CANADIAN ELECTION 2025; explain to me how many names were on the ballot in the Carleton riding and why this was allowed...
Number of Names on the Ballot in Carleton Riding (2025)
In the 2025 Canadian federal election, the Carleton riding had 91 confirmed candidates on the ballot. This is tied for the record of the longest ballot ever used in a federal election in Canada.
Why Was This Allowed?
This unusually high number of candidates was the result of a coordinated effort by a group known as the Longest Ballot Committee, which advocates for electoral reform. Their goal was to draw attention to the perceived shortcomings of Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system by demonstrating how easily the ballot can be overwhelmed under current rules.
Legal Requirements
Canadian election law allows anyone to become a candidate provided they:
Submit a completed nomination package.
Collect at least 100 signatures from electors in the riding.
Appoint an official agent and, if required, an auditor.
All 91 candidates in Carleton met these requirements. In fact, one individual, Tomas Szuchewycz, served as the official agent for the majority of the independent candidates, ensuring their paperwork and signatures were in order.
Purpose and Advocacy
The Longest Ballot Committee’s action was a form of protest. They argue that politicians have a conflict of interest in setting election rules and advocate for an independent, non-partisan body (such as a citizens’ assembly) to oversee electoral reforms. By orchestrating a very long ballot, they hoped to highlight the need for change and spark public discussion about Canada’s electoral process.
“We do long ballots because politicians should not be in charge of election rules; there is an obvious conflict of interest,” Tomas Szuchewycz, one of the leaders of the Longest Ballot Committee, explained.
Conclusion
The presence of 91 names on the Carleton ballot in 2025 was allowed because all candidates met the legal nomination requirements. The high number was a deliberate action by electoral reform advocates to demonstrate the potential for ballot overcrowding under current rules and to push for changes to how Canada conducts its elections.
How did the long ballot impact voter turnout in the Carlton riding?
Impact of the Long Ballot on Voter Turnout in Carleton Riding (2025)
Voter turnout in Carleton during the 2025 federal election was exceptionally high, despite the presence of a record-long ballot with 91 candidates.
Key Findings
Turnout Rate: Carleton saw a voter turnout of nearly 82% overall, with advance polls alone drawing almost 44,000 voters-making it the highest advance turnout in the country.
Comparison to Previous Elections: This turnout is a significant increase compared to previous years. In 2021, about 71,000 people voted in Carleton, with 31,000 using advance polls. In 2025, advance voting alone reached 43,394, showing a substantial rise in engagement.
Possible Reasons for High Turnout:
The riding was highly contested, with a tight race between Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and Liberal challenger Bruce Fanjoy, which likely mobilized more voters.
The novelty and media attention surrounding the unusually long ballot may have piqued public interest and encouraged participation, despite concerns about accessibility and ballot complexity.
Challenges and Criticisms
Accessibility Issues: The long ballot created difficulties for some voters, particularly those with disabilities, due to visual clutter and the need for assistance in identifying candidates.
Longer Voting and Counting Process: The ballot’s length led to longer waits at polling stations and delayed vote counting, requiring additional ballot boxes and resources.
Potential Deterrence: Some voters and advocates argued that the cumbersome ballot and longer lines could deter participation, especially among those facing barriers to accessibility. However, there is no evidence that this led to a net decrease in turnout.
Conclusion
Despite logistical and accessibility challenges posed by the 91-candidate ballot, Carleton experienced record-high voter turnout in 2025. The intense political contest and heightened public attention appear to have outweighed any deterrent effect from the long ballot, making Carleton a national outlier in terms of voter engagement.
Did the long ballot influence the outcome of the election in the Carlton riding?
Based on available reporting, the long ballot in Carleton-featuring 91 candidates, the vast majority of whom were protest entrants-did not fundamentally alter the outcome of the 2025 federal election in the riding. The key factors influencing the result were the competitiveness of the race and the high level of voter engagement, rather than the ballot’s length itself.
Evidence and Analysis
Result: Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre lost his longtime Carleton seat to Liberal Bruce Fanjoy, a result that drew national attention because Carleton had historically been a safe Conservative riding.
Nature of the Ballot: Of the 91 candidates, 85 were part of the Longest Ballot Committee’s protest and did not campaign or even visit the riding. Only a handful of candidates, including those from the major parties, actively campaigned.
Voter Turnout: Carleton saw record-high voter turnout, especially in advance polls, which is typically an indicator of strong motivation for change rather than confusion or disengagement due to ballot complexity.
