Understanding the Electoral System - Family Coalition Party of Ontario

“We need the best democracy of the 21^st century, not the best democracy of the 19^th century” – Steven Harper, Conservative Leadership Convention, Toronto, March 19^th 2004.

The voting system is the heart of representative democracy. The voting system is the means by citizens delegate their political voices to elected representatives to act on their behalf.

If the voting system distorts, discounts or ignores what voters are saying, then democracy is undermined. And there lies the problem in Canada’s political system. We are hobbled with an antiquated and widely discredited voting system (called first-past-the-post) that was scrapped by most major democracies between 50 and 100 years ago.

Most people involved in the political process believe that “There is no problem” – especially if they are part of a mainline party or are already elected.

Most people do not know that Canada is one of the few western democracies that is still using the “First-past-the-post” system.

Most people have lost hope in the political process – they go through the motions, they elect Majority government A or Majority government B, but nothing changes.

The reality is that the majority voted AGAINST the MPP that has been elected and AGAINST the party in power! How can the majority of people be happy?

Six Provinces in Canada are making steps towards change in the electoral system.

The Law Commission of Canada has produced a report proposing change to a Mixed system (which we support). See commentary on this Report below.

McGuinty in Ontario has created a new ministry for Democratic Reform and has appointed Michael Bryant (the Attorney General) as Minister for Democratic Reform and an MPP (Buontrogianni) is Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister, for Democratic Renewal.

An all-party committee has produced a Report and set the rules for the workings of a "Citizen's Assembly".

A Citizen's Assembly made of 103 electors is being formed (Summer 2006). This body has proposed the alternative MMP system (May 15th 2007).

A Referendum will then be held in conjunction with the October 2007 Provincial Election.

We need to be active and inform our friends about the problems we have and the merits of electoral reform.

“I represent all the people in my riding” says your MP or MPP. This is just a wish, more likely a lie.*

*(Your MPP will represent the people who will help him to be re-elected, e.g. 55% of 40% of 60% = 13%).

Usually about 60% of the people WHO VOTED in a riding voted AGAINST the winning MP or MPP.

An astonishing 75% (average) of all the people in a riding did not vote for the MP, MPP or the party in power!

How can an MP equally represent people on opposite sides of an issue? Is he going to speak in favor or against abortion? Same sex marriage? Euthanasia? Capital punishment? Higher taxation? More money for the environment?

If he pledges to represent the majority opinion in his riding, how is this majority determined if not at election time? And if this is so, then ironically all elected MPs should represent the OPPOSITE view of the people who elected them, since 75% of the people did not vote for them and 60% of the people voted AGAINST them.

However, many elected MPs still say: “There is nothing wrong with the system”, or “Canada is the best nation in the world”. Go figure!

Our voting system routinely distorts election results. The voters say one thing at the ballot box, but the voting system produces something quite different.

Since World War I, Canada has had 15 majority governments. In each case, one party held a majority of seats and exercised 100 per cent of the power.

But how many of these governments actually won a majority of the popular vote? Only four. Four legitimate majority governments over the past eight decades!

And it’s getting worse, not better. Since the mid 1960s, Canada has had eight majority governments, with only one having received support by a majority of voters, and that one just by a hair. In fact, in 1997, the Liberals formed a majority government with only 39 per cent of the popular vote.

NO. Canadians are better governed by minority governments and they prefer minority governments, as these are more accountable. However, there is no easy recipe to elect a minority government.

Remember, dictatorships are strong governments! What we are getting in Canada is “Benevolent dictatorships”.

The farce of 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd reading is well proven. The farce of Question period is well proven.

There is nothing that the opposition can do against a motion or a law introduced by a majority government. In that situation only a few key people (sometimes only the PMO) is running the country or the province.

Michael Harris was able to pass 68 pieces of legislation – 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd reading – in one afternoon.

In addition to phony majority governments, we often have exaggerated majorities. Such is the case currently in B.C., Alberta and PEI, where supporters of opposition parties have little representation. In B.C., the opposition consists of just two MLAs and in PEI just one.

The most outrageous distortion in the 1990s occurred in three provincial elections where parties second in the popular vote actually formed the government!

In a democratic system, every vote should be equal. But that’s not the way our system works. The weight or value of our vote depends on what party we happen to support in an election.

