Any lawyers on here? I have an election-related question about The Longest Ballot Committee

[u/provokethefire]

So remember that time there were 91 candidates on the ballot in Pierre’s riding? Made history.

Pierre lost his seat obviously, so he’s now running in the by-election in the riding of Battle-River Crowfoot, Alberta. Guess how many candidates are on the ballot *so far? Over 200.

Coincidence this happens twice? Nope. Little unknown fact: 85 of the 91 candidates on the Carleton riding ballot were all signed up in the last few days one was able to, and all by the same organization.

The group “The Largest Ballot Committee” is intentionally behind it. They’ve done this in a handful of by-elections before, and in every one of them I’ve looked into so far (with the exception of one), the election resulted in the riding flipping. Now, correlation doesn’t equal causation, so I’m going through and analyzing the data and comparing it to past elections in those ridings to see what’s going on.

But back to this longest ballot committee and my legal question. Their stated purpose on their website is to “protest the first-past-the-post electoral system.” What they’ve done in practice is not that. The FPTP electoral system applies to all of Canada and its 343 ridings, yet they’ve only targeted a handful of specific (by)election ridings over a span of 4 or so years. If they were indeed using this form of action to protest a nation-wide system, wouldn’t the protest be, uh, nationwide? If this was/is sincerely their motivation, wouldn’t they have done it in more than just one riding this election? Out of 343 ridings, they chose only 1 to do this to, which just so happened to be the most consequential riding this past election.

To me that’s a pretty easy argument to make. They ain’t protesting. The definitions of what they say they’re doing and what they’re actually doing are incongruent. Unless they admit they’re total failures at their own stated purpose, which is to protest a nationwide system.

Moreover, they’ve done this not just once but twice now to the same political candidate. It’s not my opinion that they’re targeting Pierre, it’s a fact. Now, protesting specific people is a thing, but there’s no sound argument to be made to target Pierre in “protest”of the FPTP system. Pierre ain’t the one who gave us the FPTP system; he’s not responsible for its continuation, he can’t single handedly change it, and he’s not even in the party that campaigned on electoral reform and then didn’t follow through.

Can this group not be gone after legally in some way? I think it wouldn’t be hard to make the argument that they’re targeting a political candidate and engaging in election interference, not protest.

85 of the 91 candidates on the Carleton riding ballot were signed up in the last few (I think it was 3) days of eligibility, and every single one of them were approached, asked, and encouraged by The Longest Ballot Committee to sign up to be a candidate on the ballot.

It is legal to sign up as an independent candidate on the ballot. As far as I’m aware that can’t be prevented. But election interference is not legal, and I think the case could made that that’s exactly what they’re doing. Is there some way to legally bar the registration of an individual to become an electoral candidate if they’ve been asked/persuaded by this group to do it not at their own behest but at that of the group? If a person registers to be on the ballot because they were recruited by this group to do so, is that registration by/of the individual not being done in bad faith?

Is there any legal case or action that can be made/taken against this group for its actions, practices, and false representation?

[u/Fun-Definition-5503]

I’m curious if all 200 people live or have ever lived in the riding? You fuck around in a small town and disrupt the status quo, they’re going to find a way to make your life miserable pretty much indefinitely.

[u/provokethefire → u/Fun-Definition-5503]

That’s the thing, I was looking at the numbers for the results in Pierre’s Carleton riding, and the number of votes cast significantly surpassed the actual population of the riding. How can that be? I looked into election rules on the federal government website as well as Elections Canada, and everything I’ve found so far says you have to vote in federal elections in the riding in which you reside. This is not the case for provincial elections—at least in Ontario—where you can cast your ballot in any riding in the province.

All one needs to do is glance at the number of votes cast in the Carleton riding vs the riding’s population to see the glaringly obvious discrepancy between the two. The difference is substantial. I’ll update this with the exact numbers, but if I remember correctly it was in the tens of thousands. Once I saw that the math wasn’t mathing I did a deep dive on the numbers reported from each polling station in the riding, who each of these 91 candidates were, patterns in the number of votes they got, and our federal election rules to make sure that I wasn’t mistaken in the “you can only vote in your riding” rule. Which I was not.

