A flawed proposal

I must confess that the proposed change in the way Ontario elects members for the provincial parliament sneaked up on me. I blame myself for not paying close attention. To catch up, I began a search on the web for more information.
That search took me to the Elections Ontario site where officials described each system. The site, though purporting impartiality, left me with an uncomfortable feeling. They used 117 words to describe the current practice, usually referred to as “first past the post.” They used 497 words to describe the proposed changes, labelled “mixed member proportional.”
As a communicator, I consider the site badly designed. Their choice of sepia-coloured letters on a black background made it difficult to read, meaning it discriminates against older folk or anyone with poor eyesight. An interactive video took a long time to download, then wouldn’t run. I have a high-speed (light) system and it didn’t work, so anyone using a dial-up connection wouldn’t have a hope. That creates a built-in bias against the less-technical and those who can’t have high-speed internet due to financial or geographic reasons.
When I tried to understand the nature of the Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform, the group that made the recommendation, I had more trouble. The language on the website and in the brochure delivered to our mailboxes employs typical bureaucratic vagueness. For example they use passive verbs such as ". . . an independent body representing electors in Ontario was created." By saying "was created" they avoid naming the creators. God didn’t create it. The government of Ontario did. They say that it represents electors, but it does not, because we didn’t vote for its members, and neither did our elected MPPs. Elections Ontario selected the members and appointed them according to direction from the Ontario government. 
That “independent body” has said: "We, the Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, recommend a new way to vote that builds on the province’s traditions and reflects the values that we believe are important to Ontarians … The Assembly recommends that Ontario adopt a mixed member proportional system, specifically designed to meet the unique needs of Ontario."
I ask, what happened to the democratic tradition in Ontario and all of Canada that says, the majority wins? And what makes Ontario so different politically when compared to the other provinces that it needs a different electoral system? No doubt our present approach has shortcomings, but do we need the inherent problems of the proposed reforms?
We live in an age of big government, hence big expenditures. Yet the proposal would increase the number of seats in the house from 107 to 129. 
We now vote for all members, but the proposed system would select 39 members from lists prepared by the political parties. In what would eventually become our province, in the 1840s, we stopped the practice of appointing non-elected people to lead us. At one time an appointed governor named cabinet members without reference to the legislature. We dumped that idea and allowed only elected persons to become ministers and lead the province. We called it “responsible government,” because it made cabinet ministers responsible to the electors.
With the proposed system, party appointees from lists could serve in the cabinet.
That sounds like a regressive step to me. Most of us would like to get rid of appointing a senate at the federal level. Now we want appointments provincially?
We need more public discussion before we switch to an electoral system that has obvious flaws. I’ll bet you guessed I intend to vote No on the referendum.

Ray Wiseman