In the last federal election, the Liberal party gained an average of one seat in Parliament for every 30,000 votes cast for their party. At the other end of the spectrum, the Progressive Conservatives won only one seat for every 130,000 votes. In other words, Liberal supporters are four times more likely to be represented as they wish.

The inequities are even more dramatic when you compare the value of votes cast in different provinces. In Saskatchewan, 207,000 Alliance voters elected 10 Alliance MPs. But 220,000 Alliance voters in Quebec couldn’t elect a single Alliance MP.

The Liberals received 950,000 votes in the four western provinces – about half of the Alliance total – but gained only one-fifth the seats.

In Ontario, 369,000 NDP voters gained one NDP MP, but 102,000 NDP voters in Manitoba gained four NDP MPs.

Phony majorities, phony mandates, distorted results and unequal voters – can it get any worse? Unfortunately, the answer is “yes”.

Wasted Votes: Under our current voting system, our votes only count – or produce representation for our political views – when we happen to share the most popular partisan viewpoint in our riding. In other words, what you believe in determines whether your vote counts – not the fact that you’re an equal citizen along with everyone else in your riding.

Consider a typical riding election. Say the winning candidate attracted 40% of the vote and the others attracted 60%. In our winner-take-all voting system, the 60% are wasted votes that have no effect on how seats are allocated. The voices of those voters are not represented. Why? Because they don’t hold the most popular partisan viewpoint in their riding.

Ironically, our system also wastes votes for candidates or parties that are “too popular” in a single riding. When a candidate wins more than 50 percent of the vote, any additional votes have no added value in terms of how voters will be represented.

What happens in a system that wastes most votes? Many people stop voting – our last federal election had the lowest turn-out in history. Many other voters feel pressured to cast strategic votes against parties they fear, rather than sincere votes for the parties they actually support.

Poor Representation: Compared to European nations, Canada has a very low percentage of women in Parliament. Visible minorities, despite being a growing segment of society, also hold relatively few seats.

While voters can choose among those appearing on the ballot, the parties are responsible for presenting most of the candidates. Every voting system provides certain incentives to parties regarding candidate selection.

Our winner-take-all system, with just one winner per contest, rewards parties for putting forward the one candidate considered most safe.

This often means that the candidate more willing to compromise and who is closer to the center of the political spectrum will win.

This also has an undesired effect on the position of political parties: Parties and leaders tend to “compromise” and align themselves with the position at the center of the political spectrum. This is very bad for democracy, as voters often will have a choice between two or three major parties that are very similar and do not provide a real alternative. (Is Jean Charet a Liberal or a Conservative? How about Joe Clark?)

The systems used in most major democracies usually have many people elected from larger districts. This changes the incentive. Now parties are more likely to attract votes by having a wide range of candidates that reflect all people in the region.

Another unfortunate effect of our system is the exaggeration of regional differences. Canada’s electoral map makes it appear as though Liberals are an endangered species in the West, when actually there is one Liberal voter for every two (former) Alliance voters – a sizable presence. In Ontario, seemingly a solid Liberal province, half of the voters supported other parties.

Because of our voting system, the electoral map bears little resemblance to the variety of viewpoints that exist in all the regions.

How can we have accountable representative government when the political preferences of voters are not reflected in our legislatures and Parliament?

When the majority of voters often gain no representation for the political views? When the system hands 100% of the power to parties with only minority support?

When opposition parties are so dramatically hindered and reduced that their voices are lost and Parliament is turned into a meaningless Punch and Judy show? When many voters feel pressured to cast strategic or negative votes and voter turn-out has sunk to the lowest level in our history?

When the Family Coalition party, which arguably represents the “moral majority” has no representation at Queen’s Park?

Fortunately, we are not stuck with the system we have. In fact, most established democracies use other voting systems that better reflect what voters are saying.

The distortion of the election process is well known to voters. We have heard many times people who say: “I like your policies, but I cannot vote for you, because I would waste my vote.”

Against such reasoning, we can provide the following arguments: Did anything really change in the last thirty years on the moral issues that are important to you? Did the other parties move in the direction you want? If the major parties do not represent your views, why vote for them? It is not morally consistent to vote for “the least of the evils” when there is a pro-life, pro-family alternative.

All of the above arguments are valid, but the fear of “wasting my vote” is so strong, that most people will set aside their conscience, hold their nose and vote for a party that is not going to do much for them.

In fact, this very reasoning is used by many Churches, pro-life and pro-family organizations to explain why they do not fully and unequivocally support the Family Coalition Party.