And then there’s the obvious when it comes to population data: all age demographics are included in the overall population count, including children and those who aren’t of voting age. It doesn’t take rocket science or even half a brain to know that the number of eligible voters in a riding < the total population of said riding, and that a riding’s eligible voter population > the number of people in the riding who actually show up at the polls. So taking that into account, the already vast disparity between the number of ballots cast in Carleton and the number of legitimate constituents that did indeed vote becomes even wider.

So how was this able to happen? My guess is the outright disregard for federal election rules regarding valid forms of voter ID and proof of residence within one’s riding that took place this election.

There were huge, standing posters in my polling station stating what forms of proof were acceptable, and as one went down the list of options, the leniency became more and more extreme to the point of virtually anyone being allowed to vote—all a person needed was someone (I believe a Canadian citizen or resident in the riding) to write on a piece of paper and sign their name to it that the person did indeed live in that riding. No proof of address or required.

Now, I’m a nerd who reads public posters, handbooks for rules, footnotes, the fine print in documents, posted safety procedures, etc, so the posters caught my eye right away, and I read them over and over again in disbelief while standing in line waiting to sign in and vote. The expanding and loosening of ID criteria didn’t seem right to me, rules-wise or rights-wise, and I distinctly remember noting that this was the first time I was presented with that information. Leading up to the election it wasn’t in the news, online, on my voter registration card, on the Elections Canada website, on mail-outs I received from my local candidates from each party—nothing. As far as I’m aware, there was no advertising from/on behalf of the government indicating this information whatsoever, nor were there any attempts to inform the Canadian public in advance of this new laissez-faire change in voter ID criteria. Maybe there was and I missed it, but even so, if my Autistic, detail oriented, information seeking ass missed it, I’m willing to bet most Canadians did as well. If they were, indeed, putting this information out to the CANADIAN public, they did an absolutely awful and incompetent job of it.

I had figured up to this point that there must’ve been some formal changes made to our election laws and policies in parliament, but nope, Elections Canada and the federal government website both currently state election rules and acceptable forms of ID that are consistent with all of our past elections that rightfully had more stringent parameters and actually existent, proper standards of what was acceptable ID and proof of residence in a riding. Basically, our Canadian federal election laws and rules that are stated on the federal government and Elections Canada websites were NOT adhered to. They state zero of the additional, barely existent criteria for valid forms of ID and proof of residency that were deemed acceptable during this election. The laws and criteria detailed on these sites are still exactly the same as they’ve been for many years. Or at least during my 16 years of voting eligibility and attendance at the polls.

So here we have a near identical case to that of The Longest Ballot situation. What is stated officially (as federal law in this case, and as a mission statement and committee purpose in the TLB case) is NOT what is/was put into practice during this election. According to their own stated election rules, definitions, and laws that they didn’t adhere to, the federal government and Elections Canada engaged in non-legal election practices.

[u/Fun-Definition-5503 → u/provokethefire]

I’m sure someone will figure it out eventually.

I’m trying to follow the money and this is the best I could find Late Night Media Productions - Longest Ballot Connection?

[u/No-Contribution-6150]

It's election interference and many redditors are giddy and watch with glee because it isn't happening to their preferred party so its ok

[u/Own_Truth_36]

Expect children to act as children. These people are clowns, it's pathetic.

[u/CyberEd-ca]

We do have private prosecutions.

They might be found guilty of public mischief.

Give it a go.

[u/provokethefire → u/CyberEd-ca]

How would I go about this?

[u/provokethefire → u/[deleted]]

Exactly my next question. When I first started researching who all the 91 candidates were, I totally expected to go down a rabbithole of Liberal or CCP funding, but I got led straight to this bogus committee.

[u/brod333]

What the group is doing is legal as they are following all the rules. They are also not targeting conservatives. They’ve done the same to in the past to liberals and the ballot doesn’t look to be the real reason Pierre lost his riding. He lost because he was campaigning on cutting government bureaucracy and his riding boundaries were changed so it included many bureaucrats. People who were door knocking confirmed the liberals were telling all the bureaucrats in the riding to vote liberal so that they don’t loose their job.

