Doug Ford’s recent plans to privatize parts of Ontario’s health care system faced immediate opposition from public groups across the province such as the Ontario Nurses’ Association (ONA) and the Ontario Health Coalition (OHA) which argued that for-profit care delivers poorer-quality services, cuts corners, is under less regulatory oversight and ultimately costs more.
The Ontario Greens, New Democrats and Liberals were also quick to denounce the move, claiming privatization would make the health care crisis worse. You think Ford would heed their calls seeing as the three parties collectively represent 54% of Ontario voters, compared to the 41% of Ontarians who voted for the Progressive Conservatives.
We all know the chances of that happening are effectively nil as Ford holds a legislative majority in Queen’s Park despite only receiving a minority of the vote. This means Ford can pass whatever legislation he wants even though a majority of Ontarians may oppose him doing so.
Thanks, First Past the Post!
This isn’t the first time our “winner-controls-all” electoral system has failed Ontarians, however, as provincial underfunding of health care has been occuring for decades. Successive provincial Liberal governments with false majorities also underfunded health care, leading to longer wait times and more delays in diagnosis and treatment which undermined confidence in the public health care system.
Going back even further, the privatization of Ontario’s home-care and long-term care system in 1996 by then Conservative premier Mike Harris was the result of his government securing a false majority (82 seats with 45% of the vote). The abysmal result of this privatization becoming quite clear during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In short, what our province’s experience reveals is that First Past the Post fails to protect people from governments that neglect their needs. This is because false majorities aren’t legitimate reflections of the popular will and, in some cases, are directly opposed to meeting the political, social and economic needs of the majority of people they are elected to serve.
It should be easy to see that any electoral system capable of electing such a government violates the will of the people and is not fit for purpose.
Understanding Germany’s Electoral System
Broadbent Insititute board member, Peggy Nash, recently chatted with Nils Schmid from Germany’s Social Democratic Party about their electoral system.
How did New Zealand get proportional representation?
Prior to 1996, MPs were elected to New Zealand’s House of Representatives using the same unrepresentative First Past The Post (FPTP) system that is used to elect MPs to Canada’s House of Commons. Since then, however, New Zealand has used the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system to elect MPs.
How did this change from FPTP to Proportional Representation (PR) arise and does New Zealand’s journey provide any lessons for electoral reformers here in Canada?
Democratic Reform in the News
Electoral reform continues to make the news across Canada and around the world. Here is a sample of what is being said:
- Every Vote Should Count (third letter on page)
- Interview with Susan Holt, New Brunswick Liberal Leader
- Potential Constitutional Crisis If UPC Leader Elected in Alberta
Youth participation in Canadian elections is usually much lower than older adults. Parliaments elected by proportional representation tend to look more like the citizens they represent, meaning youth have more role models among our MPs. Learn more about youth participation by clicking here.
