As we review election results, it is clear that fear-based voting accomplished the opposite of what voters wanted. 

In riding after riding, Canadians voted Liberal hoping to stop Poilievre.  Many of those voters would have voted Green but thought 2025 was the year to vote "strategically." As a result, Mike Morrice, the heroic Green MP for Kitchener Centre who was favoured to win, had many voters vote Liberal instead of Green, thus electing a Conservative. The same thing happened in Nanaimo–Ladysmith where the smart vote was Green, but guessing wrong elected a Conservative. I faced the same headwinds in Saanich–Gulf Islands where I had to plead with voter after voter that voting Liberal could elect the Conservative… The same fear-based voting decimated the NDP. This was an election where smaller parties were squashed in the two-horse race, as though we directly elect our prime minister.

Fear-based voting is driven by our perverse voting system called "First Past the Post." Justin Trudeau won a majority in 2015 in large part because he promised that 2015 would be the last election under First Past the Post.

It is not that First Past the Post is unfair to the Green Party–First Past the Post is unfair to the voter! We must not risk a Trump-like leader in Canada in some future election having 100% of the power–over both the executive and the legislative–with less than 50% public support. We can and must reform our voting system.

We are launching a grassroots cross-country campaign to force the Liberals to live up to their 2015 campaign promise, "Better Late Than Never!" And it means we have to convince them that the risk is real of a False Majority government in the next election. The Conservatives could gain 100% of the power with 40% of the vote. The 2025 election showed how unfair voting meant that thousands of votes did not count. MPs won seats with the narrowest of margins–one MP won on the basis of a single vote, eliminating the ballots of thousands of voters. It is only under FPTP that a prime minister can have total control without the support of most Canadians.

Historically, NDP governments in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba all had the chance to abolish First Past the Post for provincial elections and never did. Even when Jagmeet Singh had the opportunity to include electoral reform in the Confidence and Supply Agreement (CSA) with Trudeau, he failed to do so. This is why the Green Party's commitment to ending FPTP is crucial for a fairer, more democratic Canada.

To launch this campaign, we need to raise $100,000 before Parliament resumes on May 26. It is an ambitious goal, but it is realistic. In Parliament, I will put forward private members' bills and table petitions, while working on every MP to sway their vote as the grassroots mobilizes to speak to every MP in their local offices.

If you believe in a Canada where every vote counts, please donate now and sign up to be a volunteer leader for your community!

Donate

Donate now to help us reach our $100,000 goal and help us build a better democracy together.

With deep gratitude for your support,

Love,

Elizabeth

Elizabeth May, O.C.

Leader of the Green Party of Canada

MP for Saanich–Gulf Islands

I don't know very well how the legislative process works, but to the best of my understanding, the last step involves a vote where we decide whether to pass a bill. A simple majority means it passes, otherwise it's rejected. This leads to an interesting (and possibly dangerous) dynamic where the government can be very different depending on whether or not the winning party has a majority. It means that when we have a majority, it can lead to what we call "tyranny of the majority". It also means that there's very little difference in how much influence a smaller party can have between having a single MP until the point where they can team up with another party to form a majority. It means that even if we get proportional voting for selecting MPs, we might still need to vote strategically in order to either ensure or prevent a majority government, or to encourage a specific coalition government.

Do we have any potential solutions for this? Or did I maybe misunderstand how things work and this isn't actually a problem?

Abstract

Research suggests that the degree of democracy in countries is correlated with certain characteristics of its citizens. A question is whether different types of government (e.g., autocratic vs. democratic) are associated with specific personality dispositions and the well-being of citizens. We addressed this question with a sample of over 200,000 persons from 75 countries. Using structural equation modeling and a strong measurement invariance approach we tested the association between national government type (autocratic, hybrid, flawed democracy, full democracy) and citizens report of socially aversive (malevolent) versus affiliative (benevolent) traits. As governments varied from autocratic to full democracy there were lower malevolent traits and higher benevolent traits. Further, established quantitative democracy indices predicted higher benevolent and lower malevolent traits in the total sample, while only benevolent traits were strongly associated with well-being. The findings highlight associations between governments and personality traits and how democratic practices might influence the well-being of its citizens.

In reference to: Damien Kurek, the Conservative MP-elect for Battle River-Crowfoot (Alberta), just announced he's stepping down to allow Poilievre to run in a by-election | CBC News.