For lack of understanding, some Christian leaders (**) have actively campaigned AGAINST our party!

From the above example it is clear that the system is not conductive to really reflect what the voters want.

You cannot argue that there is no bias in the system but, at the same time, that you will not vote for a smaller party because they have no chance to win. There IS a bias in the system.

With a fair system the Family Coalition Party would represent about 15 to 20% of the people in Ontario.

With a fair electoral system in Ontario a popular vote of 15% would virtually guarantee that we would be part of any minority conservative government and that we would be considered also for minority Liberal governments.

Examples in other countries, such as Norway, show that a small morally-based party can be the key to forming a government. The Norwegian minority government worked so well that the Christian Democratic party leader was called to form the government after one more election!

That may be the case. However, extreme elements in our society do exist. If these will form their political party, in Ontario they will have to convince over 3% of the population before they get someone elected.

It is preferable to have these extreme elements out in the open rather than having them infiltrate and corrupt some of the major parties (e.g. Joe Clark?).

To best understand the choices, we can divide voting systems into three families: 1) winner-take-all, 2) proportional representation, and 3) mixed systems.

Canada uses a winner-take-all system. These systems generally elect just one MP from each riding. The candidate with the most votes (plurality system) or a majority of votes (majoritarian system) wins the seat. The supporters of other candidates may have an MP representing their riding, but not their viewpoints. In other words,

These systems usually create single-party majority governments – whether or not the majority of people voted that way. Winner-take-all systems tend to over-represent the most popular viewpoint (which is usually not even a majority) and significantly under-represent or even eliminate other viewpoints.

Not surprisingly, these systems generally result in lower voter turnout because the votes of many citizens simply have no effect or value.

The only other major democracies (more than 8 million in pop.) using the Canadian version of winner-take-all (first-past-the-post) for national elections are the United States, Britain and India. When the new democracies in Eastern Europe chose their voting systems, not one adopted the first-past-the-post voting system used by Canada.

The Alternative Vote (or Preference Voting) is another type of a winner-take-all system. Voters elect one MP per riding, but are able to rank the candidates on the ballot according to preference (first, second, third, etc.). If no candidate wins a majority of first choice votes, the least popular candidate is dropped. The ballots cast for that candidate are re-assigned to the second choices of those voters. This process continues until one candidate has more than 50% of the ballots.

Proponents claim this system gives voters more say, but it’s a very marginal benefit. A significant portion of voters, often the majority, will still not be represented as they wish (i.e., by their first choice). Most Canadians are already “represented” by their second or third or fourth choices. Despite claims to the contrary, this system simply re-packages the status quo. France uses another variation of this system, called two-round voting, but the effect is the same.

In contrast to winner-take-all systems, 75 democracies have chosen proportional representation systems – including most long-term (established) democracies, most European countries and most of the major nations of the Americas.

While these systems can be designed in many ways, the central idea is very simple. If a party receives 40% of the popular vote, that party receives approximately 40% of the seats (not 50% or 60%). If another party wins 20% of the vote, that party gains 20% of the seats (not 10% or 0%). In other words, the parties’ representation reflects their support at the ballot box.

How do these systems work? In a “purely proportional” system, all votes are counted and the seats in the legislature are assigned proportionally to the total number of votes.

Countries have been very creative in designing systems that best fit their political culture, but there are some general characteristics.

The first characteristic is electoral districts (or ridings) that have more than one representative elected. Ireland uses districts typically with just 3 to 5 representatives. In Belgium, districts vary in size from 5 to 48 representatives. The Netherlands treats the entire nation as one big district with 150 MPs (thus “purely proportional”).

The other general characteristic is the use of party lists. When elections are held, each party publishes a list of candidates. Based on the percentage of votes received by a party in a particular region, a certain percentage of candidates from each party's list win seats.

In many countries, each party’s list is actually printed on the ballot and voters not only pick the party of their choice, but rank the candidates according to their preference. This ensures that candidates winning seats reflect voters’ preferences rather than those of the party leadership.

Some systems even allow voters to choose and rank candidates in different parties.

In summary, proportional systems can be designed in many ways to fit the political culture of the nation. If citizens want to retain elements of local representation, to vote for independent candidates, to rank candidates nominated by the parties, to cross party lines when voting – these and other features can be built into the system.

