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/