Trudeau wanted ranked ballots. Would that have changed Monday's results?
Looking back on his time as prime minister, Justin Trudeau said that abandoning his promise of electoral reform was his biggest regret.
"Particularly as we approach this election … I do wish that we'd been able to change the way we elect our governments in this country, so that people could choose a second choice or a third choice on the same ballot," Trudeau said after announcing his resignation in January, seeming to support a ranked ballot that would let voters pick their preferred candidates in numerical order.
"Parties would spend more time trying to be people's second or third choices, and people would be looking for things they have in common, rather than trying to polarize and divide Canadians against each other."
In such a system, also called "alternative vote," if one person didn't get a clear majority on the first count, second-choice votes would be counted until someone got more than 50 per cent support.
CBC News posed the question to political experts: What would Monday's election have looked like under a ranked ballot system?
Dennis Pilon, a political science professor at York University in Toronto who studies electoral reform, says the results would not have been as devastating for the smaller parties, particularly the NDP, who were clobbered by strategic voting efforts.
Pilon uses the B.C. riding of Nanaimo–Ladysmith as an example: NDP incumbent Lisa Marie Barron fell to Conservative Tamara Kronis, who had just 35.2 per cent of the vote. Meanwhile, the Liberals, NDP and Greens combined for 64.4 per cent.
"The reason that we saw such a decline for both the Greens and the NDP has less to do with public judgments about their efficacy or desirability as parties, and everything to do with the kind of straitjacket that people felt they were put into, in terms of the strategic [voting] dilemma that they faced," Pilon said.
WATCH | Justin Trudeau says he regrets not achieving electoral reform:
He says that's why in cases like Nanaimo–Ladysmith, supporters of NDP incumbents likely felt they had to "hold their nose" and vote Liberal to hold off the Conservatives.
NDP suffered major losses
Such voting strategies set off heated debates among some progressives in the lead-up to the election. As results rolled in Monday night, some voters posted on social media that they wished they had a ranked ballot system.
"What makes it so difficult is that voters lack the information to be able to make that strategic vote effectively, because to be really strategic, you've got to have a good sense of what everyone else is going to do — and that's the very thing you can't get," Pilon said. "It's very unlikely to get good polling information about an individual constituency."
The NDP lost most of its seats after Monday's vote, falling from 24 to seven and losing official party status.
Pilon says the ranked ballot system still tends to funnel support back to the biggest parties, which is why voting reform advocates generally prefer proportional representation, which would base a party's number of seats in Parliament on its percentage of the popular vote.
But Pilon says Liberals in particular would benefit from ranked ballots because they would likely have more people willing to rate them in second place, whereas the Conservatives have fewer "adjacent parties" to draw from — though he notes some Conservative gains in Monday's election may have come at the expense of the People's Party of Canada.
The PPC captured just 0.7 per cent of the vote, after getting about five per cent in the 2021 federal election.
Trudeau promised reform in 2015
During his first campaign as Liberal leader in 2015, Trudeau promised to do away with the first-past-the-post system, where a candidate wins simply by having the most votes.
His government struck a House of Commons all-party special committee to review other voting systems, including ranked ballots, and released a report in December 2016 that recommended a referendum on a switch to a form of proportional representation.
But Liberal MPs disagreed, saying the recommendations were "rushed" and "too radical," and the plan fizzled.
Electoral reform was not in the Liberals' 2025 platform and current leader Mark Carney has said it is not a priority for his government.
WATCH | Mark Carney says electoral reform not a priority:
Pilon says Australia is the only Western industrialized country that uses ranked ballots today, though Manitoba and B.C. used versions of ranked ballots between the 1920s and '50s, and the federal Liberals have toyed with the idea of electoral reform at various times dating back to 1919. Ireland also has its own version of a ranked ballot.
In B.C.'s 1952 election, the Liberal and Conservative parties formed a coalition to keep socialism at bay, and introduced ranked ballots under the assumption that voters who picked one of their parties would rank the other in second place.
Lydia Miljan, head of the University of Windsor's political science department, says that plan "backfired" and led to the Social Credit Party pulling off a slim victory.
"That tells you that voters are savvy to this kind of political manipulation, and that can change the calculus depending on how it's instituted," she said.
Ranked ballots could have given Liberals majority: prof
In 2025, Miljan says a ranked ballot may have helped the Liberals eke out a majority — the party landed at 169 seats, falling just three short of a majority government.
"I don't think it would have made a big difference, except probably in the few ridings where there were three-way splits, where you might have gotten a few more NDP seats and probably equally more Liberal seats," she said. "In that respect, you would have had a Liberal majority, most likely."
Andrea Lawlor, associate professor of political science at McMaster University in Hamilton, says while we can't be sure how voters would have ordered their preferences, it's possible a ranked ballot could have fundamentally shifted the balance of power between the parties.
