A referendum was held on October 10, 2007, on the question of whether to establish a mixed member proportional representation (MMP) system for elections to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The initiative to reform this system was first proposed in 2001 by the Liberal Party opposition leader of the time, Dalton McGuinty.

On November 18, 2004, Premier McGuinty announced that a citizens' assembly would be established to examine the FPTP electoral system and recommend possible changes to be voted upon by referendum in the next provincial election.

[2] Enabling legislation to implement these measures —the Election Amendment Act, 2005— received Royal Assent on June 13, 2005.

It included provisions for Elections Ontario to select volunteers for a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform.

[4] The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform proposed a mixed member proportional representation (MMP) system.

Although there exist slightly different variants of MMP, the model proposed for Ontario by the Citizen's Assembly was designed with simplicity and practicality in mind.

The second ballot would be used to determine what share of total seats (local + list) should be proportionately assigned to each party to ensure proportionality of the overall result.

/ Quel système électoral l'Ontario devrait-il utiliser pour élire les députés provinciaux à l'Assemblée législative?

The Ontario Citizens' Assembly recommended that a comprehensive, well-funded public education program, be undertaken to assist voters with their decision, beginning in May 2007 (right after it released its final report) and continuing through to the referendum in October.

The assigned money would give one mailout to each Ontario household, a part-time Referendum Resource Officer in each of the province's ridings, a call centre and a website.

Vote for MMP had received a long list of public endorsements[19] from all parts of the political spectrum.

As explained by LeDuc et al., the mainstream print media were "uniformly opposed to both the Assembly process and the MMP proposal".

A content analysis conducted by the authors showed that newspaper coverage was predominantly negative, and that it failed to go beyond the statement of objections to explain the issue to the public.

In a pre-referendum poll conducted in April 2007 by Stratcom Research, the most commonly cited argument in opposition to the MMP proposal was lack of information about it.

As they argue based on the evidence of this case and others, "The political advantage in referendum campaigns, particularly those dealing with unfamiliar issues, often seems to rest with the NO side.

Often, it is enough merely to raise doubts about it in the minds of voters, question the motives of its advocates, or play upon a natural fear of the unknown.

They conclude that "in Canada, and particularly in Ontario, we do not find an underlying climate of opinion that would necessarily facilitate the passage of a reform proposal.

"[42] Pilon looks more closely at the role of the print media, which was expected to provide the required space for deliberation about the referendum question.

He concludes that Ontario's print media was biased in favour of the No side, offered limited coverage, and was based predominantly on speculative or logical arguments rather than evidence or expert-based ones.

For them, the lack of information and balanced analysis available to voters was not an accident, but the result of inadequate funding, an excessively limited approach to public education by Elections Ontario, a last-minute approach to informing the public, the lack of attention to the role of the Assembly, and hostility from the media elite.