As one might expect, it was a largely pro-change crowd that came out to the Italian Canadian Club Tuesday night to discuss electoral reform in Canada.
Guelph MP Lloyd Longfield hosted the event, one of 131 held across Canada as MPs gauge public opinion in advance of potential changes to the way Canadians elect parliament.
A straw poll of the roughly 175 people in attendance saw only a dozen or so raise their hands when asked who was in favour of maintaining the current first past the post electoral system.
Longfield was accompanied on the podium by Ajax MP Mark Holland, the Parliamentary Secretary for Democratic Institutions who fielded most of the questions from - and responses to - the audience.
"Some say we need more time. But people don't pay attention until you get to a decision point," Holland said. "There's a real concern that if we don't create urgency, what will happen?"
Holland, in describing the five options currently on the table, urged the audience to focus on the principles of the options rather than the mechanics of them.
He summarized the options:
(1) First Past the Post: the system currently used.
(2) Alternative Vote: where people rank the candidates and those ranked other than first can still have effect on the election.
(3) Pure Proportional: a party receives the percentage of seats in parliament directly reflective of the percentage of votes received.
(4) Mixed Member Proportional: some parliamentary seats are elected via first past the post, others by party vote.
(5) Single Transferable Vote: larger ridings using ranked voting leading to proportional results on a more local level.
Susan Watson of Fair Vote Guelph said she favoured proportional voting because it builds more resiliency and protection into the system.
"Mixed proportion works very well in Scotland," said one man, adding that "first past the post leads to no compromise and promotes the interests of special interest groups. Corporations can have great influence in first past the post."
One man said that first past the post supports the establishment, with two "eternal parties" dominating.
Some were in favour of first past the post.
"I like first past the post. I don't think someone with 5 per cent of the vote should get a seat in parliament," said one man.
"Proportional representation is voting for a party. That's not a person," said another.
One young woman, accurately noting that she was one of the very few people in the audience under the age of 30, asked Holland which electoral system would get more voters to come out.
Holland responded that some form of proportional system tends to motivate more voters because they feel more engaged and involved with the outcome.
As for a possible referendum on the issue, an audience member warned that could lead to a situation like the Brexit referendum in England, where the referendum "became emotional, not rational."
Another issue touched upon at Tuesday night's town hall was electronic voting either in specific situations (Canadians living abroad, including military, was used as an example) or across the board.
Longfield, who held a similar town hall at the University of Guelph earlier in the day on Tuesday, said students were adamant that elections not go electronic due to possible security issues.
The issue of mandatory voting was also raised, with Longfield mentioning Australia, where voting is considered a civic duty and fines are issued to those that don't vote.
Responded one member of the audience later in the evening: "Mandatory voting seems to me like an oxymoron in a democratic society."
Said another, "mandatory voting is fine as long as 'none of the above' is an option" on the ballot.
Local MPs will continue to accept public input on electoral reform and a Federal committee that has been criss-crossing the country is accepting submissions until Oct. 14.