"In this election, with such a short walk between a Liberal minority and a Liberal majority, change at the margins could have had a dramatic impact," she said.
Lawlor says she doesn't see electoral reform becoming an issue in the near future, but suggests politicians should carefully consider the possibility "if we want to see the continuation of the multi-party system as we know it, in an environment of increasing polarization."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump Adviser Urges Immigration Investigation Into Elon Musk's Past as "Illegal Alien"
As Elon Musk and Donald Trump's bromance experiences a rapid but totally predictable disassembly, Musk's archnemesis Steve Bannon is calling on the president to investigate the world's richest man's dubious immigration history. "They should initiate a formal investigation of his immigration status, because I am of the strong belief that he is an illegal alien, and he should be deported from the country immediately," Bannon told the New York Times on Thursday. He also declared that Musk should be investigated for his alleged drug habit. Bannon was a former chief strategist to Trump. He no longer holds the role in an official capacity, but remains an informal adviser and an influential voice on the American far right. Musk and Trump traded blows on their respective personal social media playgrounds this week, not long after Musk suddenly announced that his time as a "special government employee" was over. Once out of the White House, it didn't take long for things to escalate from Musk blasting the president's newly proposed spending bill, to Trump threatening to cancel Elon's billions of dollars worth of government contracts, to Musk clapping back by saying he'd cut off NASA's invaluable access to his spacecraft. Musk also really went off the rails by shouting from the rooftops of X that Trump is in the unreleased Epstein files, and then agreeing that the president should be impeached. We can only imagine the pure schadenfreude bliss that Bannon must be experiencing right now. He's made no secret of his contempt for Musk, who he's previously called a "toddler," and "not tough enough," and a "parasitic illegal alien." Some of that is probably his jealousy speaking: Musk had replaced Bannon as the president's golden boy, a role he lost when Trump kicked Bannon kicked to the curb for stealing the limelight during his first term in office. Bannon, an alleged white supremacist, has always been skeptical of Musk's sudden realignment with the MAGA movement, and has constantly chided the Silicon-Valley-liberal turned Texas-based-technocrat for not being conservative — or racist — enough. So you can bet he's making the most of Musk's downfall, capitalizing on his dubious personal immigration history. Despite his constant slandering of immigrants, the South Africa-born businessman was likely at one point an "illegal" immigrant too, overstaying on a student visa even though he'd dropped out of school to work on his startup. His brother, Kimbal, has admitted to both of them working illegally. Bannon, on top of calling for Musk's deportation, has recommended nationalizing Musk's businesses, too. "President Trump tonight should sign an executive order calling for the Defense Production Act to be called and seize SpaceX tonight before midnight," Bannon said Thursday on an episode of his War Room podcast, as quoted by the Daily Beast. But he faces a fearsome keyboard warrior in Musk, who retaliated in a slur-bedazzled tweet: "Bannon is peak r*tard." Then he doubled down, clarifying that Bannon was, in fact, a "communist r*tard." There's clearly no love being lost between the two. Trump, for his part, is doing his best Don Draper impression. "I'm not even thinking about Elon. He's got a problem. The poor guy's got a problem," he said Friday, per CNN. More on Elon Musk: Elon Musk Declares That He's "Immediately" Cutting Off NASA's Access to Space
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Labour faces embarrassing defeat over foreign state ownership of newspapers
The House of Lords is preparing to inflict an embarrassing defeat on Labour over its 'deeply problematic' plans to let foreign powers become part-owners of British newspapers. Peers including a former chancellor, a former director of public prosecutions and the current chairman of the press regulator are in open revolt over proposals by Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, to relax an outright ban on foreign state shareholdings to allow passive stakes of up to 15pc. The basic principle was expected to be reluctantly accepted by Parliament, in part to end the destabilising uncertainty at The Telegraph caused by a blocked takeover bid bankrolled by the United Arab Emirates. However, a loophole that it is feared could allow foreign powers to team up to gain sway over Britain's free press has stoked a rebellion capable of defeating the Government. As proposed, the legislation would enable foreign states to own up to 15pc if they are not cooperating with each other. Lord Young, the journalist and founder of the Free Speech Union campaign group, has spearheaded an open letter to Ms Nandy demanding she tighten the proposed laws. It has dozens of signatures from Conservative peers of all stripes, including former Cabinet ministers Lord Lamont, Lord Baker and Lord Lilley, as well as crossbenchers including Lord Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions. The letter to Ms Nandy said her proposals to allow multiple foreign powers to own shares in a single newspaper were 'deeply problematic'. It added: 'It has to be assumed that if different state actors are intent on exerting influence through their shareholding, then some may be prepared to do so covertly and in collusion with other states. 