Campaign signs for independent candidate Bonnie Critchley, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and Liberal candidate Darcy Spady in the riding of Battle River-Crowfoot in Camrose, Alta., ahead of the August vote.AMBER BRACKEN/The Canadian Press
There will be no names on the paper ballots in next month’s by-election in Alberta – an apt symbol for the contradictions created by the group using Canada’s elections as a protest gimmick, the (now inappropriately named) Longest Ballot Committee.
As of Monday, the group had succeeded in registering at least 199 faux independent candidates for the Aug. 18 vote in the Battle River-Crowfoot riding, more than double its previous tallies in by-elections last year.
The committee claims to be highlighting the need for electoral reform – abandoning the first-past-the-post system – and pushing for politicians to cede control over the rules for elections. In reality, its efforts are nothing short of electoral sabotage that could very well end up further entrenching the advantages of political parties over independents.
The group is weaponizing the good intentions underpinning electoral rules, which are meant to give candidates a relatively easy path to get on the ballot. Candidates must get the signatures of at least 100 voters (the threshold is 50 signatures in some rural ridings), and have an official agent file paperwork. A candidate doesn’t need to live in the riding, a lucky provision for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
There are a handful of other restrictions; currently incarcerated felons are ineligible, for instance. But for the most part, Canada’s elections laws aim to foster participation.
The Longest Ballot Committee makes a mockery of that generous approach, with tactics that are quite legal but which run contrary to the democratic spirit underpinning federal election law. In its previous efforts, the group has succeeded in forcing Elections Canada to produce outsized ballots. This time out, voters will instead be asked to write in their choice after consulting a list of candidates. The result, though, will be the same: the deliberate fouling of the machinery of democracy.
The committee has been able to round up so many candidates in part by having voters sign multiple nomination papers. The group’s spokesperson, Tomas Szuchewycz, was listed as the official agent for 199 nominations as of Monday. Candidates don’t have to do the work of convincing their fellow Canadians; the committee does it for them with a copy-and-paste system.
The main effect of this campaign has been to drown out the voices of actual independent candidates. One of those, Bonnie Critchley, pleaded with the group in May not to bring its disruptive campaign to Battle River-Crowfoot. “Your actions make it impossible for electors to be able to find anyone who isn’t attached to a party,” she wrote in an open letter on Facebook. “You are further pushing us into a party system.” Ms. Critchley rightly flagged the irony of the Longest Ballot Committee increasing the power of political parties at the expense of independent candidates.
Another contradiction: the committee’s enthusiasm for democracy doesn’t extend to honouring the wishes of those who have consistently voted against changing to a PR system. In a 2005 referendum in Prince Edward Island, the PR option received only 36.4 per cent of votes. There were similar lopsided referendum results in Ontario in 2007, and in British Columbia in 2009 and 2018. (The PR option fell short of a supermajority threshold in a 2005 B.C referendum.)
Of course, the committee, and anyone else, has the right to advocate the abandonment of first past the post. But it is a fiction that the current system only survives because of the influence of political elites. Canadians have spoken clearly in support of it many times.
Both the Liberals and Conservatives have indicated that they support changing election rules to shut down the antics of the Longest Ballot Committee. They should proceed but with caution, in order not to erect barriers against legitimate independent candidates.
Mr. Poilievre, for instance, has mused about a higher threshold of 1,000 signatures. That would be wrong: a higher threshold would be a deterrent for independents but would not be much of a barrier for a determined electoral saboteur.
A better approach would be, as Chief Electoral Officer Stéphane Perrault has suggested, to prohibit voters from signing more than one nomination form. In addition, no person should be able to act as the official agent for more than one candidate. Those two changes would be enough to close the loopholes that have, for too long, allowed the Longest Ballot Committee to sabotage Canada’s democracy.