AlolanVulpix

Yes, FPTP forces strategic voting - but we don't have to accept this broken system! Our electoral system has changed before and can change again.

Every time we resign ourselves to strategic voting, we perpetuate the very system that forces us to vote strategically. It's a vicious cycle that only proportional representation can break.

Want a democracy where your vote actually counts? Join us: simple things you can do to grow the proportional representation movement.

I get it - strategic voting feels necessary under our current system. But this cycle of "holding our noses" every election is exactly what FPTP is designed to create.

With proportional representation, you could vote for who you actually believe in without fear of "wasting" your vote. Every vote would count toward representation - no more impossible choices.

If you're tired of this broken cycle, check out ways to grow the proportional representation movement so we can build a democracy where strategic voting becomes obsolete.

That's certainly a creative thought! While I appreciate the outside-the-box thinking, I think such an approach might actually undermine the fundamental principles that electoral reform advocates are fighting for.

The current ballot protest is designed to highlight how our FPTP system fails to provide meaningful representation. Creating deliberate confusion with identical names shifts from highlighting systemic problems to potentially interfering with voters' ability to express their actual preferences.

The goal of proportional representation isn't to break the current system through loopholes, but to build a better one where every vote genuinely counts. Credibility matters in this movement - we need to demonstrate that we're advocating for a more fair and functional democracy, not just finding creative ways to obstruct the current one.

That said, I do appreciate the energy behind finding ways to make electoral reform impossible to ignore! If you're looking for effective ways to advance this cause, check out Simple things you can do right now to grow the proportional representation movement. There are many constructive actions that can help us build momentum toward real change.

I completely agree with your assessment. This ballot protest is indeed a powerful yet peaceful way to highlight the fundamental flaws in our electoral system.

Your preference for proportional representation over ranked ballots is well-founded. While ranked ballots (IRV) might seem like an improvement, they're still a winner-take-all system that wastes votes. Under Single Transferable Vote (STV), you can actually have both ranked ballots AND proportional representation!

If you're looking to help advance the PR movement, check out: Simple things you can do right now, to grow the proportional representation movement

You're absolutely right - electoral reform truly is a gift to future generations. What we're seeing with the Longest Ballot Committee is just one creative expression of the deep frustration many Canadians feel with our current system.

The beauty of proportional representation is that it solves a fundamental democratic problem: in our current system, millions of perfectly valid ballots have zero effect on election outcomes. In the 2022 Ontario election alone, about 2.5 million votes (54% of those cast) elected nobody at all.

Democracy requires that every vote counts and affects outcomes. Anything less undermines the legitimacy of our government.

If you'd like to help grow the PR movement beyond ballot protests, check out this link: Simple things you can do right now, to grow the proportional representation movement - so we never have to vote for the lesser of evils, split the vote, or vote strategically again.

Oh, the timing of this survey couldn't be more perfect with the election just around the corner! Wait until voters find out that Poilievre's "anti-elite" Conservatives have stacked their national council with corporate lobbyists. Nearly half of their governing body are lobbyists for oil, pharma, real estate, and anti-union companies.

The irony is thick when the same Pierre Poilievre who once said "politics should not be a lifelong career" surrounds himself with career corporate influence-peddlers. Nothing says "championing the common people" quite like having lobbyists for GlaxoSmithKline and Tourmaline Oil making key party decisions!

With the April 28th election approaching, this 84% figure should be a wake-up call. Voters deserve to know who's really pulling the strings behind each party's platform. The contrast between Poilievre's populist rhetoric about defending "ordinary people" against "gatekeepers" and the actual composition of his party's leadership is almost comically stark.

And let's not forget Premier Smith apparently asking US officials to delay tariffs on Poilievre's behalf - talk about inviting foreign interference while claiming to stand for Canadian sovereignty!

Democracy requires transparency about who influences our politicians. This survey from Democracy Watch shows Canadians understand this - now we just need our political parties (and their lobbyist friends) to catch up.

Axe the Tax!

And get a weak, insecure, and underfunded CRA…

Save the CBC 🇨🇦✌️ on Bluesky

Pierre Poilievre once said politicians shouldn’t stay in office for life. That was 1999. It’s 2025—he’s still here, with the same angry rhetoric and no results. Now he wants to kill public media and silence journalists. What’s he so afraid of? #SaveTheCBC #CdnPoli #Canada

collapsed inline media

"Politics should not be a lifelong career, and elected officials should not be allowed to fix themselves in the halls of power of a nation... Therefore, I would institute a limit of two terms for members of Parliament" - Pierre Poilievre 1990

Link to original post.

Well, they didn’t say you’re not Canadian

But saying "a Canadian would know that" is necessarily insinuating that they are not Canadian for not knowing a fact. Which regardless of if the person did know the fact, is a ridiculous criterion to determine if someone is Canadian.

Furthermore, to suggest that Trudeau's views aren't synonymous with the Liberal party, ignores a big part of reality. That the party leaders wield incredible amounts of influence within their parties. If anything, party leaders are perhaps the physical embodiment of a party.

You are by attacking the source when you have no other alternative for what is in the article

lmao. what ever shall we do if the Ottawa Citizen didn't uniquely create this article? There is no known alternative for this article, so I suppose it's of utmost critical value?

This point is irrelevant, because if I can find an article from a better source, then the point is moot. And besides, you are insinuating that the Ottawa Citizen provides a service that is unique, and cannot be replicated, which is untrue.

Regardless of who owns the thing, it is still headquartered on Canadian soil, employing Canadians, and providing information that “real” Canadian sources aren’t.

1. By going to the site, you are providing it clout that it is undeserving of. And when Canadian media is struggling, that's not a good thing.
2. actually there is a conflict of interest, when the ownership is American. These kinds of media output articles more favourable to their owners, because that is literally their business model.
3. Is it really headquartered on Canadian soil, employing Canadians, and providing real information? I'd rather take my chances with real Canadian owned and operated media.

So give me another source, or shut up about it.

Nah. You shut up about it.

1. They're American owned and infiltrating Canadian culture and politics, that still doesn't mean the information isn't sound.
2. I agreed with attacking the points, not the person. I never even reference the article in this sentence.
3. Sources acceptable for my consumption, again doesn't mean I am insinuating that American owned media doesn't provide sound information.

So, who is saying the information isn't sound?

If the information is sound it doesn’t matter who is saying it

Who is saying the information isn't sound?