'To guard against this risk, the draft regulations should ensure that the cap in the percentage of shares that can be owned in a British newspaper enterprise is a total cap.' The letter was also signed by Lord Faulks, the chairman of the press regulator Ipso; Baroness Fleet, the former editor of The Evening Standard; and Lord Goodman, the former editor of the Conservative Home website. Other prominent backers included Lord Brady, the former chairman of the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers; Baroness Deech, the chairman of the House of Lords appointments commission; Lord Swire, the former Foreign Office minister; and Baroness Spielman, the former head of Ofsted. Lord Roberts, the Churchill biographer, has also signed and has written in The Telegraph that the legislation 'must be done in a way that entrenches the traditional freedoms of our press'. The letter marks a significant escalation of opposition to the legislation in the Lords. Baroness Stowell, who last year played a critical role in forcing the Government to block the UAE bid for The Telegraph, was among the first to raise concerns over multiple state shareholdings in a letter to Ms Nandy last week. She did not sign Lord Young's letter, but warned the Government it faced defeat if it pressed ahead, even though the Conservative leadership in the Commons had signalled it did not oppose the proposed laws. The Liberal Democrats have tabled a rare 'fatal motion' to veto the statutory instrument which may become the focus of the Lords rebellion. Lady Stowell said: 'I really hope the Government reconsiders these proposals quickly. 'It would not be acceptable for multiple foreign states to own stakes of up to 15pc in the same newspaper, yet for reasons unclear, that is a scenario Lisa Nandy wants to allow. 'Unless she closes this obvious loophole, I can see peers swinging behind a fatal motion to block this legislation. It would be a rare step to take, but I know colleagues feel very strongly about this crucial matter of press independence.' The Conservatives are the biggest group in the Lords. Alongside the Liberal Democrats and some crossbenchers they could readily defeat the Government and spark a battle with the Commons. Lady Stowell is among the parliamentarians to have said she would accept a limit of 15pc with reservations, were it not for the risk of cumulative shareholdings. The figure is three times the limit proposed last year by Rishi Sunak's government. Ms Nandy decided to lift it following lobbying on behalf of Rupert Murdoch and Lord Rothermere, the owner of the Daily Mail. Both media moguls have sought sovereign wealth investment in the past. Lord Rothermere previously considered a takeover bid for The Telegraph with financial backing from the Gulf. Mr Murdoch relied on the support of a Saudi royal shareholder to fight off the investor rebellion sparked by the phone-hacking scandal. Lobbyists for Lord Rothermere and Mr Murdoch argued that a 5pc cap on foreign state investment would cut news publishers off from a significant source of potential investment in digital growth at a time of upheaval as print newspapers decline. The row over cumulative shareholdings threatens to further delay a conclusion to the two-year saga over ownership of The Telegraph. RedBird Capital, the US private equity firm that was the minority investor in the blocked UAE takeover, has agreed in principle to become controlling shareholder in a £500m deal. IMI, the media investment vehicle owned by UAE royal Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan is expected to retain up to 15pc. However, the deal has not been finalised and is likely to require a settled legal position before it can face regulatory scrutiny. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport declined to comment. Lord Biggar Baroness Meyer Lord Moylan Lord Jackson of Peterborough Baroness Eaton Lord Brady Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell Baroness Finn Baroness Fleet Baroness Noakes Baroness Bray of Coln Lord Strathcarron Baroness Lea of Lymm The Earl of Leicester Lord Borwick Lord Roberts of Belgravia Baroness Deech Lord Sherbourne Lord Mackinlay Lord Ashcombe Baroness Coffey Baroness Foster of Oxton Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Lord Evans of Rainow Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Baroness Buscombe Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Mancroft Lord Robathan Baroness Nicholson Lord Wrottesley Baroness Cash Lord Goodman Lord Shinkwin Baroness Altmann CBE Edward Faulks KC Lord Swire Baroness Fox of Buckley Baroness Spielman Lord Lamont Lord MacDonald of River Glaven Lord McInnes of Kilwinning Lord Hamilton of Epsom Lord Reay Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Lilley Lord Baker of Dorking Lord McLoughlin Baroness Morrissey
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
FIRST READING: What Carney's inner circle really thinks about oil and gas