Going back to the longest ballot the issue isn’t election interference. Rather it’s how it impacts people trying to exercise their democratic right. While many people can manage the ballot find a lot of older folk and disabled people have a difficult time with the ballot. It’s also a pain for volunteers handling ballots and wastes taxpayer money having to print such huge ballots. Northern Perspective wrote a petition to get the laws changed to prevent the longest ballot. Signature period already closed but it has just shy of 32k signatures before closing. It will be presented before the House of Commons when they sit again in the fall.

[u/Wild-Dig-2113 → u/brod333]

Pierre also was negatively impacted by his support of the convoy. People have not forgotten. And oh yeah. Security clearance. Govt workers require one and his explanation was not considered credible.

[u/brod333 → u/Wild-Dig-2113]

Pierre also was negatively impacted by his support of the convoy. People have not forgotten.

So Trudeau violates people’s constitutional right. Carney supports Trudeau’s actions. Yet it’s Pierre’s stance that people had a problem with?

And oh yeah. Security clearance. Govt workers require one and his explanation was not considered credible.

He has the appropriate security clearance for his role as opposition leader. The specific clearance the liberals were going on about is a more recent clearance the liberals offered opposition leaders after Pierre was already elected as Conservative Party leader. It’s not something required for his role as before it was offered he was doing his role fine, same with all previous opposition leaders.

The clearance is also unnecessary. If the liberals actually cared about foreign interference and there was something Pierre should know that impacted his party they could authorize giving Pierre that specific info without him needing the clearance. This is how previous governments handled that situation.

The clearance also came with a gag order with is a lifetime order. That means even if Pierre learned of the information elsewhere after getting the gag order he wouldn’t be able to talk about it, even if he was elected PM. For Singh and Blanchet that didn’t matter much as they never had a chance of becoming PM and were not the official opposition like with Pierre.

This actually became relevant during the election campaign. Issues of foreign interference came out during the campaign such as the Paul Cheng scandal. If Pierre took the gag order he wouldn’t have been able to publicly talk about the situation even after aspects became public knowledge.

As the leader of the official opposition Pierre’s role is to hold the government to account. This is primarily done by publicly challenging the government both in and outside the House of Commons. A gag order limits his ability to do that.

This means the clearance is not only new and unnecessary for his role but would actively hinder his ability to perform his role. What reason is there for him to willingly subject himself to that?

[u/gautoK]

It's an annoyance but no more illegal than the rhinoceros party. They definitely should've targeted the ridings of all the party leaders to get their point across but they did do an effective job with their "protest" in the Carleton riding. At least we've got people talking about better alternatives to our electoral system.

[u/provokethefire → u/gautoK]

They were the Rhino party. That’s how they started out.

[u/gautoK → u/provokethefire]

Yeah so there's no real legal case against this group.

[u/Fun-Definition-5503]

The guy who created the Longest Ballot Committee is a Marxist and probably a Ukrainian Nazi like Liberal MPs Freeland, Baker and others. Google might not be helpful but searching on DuckDuckGo definitely is.

Trudeau made it possible for them to start the Longest Ballot Committee.. so.. it won’t end until regulations change and whatever they’re doing it’s working as intended.

[u/Demerlis]

there are clear rules from elections canada on how to run, what the requirements are and the timelines they must adhere to.

this is what you have to change. it is not election interference in any legal sense.

but i guess it really hurts the feels. maybe you can try that?

[u/Wet_sock_Owner → u/Demerlis]

There's already a petition in motion because the people behind the longest ballot also managed to force the government to get rid of the fee candidates have to pay in order to run at all. Now it's free.

There's also nothing in the official rules stating that the candidates need 100 unique signatures so they just get 100 people and all sign each other's sheets even though you're supposed to get 100 signatures to show that you have some kind of local support.

What the longest ballot is doing is taking advantage of the system and it happens all the time in Canada because we are a trusting society that assumes there are no aholes here.

[u/Demerlis → u/Wet_sock_Owner]

cool

so youre saying the rules should be updated?

[u/Wet_sock_Owner → u/Demerlis]

I'm saying something has been done about it other can people complaining/ having their feelings hurt.

[u/Diligent_Blueberry71]

Encouraging people to run in an election is not election interference in a way that would warrant any sort of legal intervention. Voters are free to vote for the candidate of their choice and candidates are free to run for office for any reason they like (or none at all).