Damien Kurek, the Conservative MP-elect for Battle River-Crowfoot, just announced he's stepping down to allow Poilievre to run in a by-election.

The riding, which Kurek has held since 2019, occupies a vast territory in Alberta between Calgary and Edmonton and has been a Conservative stronghold since it was created 10 years ago.

Kurek was first elected in the riding in 2019. In an emailed statement, Kurek said the decision is temporary, saying he'd hand over his seat to Poilievre "for the remainder of this Parliamentary session" and "run again here in Battle River-Crowfoot in the next general election."

It's unclear what that means for Poilievre afterward.

"Pierre Poilievre just finished a remarkable national campaign that received the highest vote share since 1988," Kurek said in the statement.

"An unstoppable movement has grown under his leadership, and I know we need Pierre fighting in the House of Commons to hold the Liberal minority government to account."

https://www.fairvote.ca/women/

Crossposted from https://sh.itjust.works/post/37100249

I wrote a letter to a representative calling for change, calling for electoral reform. If you'd like to share, feel free to adjust it and mail it however you like! I do not want any credit for this. The letter is as follows:

Your Name

Your Address

City, Province, Postal Code

Email Address (optional)

Date

Representative's Name

Their Title

Office Address

City, Province, Postal Code

Subject: The voters are restless. We need change.

Dear Representative,

I've been thinking a lot about the nature of change in Canada; how it starts, who initiates it, and why it so often feels out of reach for ordinary citizens. It’s easy to feel like you're contributing when you post an opinion online, but real change demands more than digital echoes. That’s why I’m writing to you.

Recently, I was researching a Canadian legend by the name of Tommy Douglas, a man who was disappointed in socialists who cared more about their ideas than they did about taking action. He is lauded as the father of socialized medicine in Canada despite never rising beyond his position as Premier of Saskatchewan. I was singing his praises to a friend of mine when they pointed out that it was not Tommy Douglas alone that made this happen. He did this with the help of many, many regular people, just like me. This thought inspired me to write about an issue I feel is extremely relevant today.

In the last federal election, only 68.65% of eligible Canadians voted, which is relatively high compared to recent voting history, but is still just over half of eligible voters. When I ask friends why they don’t vote, most say it’s because their vote doesn’t matter. I would have loved to tell them that their vote does matter, that the system works; however, the working class is beginning to take notice, and we know that our vote does not matter. Our system is broken, and Canadians are stuck in an endless, limbo-like cycle with a government that never listens to us and only ever serves to increase wealth disparity, no matter which of the two largest parties we vote for.

This brings me to my next point: we only have two choices. We like to think of our country as a democracy, but until we change this system that inevitably results in a pissing contest between two near-identical parties of men in suits and ties, it is essentially no better than our southern neighbours.

We should not have to vote for a party that does not represent our views just to avoid fascism.

Former Prime Minister Trudeau was elected on the promise of electoral reform, then walked away from it. Many of us saw it coming. There was no accountability and no follow-through during the decade he spent as PM, and to think Canadian voters don’t notice this kind of betrayal is an insult to our intelligence.

I truly believe that this is an opportunity to show Canadians that you care about them beyond just their votes. You can show them that you respect their intelligence by promising actual change.

I am asking you to advocate for a ranked ballot system: a system that empowers voters to rank their preferences, eliminates the fear of "wasted votes," and encourages greater political diversity. It ensures that elected officials better reflect the views of most Canadians. Single-transferable-vote is a feasible goal if we work together.

A step further would be to make election day a national statutory holiday, easing access to the polls and reinforcing the importance of civic participation. While mandatory voting is worth exploring in the future, I believe turnout would improve organically if people felt their vote truly counted.

I understand that this is a big ask. I know that this letter sounds idealistic. But I also believe that electoral reform is foundational. This is an important change that can restore faith in our system and amplify the voices of Canadians who currently feel unheard. In a time of division and disillusionment where people are sick of being used as pawns in a political game, this could be a meaningful step towards rebuilding the trust between representatives and voters.

We need leaders who are bold enough to do what they know is right even if it threatens the status quo. We want policy made with people in mind rather than the pursuit of profit and power.

You give me the impression that you care. That’s why I’m writing to you. This is the first letter I’ve ever sent to a representative. I hope it’s not the last. And I hope, more than anything, that it doesn’t fall on deaf ears.

Canadians are losing hope. Please help give it back to us.

Sincerely, A concerned voter