Not surprisingly, there are many hybrids, where nations have taken characteristics of both winner-take-all systems and merged them with proportional systems.

While still classified as a proportional system (because it produces proportional results), Germany and more recently New Zealand use a system that blends features from other systems.

On election day, the German voter casts two votes. Each vote determines how half the seats are filled. One vote is for a riding MP, who is elected the same way we fill seats in Canada. Whichever riding candidate wins the most votes wins the local seat. The second vote is cast for a party. Based on the percentage of support for each party, the remaining seats in parliament are “topped up” by party list candidates to ensure that the overall composition of Parliament reflects the preferences of all voters.

If fair voting systems produce fair representative democracy, how can anyone argue against them? Opponents generally warn there are dramatic trade-offs between “good democracy” and “good government”. But these arguments are not supported by the facts -- something you can readily see by scanning the list of nations already using fair voting systems.

The most popular scare tactic is to proclaim that fair voting means governments will usually be formed by coalitions of parties, rather than by a single party, and we all “know” that’s bad. Big parties and smaller parties will have to negotiate, compromise and cooperate.

Bad? That’s exactly what democracy is all about. Governments formed under any voting system are coalitions of different viewpoints. In Canada, these shifting coalitions are formed within the large parties, generally hidden from public view except during leadership races. The large and small factions argue, negotiate and then compromise on the party platform and policies.

The primary differences between this backroom approach, currently used in Canada, and the formation of coalition governments under fair voting systems is that the latter is done in public view, the compromises are publicly known, and the resulting coalition always represents a true majority of voters.

Another frequent scare tactic is to point to the parliaments in Italy and Israel. Look at the bickering and instability! They have to form new governments every few months!

But let’s apply some perspective. With 75 nations using proportional systems, critics can only find these two extreme examples. Opponents to fair voting don’t like to talk about Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, or most of the other countries, when they present their chaos scenarios.

In fact, a landmark comparative study on effective government demonstrated that countries using fair voting readily match and often exceed the economic and social performance of nations run by single party governments (usually false majorities). It’s not surprising, as the governments are more in touch with voters.

Critics sometimes proclaim that fair voting would produce a proliferation of small parties. True, some new parties may be formed and old parties may restructure. Why? Because when all Canadians are free to cast positive and effective votes, parties will have to truly reflect the range of viewpoints in this country. But history shows that the introduction of fair voting will likely result in only a marginal increase in the number of parties that can win seats. Why? It’s only common sense. Most voters want to support parties that can have impact or growth potential. Some countries also set thresholds (e.g., 3% or 5% of the popular vote) before parties can win seats in parliament.

The MMP system proposed for Ontario, will have a total of 129 seats, of which 39 will be elected proportionally. A party will have to receive at least 3% of the popular vote to elect representatives in the Legislature. In smaller provinces this threshold would be even higher with other formulas. In many cases (depending on the formula used to assign seats), a minimum number of votes is required to elect even one MPP and no artificial minimum threshold needs to be set.

Canadians need and deserve a fair voting system. We must discuss alternatives and develop a made-in-Canada system that ensures fair democratic representation.

Will a new voting system require constitutional change? Will a fair voting system require an expanded House of Commons? The answer to both questions is no.

We are not promoting a specific voting system alternative but rather a public process and a set of principles for a new system. Canadians need to engage in a national discussion on voting system alternatives. This process should culminate with a referendum in which Canadian voters choose the best voting system for our country. This is the same process used in New Zealand which led to the adoption of a mixed proportional voting system in 1993.

We believe the following principles should be addressed in any new voting system.

1) broad proportionality: proportionality ensures that all viewpoints are fairly represented and that the Parliament and legislatures reflect the will of the electorate.

2) positive and effective votes all voters should be able to cast a positive and effective vote for the parties or candidates of their choice, rather than strategic or negative votes against the parties or candidates they fear.

3) stable and responsive government: a voting system should create effective and accountable government bringing stability but not stagnation, and responsiveness not arrogance.

4) regional representation: a Canadian fair voting system should maintain an element of regional representation so at least some elected representatives have responsibility for geographic areas.

The following two examples outline systems that could be implemented without constitutional change, while keeping the House at the current size. However, these are just two of many approaches that might be considered.

One way to ensure proportionality is to have more than one person elected from each district, or riding. The more people elected, the more likely the successful candidates will reflect the full range of viewpoints within that district.

