this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
29 points (96.8% liked)

Canada

10069 readers
484 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 23 points 1 day ago

Isn’t a party just a coordinated mass candidacy?

I presume they mean in a single riding, but still….

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 20 points 21 hours ago

If you're going to alter the candidacy requirements, how about requiring candidates to live in the riding for at least a year before running there?

[–] alsimoneau@lemmy.ca 19 points 23 hours ago

You know what would help? Reforming the system. That way the protest would go away on its own!

[–] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 day ago

I laughed when I read the 2 tory petitions on this as they were suggesting to increase the barriers independents face when registering in a local riding.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 day ago

Reminds me of how 'professional' politicians stonewalled the Rhino party back in the day.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 6 points 22 hours ago
[–] StillPaisleyCat@startrek.website 1 points 21 hours ago

Surprised by some of the comments here.

Whether or not the solution being proposed is the best or only one is the question.

Instead several users are taking any discussion as being anti-democratic.

The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada raised concerns about how these long ballots were impeding the democratic process, including by presenting barriers to accessibility by voters.

This has become an increasing problem, with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s riding being targeted in 2019.

There seem to be two kinds of barriers:

  • physical barriers to finding and marking the ballot of their choice
  • becoming informed of the positions and intents of candidates when there are so many candidates that do not actually intend to serve as MPs.

The underlying issue seems to be that a small group of qualified voters in a targeted riding are nominating a very large number of candidates.

That is 60+ candidates put forward by the longest ballot group were all nominated by the same small number of voters.

Is this reasonable?

Democratic rights are balanced with responsibility under the Charter. Is it reasonable for a single voter to sign the nomination papers for 50 candidates or even 20.

Only being able to sign the papers for one candidate in one election period may be too limiting as not all candidates obtain enough signatures to be minor drop out later for other reasons.

Would limiting the right to sign nomination papers to 2 or 5 candidates be a reasonable balance under the Charter?

While this specific solution being proposed by this CPC member may be too restrictive, it seems worth a debate.

And perhaps the second issue of voters being able to reasonably obtain information about the intent and positions of candidates would be resolved if there were not so many nominated candidates.

The Rhinoceros party position that their candidates would resign if elected was well known so voters could make an informed choice. The current long ballot situation doesn’t offer that choice.

A proactive referral to the Supreme Court of Canada might be the best way to get an understanding of the balance of democratic rights. It would be best to have a read on what would be a reasonable limitation on both those who sign nominations and those who put themselves forward vs the responsibility to have accessible ballots with candidates who intend to serve before any changes to the the elections act is brought forward.