Regarding the 2011 Ontario provincial election, I have two thoughts:

1. A Liberal minority government is a good thing. Personally, I feel like the last eight years with Dalton McGuinty as premier have been a great example of the tyranny brought by a majority government. It feels like the Liberals got lazy with policy engagement and chose hubris as their policy inspiration. Thus, I didn't want to see a Liberal majority.

That said, I don't think the Progressive Conservatives (PCs) would have offered a better alternative if elected to a majority. I also think that had the PCs received the minority situation the Liberals currently have, they would have been bullied out of power by a New Democratic Party (NDP)-Liberal coalition.

As far as the NDP is concerned, I think the NDP had some policies that would have set Ontario back decades. Furthermore, I was frustrated with NDP candidates trying to harness the success of the federal NDP and linking themselves to Jack Layton. Remember, the Ontario NDP is not the same as the federal NDP. I do think the NDP had some good policies. However, I don't think the Ontario NDP were ready to form the government or the official opposition.
 
The minority situation allows for a stable continuity of government, but only if the Liberals actually consider the opposition's desires. It also allows for Ontarians to better see the PC and NDP parties in a semi-power holding role. The best part is, if the Liberals continue to rule the way they have for the past eight years, the NDP and PC can get rid of them.
 
2. What I’m not happy with is the distribution of seats: Liberals locked the cities, PCs secured the rural ridings, and NDP controls the north and some urban ridings.
 
Though many may not be surprised with this result, they shouldn't be happy. Consider what the socio-geographical distribution of party seats mean in regards to each party's engagement with those various riding types (urban, rural, north). There are two assumptions of why a person votes for an MPP candidate.
 
1. The candidate was the best candidate.
2. The candidate represented the party that best fits with the voter's ideals.
 
With each party's seat distribution tied tightly to a certain riding type, a problem certainly arises. Either parties are focusing their best candidates in a certain riding type, or parties are focusing their provincial platforms to meet the ideals of the "average" person from certain riding types. I don’t think the first assumption of parties putting their best candidates in a certain riding is applicable because some former Liberal cabinet ministers were from the rural areas and they were voted out. Likewise, the PCs had some high profile candidates running in urban centres, who were unsuccessful.  
 
Thus, I go to the assumption that parties are focusing their provincial platforms to meet the ideals of the "average" voter in a certain riding type. This is a huge problem. Whichever party is voted into power is in charge of the whole province of Ontario — not just the cities, not just the rural, not just the north.

If parties are starting to specialize their platforms to capture a certain riding type, they’re not suited to govern the whole province. Imagine how the rural and north ridings would be represented if the Liberals won one more seat? A majority situation would have most definitely been a tyranny. Not only would the north and rural ridings have had few Liberal MPPs, but the party in power obviously wouldn’t have appealed to the unique needs of that riding type.

Again, I am pleased with the minority government. But the Liberals, with their predominantly urban seat base, will need to rely on support from the parties representing the needs of the rural and north riding types.

— James Craig
fourth-year public affairs and policy management