It's Time To Wrap Up The Longest Ballot Protest
The ballots really are long. And annoying. And counter-productive.
Yesterday, I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) to discuss the activities of the Longest Ballot Committee (LBC). You may recall the LBC from its various attempts to place candidates on the ballot during several by-elections and the last general election. In the recent Battle River–Crowfoot by-election, the group pushed the total number of candidates to over 200 — so many that Elections Canada amended the process, asking electors to write in the name of their chosen candidate.
The LBC is protesting in favour of electoral reform and an alternative approach to election rule-making, arguing that politicians who make electoral rules are in an inherent conflict of interest because they stand to benefit from them. I support electoral reform and I’m open to being persuaded about the group’s concern over election rule-making, though I’m not sure what a better alternative would look like — and nor is the group, as they’ve not specified one. But as I said at committee, it’s time for the LBC to wrap up its efforts and perhaps find another approach to effecting change.
Here, I want to rework my opening statement to the committee and make the case for why the LBC should call it a day. First, I believe this initiative is a form of protest — one intended to disrupt and make change. I also believe the group is acting in good faith, motivated by sincere beliefs about how we ought to conduct elections and establish the rules that govern democratic life, even if they are having a laugh in the process. But the LBC’s efforts aren’t working and they aren’t likely to.
As far as I can tell, long ballots have indeed drawn attention to the group — and, to a lesser extent, to their cause. But attention doesn’t equal success. I’ve seen no evidence that the LBC’s tactics have helped make the case for electoral reform or for a non-partisan electoral-rules-making body, and, in fact, some evidence they might have a deleterious counter-effect. A summer poll from the Angus Reid Institute found that a plurality of Canadians support a law restricting the capacity of a group to stack ballots with names.
The PROC committee is now considering measures to make it more difficult for candidates to qualify for the ballot, including limiting official agents to representing only one candidate (which I support); requiring nomination signatures to be unique, so that an elector could sign only one candidate’s form (I think a reasonable compromise would be allowing electors to sign three-to-five forms); and increasing the number of required nomination signatures (I’m ambivalent on this).
Given that the committee is now discussing these changes, we might conclude LBC’s efforts are undermining its stated goals since the Commons may now consider changes to elections law or regulations that make it harder to run. I’d also hazard a guess that a plurality of Canadians might find the LBC’s tactics to be alienating, making them less likely to support electoral reform or a non-partisan elections-law-making body.
We shouldn’t overstate the scale or impact of the LBC’s actions. As other witnesses noted at the committee, the effects of the long ballots on election outcomes and voting rates are likely limited. Canadian democracy isn’t going to crumble to dust overnight. But even limited effects raise concerns. Moreover, we could imagine a protest like this at scale becoming a more serious problem, one that would undermine trust in our elections, discourage voter turnout at an equal scale, and even shape the outcome of a race.
The timing here is…sub-optimal. As the world faces a democratic recession – from which Canada may not be immune – maintaining trust in elections is critical. Screwing around with elections is risky, especially if your chances of achieving any desirable reforms is low and the odds of you generating a backlash — including legal and regulatory changes — is much higher.
Canada’s federal elections work because they’re simple — pencil or marker, a sheet of paper, poll workers, a manageable ballot, no machines, limited donations. Our regulations are typically sound and reasonable and effective. But while our elections are regulated, some elements of the process rely on the forbearance of individuals and groups to maintain electoral integrity. There are certain things you may do that may strictly speaking be permitted, but doing those things undermines the spirit of the laws and regulations that govern the process and gum up the works in the process, so you shouldn’t do them. And you shouldn’t do them because the net outcome may have deleterious effects on the public good, even if the stated aims of certain actions are rooted in serving other, even complementary, public goods. That’s a bad deal.
As I said at the top, I truly believe those who take part in the activities of the Longest Ballot Committee are acting in good faith to protest in favour of changes they believe will strengthen Canada’s elections and electoral outcomes. But I also believe their efforts don’t serve those ends and, in fact, undermine them by disrupting the electoral process, irritating voters and election workers, risking the alienation of Canadians who might otherwise be persuaded to support their recommended reforms, and encouraging election law changes that will make it harder for candidates to get on the ballot.
As the man said, you’ve got to know when to fold ‘em, and it’s time to fold the long ballot.
An eminently sensible commentary; thanks for taking the time to testify at the committee. I too support electoral reform, and am just as frustrated as anyone else at how difficult it is to advance this cause. But the Long Ballot thing is way past the point of diminishing returns.
I would add a residency requirement.
It would foul up the practice of providing unelected party leaders seats in Parliament, but imo residency is a fundamental requirement of representational democracy.
Much more important than electoral reform.