In this approach, current ridings could be grouped together – in rural areas, we might group three or four ridings into one riding with three or

four MPs. In urban areas, we might put together ten or twelve ridings, electing ten or 12 MPs from each.

In each of these larger ridings, parties would publish their lists of candidates for each election. Because Canadians would probably not want to leave the list formation solely in the hands of party leaders, we may want a system where party members control the process.

The composition and initial ranking of party lists could be done through an open process within each party. Parties could either have a mail-in voting process open to all party members, or a convention process where elected delegates develop the lists. However, each party would be free to choose their own method, since not necessarily the members at large know who are the best candidates for the party.

On election day, the ballots would list party candidates in each riding, in the order set by party members. But all voters would also be able to rank order the candidates within the party of their choice, if they wished. Or to provide even more flexibility, voters could be allowed to chose and rank candidates from several parties. Independent candidates would also be listed on the ballots.

This system would ensure that all voters had a number of elected representatives from their region. The great majority of voters would have at least one MP from their riding who represents their preferred party and point of view. The overall composition of Parliament would be proportional and reflect the overall sentiments of voters.

We could, for example, fill two-thirds of the seats through riding elections, the same as we do now, within ridings that are somewhat larger. The remaining one-third of the Parliament would be filled from provincial or regional party lists to produce overall proportional representation.

On election day, voters would cast two votes. The first vote would be for the local riding election, which would be run the same as it is today. In each riding, each of the parties would have one candidate. Independents could also run.

However, every voter would also cast a vote for the party of their choice. On the ballot in each province, each party would publish their “list candidates”. As in the above example, these lists would be produced through an open process in each party.

On the ballot, voters would indicate which party they supported, and then rank-order the candidates or accept the ranking as printed on the ballot.

Based on the level of support for each party, the remaining one-third of these seats from each province would come from the party lists. The overall results would be proportional. And every citizen would also be represented by a local MP elected in that riding.

Under this system, parties would also be expected to assign MPs elected from the party lists to provide extra representation for constituents. For example, some may be assigned to help with constituent relations in ridings where their party did not win the local seat. Or the party may wish to assign some list MPs to be liaisons with particular population segments – e.g., rural voters, ethnic groups, students, etc.

Canada’s History With Proportional Representation

Many Canadians are unaware that proportional voting systems were used in many major cities in the 1920s and 1930s. Reformers successfully introduced PR systems in nearly 20 cities, including Edmonton, Vancouver, Regina and Saskatoon. Both Calgary and Winnipeg continued using proportional systems until the 1950s and 1960s. In all cases, powerful political interests fought back and eventually rolled back every reform victory.

A commentary on the impact in Ontario of the
Report on Electoral Reform by the Law Commission of Canada

The Law Commission of Canada (LCC) after about three years of consultation, research and work, has completed its report on Electoral Reform. The LCC has come up with over thirty recommendations to the federal government.
This report is also very timely for Ontario, now that the new Ontario government has embarked on the same direction.

Electoral Reform is overdue for Ontario and should be implemented with the long-term interest of Ontarians in mind, not for the political interests of the present.

The Ontario Government has already shown leadership by initiating the steps necessary to implement Electoral Reform. The LCC report, commissioned by the federal Liberal government, will come as a big help for promoting, explaining, justifying and implementing the required changes in Ontario.

Its main recommendation, to reform the electoral system in Canada by adding an element of Proportional Representation, and more specifically to choose a Mixed Member Proportional system similar to the one used in Scotland, is essential, timely and badly needed.

The report will clearly help and guide the type of electoral reform which will be chosen in Ontario.

However, the LCC report must be carefully evaluated by Ontarians to avoid its “federal” perspective, and its “progressive” perspective.

The LCC report is rightly concerned about the equalization and fairness of votes in all regions across Canada.
However, the Ontario government can and should avoid artificially dividing Ontario and accentuating regional disparities.

The LCC report also suggests that the new Electoral System should be used to enforce “parity” towards women, minorities, aboriginals and youth within political parties and in Parliament.
We are also dissatisfied with the current lack of integration of minorities in the political life of Ontario. However, this is a product of the old system of representation, which is exactly the problem the new proposed system is going to address.

The electoral system does not need to, and should not be used to enforce specific agendas and shortcomings of the present time.
Political parties will only be too happy to present their best multi-cultural, multi-racial, sex-inclusive, youthful components without much help from a new Election Act.