Voter Experience: While some voters, particularly those with disabilities, reported frustration with the ballot’s length and the longer voting process, there is no evidence that this confusion or inconvenience changed the fundamental voting patterns or suppressed turnout enough to affect the outcome.
Counting Delays: The long ballot did delay vote counting, with results not declared until early morning, but this did not appear to influence the final tally.
Expert Opinion: Political scientists and observers noted that the protest candidates did not campaign and were not expected to siphon significant votes from the main contenders; the main contest remained between Poilievre and Fanjoy.
Conclusion
The protest-driven long ballot in Carleton created logistical challenges and some voter frustration, but it did not materially influence the outcome. The decisive factors were the strong campaign by the Liberal challenger and a clear appetite for change among voters. The overwhelming majority of votes went to the main party candidates, with the protest candidates having negligible impact on vote shares.
Were the protest candidates in any way affiliated with the Liberal Party?
The protest candidates associated with the Longest Ballot Committee in Carleton were not affiliated with the Liberal Party. Here's the breakdown:
Key Details
Protest Nature: The 85 Longest Ballot Committee candidates were part of a non-partisan electoral reform protest, explicitly targeting Canada's first-past-the-post system.
No Campaigning: Most protest candidates did not campaign, visit the riding, or seek votes. They aimed solely to highlight ballot overcrowding and advocate for a citizens' assembly to oversee electoral reform.
Independent Status: The vast majority ran as independents, with one exception (Sébastien CoRhino of the Rhinoceros Party, whose affiliation was separate from the protest's core mission).
Liberal Campaign: Liberal candidate Bruce Fanjoy campaigned independently of the protest, focusing on grassroots efforts to unseat Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.
Why the Distinction Matters
The protest’s organizers emphasized their anti-system stance, arguing that political parties (including the Liberals) have a conflict of interest in electoral reform. There is no evidence of coordination between the Longest Ballot Committee and the Liberal Party.
Conclusion: The protest candidates operated independently, with no formal or informal ties to the Liberal Party. Their goal was systemic reform, not partisan advantage.
Were any other ridings the target of such a protest?
Yes, the Longest Ballot Committee targeted multiple ridings in previous elections, though its 2025 efforts focused primarily on Carleton (Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s riding) and attempted to include Nepean (Liberal leader Mark Carney’s riding), though the latter plan failed due to time constraints.
Key Targeted Ridings
2023–2024 Byelections
Mississauga-Lakeshore (2022 federal by-election)
Winnipeg South Centre (2023 federal by-election)
Toronto-St. Paul’s (June 2024 federal by-election):
Ballot included dozens of candidates, delaying results until 4:30 a.m. due to manual counting.
LaSalle-Émard-Verdun (September 2024 federal by-election):
91 candidates (a record at the time), matching Carleton’s 2025 ballot.
Ballot measured nearly 1 meter long, with two columns of names.
2025 Federal Election
Carleton (Ottawa-area):
91 candidates, including 85 protest entrants.
Ballot length: 97 cm (38 inches) with two columns.
Nepean (adjacent to Carleton):
Planned but abandoned due to late candidate filings for Liberal leader Mark Carney.
Organizational Scope
The committee’s strategy focuses on ridings with high-profile leaders or competitive races to maximize media attention. While Carleton was their primary 2025 target, their past efforts demonstrate a pattern of targeting urban and politically significant ridings to highlight electoral reform issues.
Has Elections Canada made any pronoucements about this practice?
Elections Canada's Pronouncements on Long Ballot Practices
Elections Canada has publicly addressed the challenges posed by the Longest Ballot Committee’s protest tactics, focusing on logistical, accessibility, and legal concerns:
Operational Challenges
Counting Delays: Acknowledged that ballots with 80+ candidates take three times longer to count and require additional ballot boxes.
Procedural Adjustments: Modified ballot design (e.g., two-column layouts, smaller fonts) and prioritized early counting of advance votes to mitigate delays.
Accessibility Concerns
Barriers for Voters: Highlighted difficulties for voters with disabilities due to visual clutter, smaller text, and the physical handling of lengthy ballots.
Feedback Collection: Actively sought input from voters and workers to improve accessibility in future elections.
Legal and Regulatory Responses
Call for Penalties: Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault recommended penalties for individuals who sign multiple nomination papers to deter coordinated ballot-stuffing.
Legislative Proposals: Supported amendments to the Canada Elections Act (e.g., Bill C-65) to address challenges posed by excessive candidate numbers, though specific reforms targeting ballot length remain under discussion.
