Bill Cross, Mount Allison University and Director of Research New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy, 2004 (25:04, 33.5MB)

Honourable Norman Carruthers, Chair - Prince Edward Island Electoral Reform Commission, 2003 (20:44, 27.7MB)

Dr. Jennifer Smith, Chair, Political Science Department, Dalhousie University (16:13, 21.5MB)

David McLaughlin, Chair, New Brunswick Commission on Legislative Democracy, 2004 (42:04, 56.5MB)

Roundtable Discussion (40:44, 54.7MB)

Question and Answers and Closing Remarks (1:01:05, 82.3MB)

Proposed Mixed Member Proportional Model for Prince Edward Island

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Fri, 27 May 2005 12:00:00 -0400

On May 27, 2005, the Commission issued a news release in English and French outlining the proposed mixed member proportional model for Prince Edward Island. Additional material includes a fact sheet about the Commission in English [PDF, 48KB] and French [PDF, 50KB] and a map [PDF, 706KB].

Please Note: Since this news release was originally issued the proposed mixed member proportional model has been altered as outlined in this press release in English and French. The change is reflected in the links above. For a detailed explanation of the change, please refer to page 9 and 10 of the Commission's Final Report.

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future

Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future — Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:00:00 -0400

On February 17, 2005, Hon. Greg Deighan, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and Chair of the Standing Committee on Legislative Management, announced appointments to the Commission on Prince Edward Island's Electoral Future. Speaker Deighan said, "The Standing Committee on Legislative Management was directed by the Legislative Assembly to appoint an eight Member Commission to:

develop and conduct a public education program to increase among Islanders an understanding of our present "first past the post" electoral system and, as an alternative, a mixed member proportional system

develop a plebiscite question on which electoral system is preferred by Islanders

recommend when a plebiscite on this matter should be held

As the Commission proceeds with its work, additional information about the Commission and its activities will be added to this website.