First Reading is a Canadian politics newsletter curated by the National Post's own Tristin Hopper. To get an early version sent directly to your inbox, sign up here. After 10 years of the extremely anti-fossil fuel Trudeau government, the Canadian energy sector is suddenly optimistic that their future need not be one of managed decline. The government of Prime Minister Mark Carney keeps referring to Canada as an 'energy superpower' and is even raising the once-taboo subject of building new pipelines. As former Conservative resources minister Joe Oliver put it in a recent column for the Financial Post, the Liberals have been 'mugged by reality.' But Carney's inner circle contains more than a few figures who have been quite vocal about their distaste for oil and gas development, sometimes as little as a few months ago. Below, a quick summary of what Carney's team was saying before all the 'energy superpower' talk got started. Marc-Andre Blanchard Incoming chief of staff When Blanchard's appointment was announced this week, critics quickly seized on a 2023 interview in which he endorsed the end of any new Canadian fossil fuel development. Conservative MP Larry Brock, for one, told the House of Commons that the 'new chief of staff is hell-bent on shutting down oil and gas.' The interview was published by Net Zero Investor, and details Blanchard's efforts to decarbonize the portfolio of the Quebec pension fund CDPQ, where he was head of global sustainability. 'CDPQ's conviction is: It is essential not to contribute to increased oil and coal production and to focus on renewable and transition energies,' Blanchard said at the time, framing the move as one that was ultimately profitable for the fund. 'Over five years in equity markets, we made almost $1 billion more than if we had an oil exposure,' he said. The article also noted that CDPQ had held onto its natural gas holdings, with the reasoning that 'although the supply of renewable energy is growing, it is unable to meet all the current demand for energy.' Mark Carney Prime minister It was only a few months that Carney was still chair of Brookfield Asset Management, a firm with massive oil and gas holdings (in addition to its much-touted green energy portfolio). In 2021, for instance, a Brookfield subsidiary finalized the acquisition of Inter Pipeline Ltd., Canada's fourth largest pipeline company. But, as is well-known, Carney was also one of the world's most visible proponents of the concept of 'net zero,' a view he espoused as the United Nation's Special Envoy on Climate Action and Finance. Carney's 2021 book Values gets into detail of his vision for the Canadian energy sector. He wrote that 'there will continue to be a place' for Canadian fossil fuels, but within a framework where 'the carbon footprint of our energy sources' goes down. Four years later, this somewhat contradictory view is much the same. In the space of just 30 seconds this week, Carney told a press conference that his government saw an 'oil pipeline … to tidewater' as an 'opportunity' — before adding that 'decarbonized barrels' of oil should be the priority. Tim Hodgson Minister of natural resources If Blanchard is being accused of being a 'keep it in the ground' zealot, Hodgson is the Carney government's leading counterweight. A May 23 speech Hodgson delivered to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce spoke of 'cutting red tape,' and contained no mention of the terms 'net zero' or 'decarbonization.' And the only time he mentioned 'climate change' was in a section where he suggested Canadian energy should be employed to 'displace' dirtier fuels overseas. 'By working with the energy sector to make investments that fight climate change, we can get more barrels to market while cutting carbon emissions,' he said. Still, Hodgson's first statements to the House of Commons show him hedging his bets on the central issue of new export pipelines. 'We will support new pipelines if there is a national consensus in favour of them,' he said on May 29. Julie Dabrusin Minister of environment and climate change Carney's new environment minister, Dabrusin, has been the MP for Toronto—Danforth since 2015, and replaces Steven Guilbeault, whose tenure was marked by open hostility to the energy sector. As Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz said upon Guilbeault leaving the post, he had put 'an activist agenda ahead of the well being and economic health of Albertans and Canadians.' Nevertheless, Dabrusin is on record espousing many of Guilbeault's most controversial positions. This includes the 2024 boast that 'no other country' was placing an emissions cap on its petroleum sector — a statement that was quickly taken up by the Opposition as evidence that Canada was kneecapping its own energy production even as it continued unabated everywhere else. 'No other country has capped emissions from oil and gas production,' Dabrusin told the House of Commons in April, 2024. She's called carbon pricing the 'largest single tool we have to reduce emissions,' and in 2022 she said the future of the Canadian oil sector would be to lubricate windmills. 'Even in a net-zero world, we will always need oil for some things, and not just bike chain grease. We also need it to make lubricant for windmills. If members want to keep seeing latex gloves in our hospitals, we will always need oil,' she said. If parliamentary procedure is your thing, Monday was witness to an absolutely elite-tier operation by the Conservatives. After the Carney government swore repeatedly that they were too busy to prepare a budget until at least the fall, the House of Commons slipped through an amendment for them to do it anyway. On a routine House of Commons vote to accept the speech from the throne, the Conservatives threw in an amendment calling on the government 'to present to Parliament an economic update or budget this spring, before the House adjourns for the summer.' The NDP and the Bloc Québécois all voted yes on the amendment, causing it to pass 166 to the Liberals' 164 votes. The Liberals don't have to table a spring budget, but if they don't they'll technically be violating the terms of their own throne speech all of these insights and more into your inbox by signing up for the First Reading newsletter. Carney denounces 'unlawful and unjustified' doubling of U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum Liberals downplay narrowly lost vote demanding spring budget