Reform: 1
a: to put or change into an improved form or condition
b: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses
2: to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
3 : to induce or cause to abandon evil ways
– Cambridge Dictionary
I have to admit that when I first heard about the Longest Ballot Committee, I thought it was a pretty clever idea. It was a mostly harmless way to draw attention to their central concerns: our outdated majoritarian First-Past-the-Post electoral system, and the growing concerns over political interference in running elections.
I’ve long believed that the First-Past-the-Post system (and its close relation, Ranked Ballot1) leads to a highly polarized electoral landscape and, thus, increases nasty politics and voter apathy. I am more and more convinced that if we are going to solve the important issues of the day, the most important being the Climate Emergency2, we need an electoral system that gets lots of ideas at the table, moderates the flip-flop between policy extremes, and pulls power out of the Prime Minister’s Office where it never should have been enshrined in the first place.
I have to admit, I can see why Poilievre is upset about the Longest Ballot campaign. It was an easy scapegoat to explain his, likely embarrassing, loss in Carleton in the 2025 general election. Seriously, however, to suggest that the Longest Ballot was the problem is ridiculous. Enough people could read “Fanjoy” to give the Liberal candidate 50.9% of the vote and enough could read “Poilievre” to give him 45.7% of the vote. Bruce Fanjoy, sensing a weakness in Poilievre’s position, put a great deal of work in locally while Poilievre was touring the country with pithy, anger-bating slogans.
Similarly, in Battle River – Crowfoot, Poilievre’s 80% vs next closest Independent Bonnie Critchley’s 9% would suggest that the 200 names on the Longest Ballot, that prompted a write-in ballot, did not affect Poilievre’s chances in the least.
Poilievre, however, has turned this into a reason to demand “reform”.
I’m still salty over Poilievre’s attempts to undermine our electoral system in the 2014 Fair Elections Act. Increased ID requirements would have disenfranchised many people, mostly Indigenous and poor. And his assertion that we needed to reduce Elections Canada role in election education because “political parties could do a better job” (translated: “the most wealthy political party could control the narrative”) was a thinly veiled attempt at shifting to an American-style system run by and for political parties.
And here we are with Poilievre actually referring to the Longest Ballot, a movement that was to seek meaningful improvement in our system, as a “scam” that needs responding to by making the system worse.
Poilievre’s current “reforms” include:
- Requiring 1000 nomination signatures from electors to approve a candidate for the ballot.
- Requiring unique signatures so that no one person could sign for more than one candidate.
- Requiring that Official Agents be allowed to only work on behalf of one candidate.
I’d like to unpack these, with a bit of my perspective as a candidate and someone who has observed other campaigns from within the Green Party, both federally and provincially:
Requiring 1000 signatures: The current requirement is 100 signatures (there are a few huge rural ridings that are 50). That itself is a lot of work. Knocking on doors, standing outside of malls, takes a great deal of time. I’ve heard some people say, “well if you can’t get 1000 then you must not be capable / have enough support”. That clearly comes from people who have never had to do this. Unlike the incumbent, whose actual job is being an MP, anyone else has to take time off work to go out and knock on doors. If you are a smaller party, you may not have the depth of volunteers it would take to find 1000 signatures. And, unfortunately, polarization is making people less likely to sign a nomination sheet, even when it is presented for what it is; a declaration of support for our electoral process, and not a promise to vote in any particular way.
This suggestion fails the reform test because it reduces access to a fair and open electoral system for candidates.
Unique Signatures: Given that the Longest Ballot only affected one or two ridings out of 340, I suspect this means more work for the Elections Canada folk in all 340 ridings, who would now have to cross reference signatures. They work hard enough already. But, worse, it defeats the purpose of supporting free and open elections. As an elector and candidate, I will sign the nomination form for any candidate who is stepping forward to make an honest run for a cause they believe in. I know a candidate who actually helped one of their opponents by getting signatures for both nomination papers. And I have been thanked by and NDP campaign manager, at their door, for doing my bit to support democracy. That is how things work in an open and free democracy.
Limiting access, making election work more complex, and ingraining the idea that the nomination form is political (vs electoral) is not in the spirit of true reform.
Limiting Official Agents to One Campaign: Speaking from experience, it isn’t easy to get an Official Agent (and a very huge thank you to the folks who have stepped forward to help me). Sometimes, parties use one Official Agent for a handful of paper candidates3. Removing the ability to do this means fewer people on the ballot, fewer candidates (some who might be dipping their toes in and may become more active) and fewer choices for voters.
If, by “reform”, Poilievre means ensuring that our system becomes more and more a two party system reserved for the wealthy elite and idle (because you need time for all of this), then he’s on the right track. If he means reform, as it is defined by Cambridge dictionary, it is the exact opposite.
As such, it is more of the same as Poilievre’s “Fair” Elections Act and, for that matter, JT’s “Last Unfair Election” promise (which, it turns out, was a plan to make our elections less proportional) were both designed to keep the CPC and Liberals firmly in power and, as it is turning out, more in service to the wealthy corporations and oligarchs who seek to control them.
I can’t help but feel that the Longest Ballot Committee has run its course, having reached a point where the outcome could actually be detrimental to our electoral system. Sadly, the point of their protest has been twisted, horribly, by those who want more power.
We must not be fooled by this kind of “reform”. Solving what is ultimately a minor annoyance by making our system less democratic is, well, evil.
- To be clear, Ranked Ballot isn’t strictly an electoral system. It, and First-Past-the-Post, are ways to count votes. Both work within a majoritarian electoral system. When you combine Ranked Ballot with a proportional system, you get a truly representative system. Ranked Ballot alone produces even less proportionality than FPTP, leading to more polarization, more apathy, and less participation. ↩︎
- Don’t get me wrong; the cost of living, accessible housing, drug addiction, healthcare, and a totally messed up trade system are all important too. As the climate emergency deepens, those will all become much, much harder to deal with. ↩︎
- A “paper candidate” is one who is just on the ballot but doesn’t actively campaign. They still need an official agent, if they are reporting $0 in campaign expenses/donations. But paper candidates often decide to step up and run bigger campaigns and it may be an entry for further engagement in future campaigns. It shouldn’t be a barrier. ↩︎