Public Statements
Criticism of Tactics: Perrault explicitly criticized the committee’s methods, stating they risk undermining voter confidence and creating unnecessary burdens.
Defense of Current System: Argued that ranked ballots or proportional representation systems (advocated by the committee) could extend vote-counting timelines further.
Summary: Elections Canada has condemned the practice as disruptive and is exploring regulatory changes to curb its impact while maintaining electoral integrity.
Could this kind of protest not be seen as public mischief, and lead to criminal proceedings?
The Longest Ballot Committee’s protest tactics could theoretically be scrutinized under public mischief laws, but current evidence and legal frameworks suggest criminal proceedings are unlikely. Here’s the analysis:
1. Legal Framework for Public Mischief
Public mischief (Criminal Code Section 140) generally involves false statements to police that waste investigative resources. The Longest Ballot Committee’s actions-flooding ballots with legally qualified candidates-do not align with this definition, as they involve lawful participation in the electoral process, not deception or false allegations.
2. Key Obstacles to Criminal Charges
No Direct Violation: The committee’s candidates met all legal requirements (100+ valid signatures, official agents, etc.), as confirmed by Elections Canada.
Election-Specific Offences: The Canada Elections Act governs electoral conduct, but the committee’s actions exploit loopholes, not prohibitions. Elections Canada has proposed tightening nomination rules (e.g., penalizing duplicate signature collectors), but no existing law explicitly bans their tactics.
Criminal Organization Laws: Sections 467.11–467.12 of the Criminal Code (targeting organized crime) are irrelevant here, as the committee’s activities are political advocacy, not criminal enterprise.
3. Elections Canada’s Position
Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault has criticized the protests for causing delays and accessibility issues but emphasized that legislative changes, not criminal charges, are needed to address the problem. Proposed reforms (e.g., penalties for signing multiple nominations) focus on deterrence, not prosecution.
4. Potential Legal Risks
Fraud Allegations: If signatures were forged or obtained deceitfully, charges could arise, but Elections Canada has not alleged fraud in these cases.
Obstruction of Electoral Process: While the protests disrupt vote counting, no law explicitly prohibits lawful candidate proliferation as obstruction.
Conclusion
Under current laws, the Longest Ballot Committee’s actions do not meet the threshold for criminal charges such as public mischief. However, Elections Canada is advocating for legislative reforms to curb the practice through administrative penalties, not criminal prosecution. Any future legal action would likely hinge on new laws targeting ballot overcrowding, not existing criminal statutes.
What are some examples of public mischief in Canada?
Examples of Public Mischief in Canada
Public mischief under Canada's Criminal Code (Section 140) involves intentionally misleading authorities to trigger unnecessary investigations. Here are key examples:
1. False 911 Calls and Swatting
Lethbridge Hostage Hoax (2024): A caller falsely reported a kidnapping involving armed suspects, prompting a large-scale police response. The "victim" was found unharmed, and the caller was charged with public mischief.
Ottawa False Robbery Report (2017): A security guard fabricated a robbery involving a handgun, leading to an investigation that revealed no crime occurred. He was charged with public mischief.
2. Fabricated Domestic or Sexual Assault Allegations
Langford False Assault Claim (2021): A woman falsely accused a man of sexual assault at knifepoint. Security footage disproved her story, resulting in a conditional discharge and community service.
Contested Divorce Scenarios: Spouses sometimes file false domestic violence claims during custody battles to malign the other party, risking public mischief charges.
3. Staged Disappearances or Deaths
Alberta Man’s Fake Abduction (2013): A man staged his kidnapping to hide financial losses, costing authorities tens of thousands in search efforts. He received 14 months’ probation.
Saskatchewan Fake Death (2017): A couple faked the husband’s death to evade sex charges, triggering a search with planes and divers. Both pleaded guilty, with the wife receiving a 6-month conditional sentence and $10,000 restitution.
4. False Reports of Crimes
Insurance Fraud: Individuals may falsely report thefts or property damage (e.g., arson) to claim insurance payouts, risking public mischief charges.
Montreal Alderwoman’s Fake Assault (2004): A politician falsely claimed she was abducted and assaulted in Montana to cover an affair. She received a 20-month conditional sentence.
Penalties
Convictions often result in jail time, probation, or restitution orders, especially when investigations waste significant resources. For example, the Lethbridge hostage hoax caller faces potential imprisonment, while the Saskatchewan couple was ordered to repay search costs.
Public mischief charges emphasize the serious consequences of misleading law enforcement, even for first-time offenders.
No comments:
Post a Comment