Once the proposed Mixed Member Proportional system is in force, if an empty political space is not claimed by one of the existing parties, then a new party will probably be created to represent that interest group. This is where a proportional system works at its best: There will be no lack of democratic representation. The free play of democratic forces will determine which parties will be supported by Ontario voters.

We have to commend the LCC for the thorough investigation and study of all options for a better democracy.
Their work is a fantastic resource available to the McGuinty government at no cost.

Ontario will be able to pick the main recommendations from the report and quickly move ahead with a referendum and with long lasting democratic reforms for the long term benefit of all Ontarians, including women, aboriginals, youth and minorities.

The Ontario government can be confident that the political discussions of the day will be freely addressed by Ontarians through their newly enhanced, more democratic, meaningful and consequential vote.

The purely PR may have some drawbacks. Some may be avoided, through special rules, such as no party can elect an MPP with less than 3% of the votes.

However, a better way is to propose a mixed system (Mixed Member Proportional, or MMP, which was the one chosen federally by the LCC), which has a better chance to be accepted in a Referendum, and which automatically solves the two major drawbacks: unstable governments and proliferation of parties.

The key on this system is: what proportion of the seats would be PR. 50% is reasonable, but others argue for LESS of a PR factor. A disadvantage of this is that each riding would have about 200,000 people and a large area (possibly more than what an MPP would LIKE to handle, by today’s standards).

-Combine each two contiguous riding in Ontario into one (going from 107 to roughly 53).
This has the advantage of being less disruptive as far as boundaries between ridings and requirements for de-registration/registration of riding associations. Each two associations would essentially combine.

-For each riding you would elect an MPP representing it (as in the current system, First Past The Post: FPTP). These MPPs would represent local, regional concerns and be the liaison to Regional and Municipal governments. We can call these FPTP seats.

-Count all votes in Ontario. Use these numbers to assign the rest of the (53) seats to each party in proportion of the votes. E.G.: if the party receives 21% of the votes, the party gets 21% of 53 seats (~=11 seats). Very minor readjustments of fractional leftovers due to percentage calculations are usually needed.

These MPPs would represent the party, not regional interests, and would be less prone to bribes. Such MPPs normally agree and represent long term party ideology and party principles. We can call these PR seats or party seats.

Note that this count and calculation has to apply to all of Ontario. If you start dividing Ontario into REGIONS, then this would bias the result in favour of established parties (another proposal/trap). Regions (e.g.: no more than 3 regions) would be ok, but their effect has to be weighed: It has a strong dampening (less proportional) effect on PR. Another problem is that it accentuates regional differences. Another problem is that people may not feel represented by the Premier and the party in power. It also opens a Pandora’s box on “which areas should be a Region” – Would the GTA get regional status? You may never get out of this hole.

The key on this variation is that only the votes that have not been used to elect local MPPs (I.E.: only the votes for #2, #3, #4 and other candidates) are counted, across Ontario, and used for electing PR MPPs. This creates a PR bias (a 25% Residual MMP is roughly equivalent to a 50% General MMP as far as distribution of seats). This system has the advantage of not requiring ridings as large (as there can be more of FPTP seats).

-Reduce (recombine) the number of ridings from 107 to 75 (75 FPTP seats). The number of elected MPPs will be 100. There will be 25 PR seats.

-For each riding you would elect an MPP representing it (as in the current system, First Past The Post FPTP).

-For each riding exclude the votes cast for the winning candidate. The leftovers are called “Residual” votes for this riding.

-Add up all residual votes for the 75 ridings across Ontario. Use these numbers to assign another 25 seats to each party in proportion of these residual votes.

-Leave the number of ridings at 107 (107 FPTP seats). The number of elected MPPs will be 143. Note that the number of MPPs before the last election reform, around 1997, was 133. There will be 36 PR seats. The advantage of this variation is that it doe NOT require riding changes. The disadvantage is that it looks as if parties want more people on the payroll.

-For each riding you would elect an MPP representing it (as in the current system, First Past The Post FPTP). – Same as above -

-For each riding exclude the votes cast for the winning candidate. The leftovers are called “Residual” votes for this riding. ). – Same as above -

-Add up all residual votes for the 107 ridings across Ontario. Use these numbers to assign another 36 seats to each party in proportion of these residual votes.

Obviously other options are possible, even maintaining 25% residual as a guideline.