A Flawed System: Strategic Voting and Democratic Distortion in Canada

This is an article as it appeared in the Global Greens Strengthening Democracy Network newsletter on Friday, August 15, 2025.

---

“No, I don’t want to sign your form. I don’t want your name on the ballot. I don’t want anyone to be able to vote for you.”

These words (or other similarly phrased declarations) were what I faced when I was seeking the nomination to be the official Green Party of Canada candidate in my riding or district during the 2025 General Federal Election that took place in the spring. While Canadians, along with many other “democratic” societies, believe that we live in an environment with a fair and just electoral system, it is clear upon deeper inspection that the system actually changes the way citizens and voters think and feel about democracy and politics. A flawed electoral system doesn’t just skew results, it rewires our understanding of what is considered to be democratic. Voters become conditioned to believe that expressing their true preferences is naïve, that viable choices are limited to the two dominant parties, and that participation means picking the lesser evil. Politics becomes a game of avoidance, an institution of deception. When the system punishes authenticity and rewards conformity, it can no longer call itself democratic.

In Canada, in order to be a confirmed candidate on the ballot, an individual must collect 100 signatures from eligible voters in the district supporting their candidacy. This signature does not mean that the person has any intention of voting for the candidate, it does not mean that they would be donating to or volunteering for their campaign, their identities are never revealed or kept - this is merely an indication that there are 100 individuals in the district who are open to having another option on the ballot for everyone to choose from, another voice to potentially speak for the constituents.

The constant opposition I was faced with as I went door to door stunned me. First, there was the distrust: many were unwilling to offer their full names and addresses to prove they were eligible voters and did not believe that I was truly seeking candidacy. Second, there was the outright opposition to my potential campaign: while there were eventually seven (7) confirmed candidates in my riding, it was clear while I was canvassing that many voters only wanted two (if not one). Repeatedly, I encountered open hostility and slammed doors.

While voter turnout in Canada’s 2025 federal elections was notably high (68.7% voter turnout, which was the highest since the 1993 federal election), democracy’s health cannot be measured by participation alone. Beneath the surface, the First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system continues to distort public will, shaping a landscape where voters often choose defensively rather than decisively.

Instead of voting for parties that reflect their values, many Canadians felt compelled to vote against their least preferred outcome, a phenomenon known as strategic voting. I made over 700 calls during my campaign. One voter told me, “I normally vote Green, and I would have loved to vote for you, but I needed to vote for X so that Y doesn’t form government.” Another said, “I like you, but I will never vote for your party. Call me if you ever decide to run municipally (NB: municipal elections are non-partisan in my riding). Your party shouldn’t be on the ballot.”

Countries like Germany and Australia use proportional representation, which introduces systems where voters feel like their ballot will actually make a difference, their voice will actually be heard. In Germany, people vote once for a local candidate and once for a party, and both help decide who gets into Parliament. In the Australian Senate, voters rank candidates in order of preference, and those rankings help decide who wins. Proportional systems make it easier for smaller parties to get seats and give voters more choices, so people feel their vote really matters.

Smaller parties like the Greens were among the most glaring casualties of Canada’s undemocratic voting system. Their exclusion in the 2025 election results wasn’t due to weak policy or lack of public interest, it was engineered by an electoral structure designed to reinforce a binary political narrative. Our party was only able to retain one seat in the House of Commons; one Member of Parliament lost his seat by 375 votes after being repeatedly told that he should have stepped aside to not “split the vote”. In such a system, votes for the Greens weren’t just overlooked, they were structurally nullified. Our party’s climate-focused and justice-driven platform resonated nationwide, but the system had no room for it. FPTP suppresses alternative voices and reinforces a binary political structure. That’s not pluralism - it’s controlled choice, it’s exclusion.

This tactical approach may prevent an undesired result, but it stifles authentic political expression and narrows the spectrum of representation in Parliament. The result? An election where many votes don’t lead to seats, smaller parties struggle to break through, and regional disparities grow more pronounced. Even as public demand for electoral reform intensifies, the will of the individual voter seems to have buckled, leaning heavily (almost enthusiastically) into a two-party system and working to eliminate choice. To call this democracy would be laughable.

Proportional representation isn’t a utopian fantasy, but it’s an important step towards a remedy that could restore fairness to Canada’s electoral system. By ensuring that every vote counts, and that representation mirrors public intention and preference, Canada may still face challenges but can move toward a more responsive and representative democracy.