
Despite a polarizing election, poll suggests Canadians reject a two-party system
While the recent federal election turned into a tight race between the Liberals and Conservatives that left other parties trailing far behind, a new poll suggests most Canadians don't want the country end up with a two-party system.
The poll of over 1,600 Canadians, conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies between May 1 and 3, suggests only 21 per cent of Canadians think the country would be better off with a system where two parties dominate the political landscape.
Forty-nine per cent say a two-party system would not be good for Canada, while 30 per cent say they don't know.
The poll, which was conducted online and can't be assigned a margin of error, suggests that people in Ontario and Alberta are the most open to a two-party system, with 23 per cent of people in those provinces saying it would be a good thing.
Twenty-two per cent of people in British Columbia and 20 per cent of respondents in Quebec say they think Canada would be better off under such a system.
At 30 per cent, Conservative respondents were the most likely to think Canada would be better off with a two-party system, compared to 17 per cent of Liberals and 14 per cent of NDP supporters.
Jack Jedwab, president of the Association for Canadian Studies, said the election focused on two parties — the Liberals and the Conservatives — which received over 80 per cent of the vote.
Despite a polarizing election, poll suggests Canadians don't want a two-party system. #CDNPoli
"Now that the ... dust is settled on the election, it seems that Canadians are comfortable with not having a system that is as polarized politically as the one that this election seemed to give rise to," Jedwab said.
"Canadians are still, in terms of our political culture, different from the United States in terms of being more welcoming, or more receptive is a better word, to multiple options in their electoral system."
While recounts in some ridings are still underway, the Liberals inched another seat closer to a majority government on Saturday when a judicial recount declared their candidate the winner in the Quebec riding of Terrebonne by a margin of just one vote.
It brought the Liberals to 170 seats in the House of Commons, two shy of the 172 needed for a majority government. The Conservatives hold 143 seats, the Bloc has 22 and the NDP has seven.
The poll suggests that 44 per cent of Canadians are happy with the election results, while 40 per cent are not.
The poll also suggests many Canadians don't want to see another election any time soon.
Only 39 per cent of respondents say they'd like to see another federal election in the next two years, while 44 per cent say they don't.
Alberta respondents are the most likely to want another election soon, at 50 per cent, compared to 39 per cent of people in BC, 38 per cent of Ontarians and 33 per cent of Quebecers.
Of the respondents who want another federal election within two years, 70 per cent are Conservatives, 23 per cent are NDP supporters and 15 per cent are Liberals.
Jedwab said it comes as no surprise many Conservatives want another election as soon as possible. He said there was a "roller-coaster ride of expectations" before the election and the party may want an election sooner to build on perceived momentum.
Jedwab said if the Liberals are able to stay in power long-term, despite being in a minority government situation, that likely would encourage Conservatives to reflect on whether they want Pierre Poilievre to lead them into another election in four years.
"If the polls are any indication and the Liberals' standing continues to stay where it is or changes in a better direction, the likelihood of an election in the next two years is very, very low, which has a bearing on, I think, what the Conservatives' strategy will be going forward," Jedwab said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Canada Standard
an hour ago
- Canada Standard
Opinion: 'Don't Look, Just Leap', Carney and Ford Agree
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford seem to think that environmental assessment laws governing new pipelines, mines, nuclear power plants, ports, power dams, and transmission lines are no longer needed. Trust us, they say. Give us and the other politicians in our cabinets unfettered discretion to decide in secret which projects are in the national interest, where free-fire special economic zones should be established, and which corporations we should accept as trusted partners in exploiting Canada's natural wealth No need for serious debate in legislatures, they say. Ontario's Bill 5, the Protect Ontario by Unleashing our Economy Act , was whipped through the provincial legislature in eight weeks. Carney wants Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act , enacted by Parliament by Canada Day, July 1. Independent scientists, civil society, and local communities need not be consulted on new megaprojects, they say. Governments know best. Yes, Indigenous nations must be heard from on account of that pesky Constitution and Supreme Court. But those consultations must be done quickly because project approvals are guaranteed within two years to ensure certainty for investors. View our latest digests Yes, they say, Canada's boreal forest is burning, atmospheric and other rivers are overflowing, and sea levels are rising. But action to address the climate and biodiversity emergencies really must be put on hold on account of the tyrant to the south. We need to let the U.S. President-not to mention the big investment banks-know that Canada can lay steel and pour concrete as fast as his country can. Benefits to Canadians from these national interest projects must wait, as well. Beginning roughly a half-century ago, Conservative federal and Ontario governments enacted laws requiring development projects to be assessed so that their environmental effects could be avoided, or at least mitigated. Ontario's Environmental Assessment Act was enacted in 1975, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in 1992. Premier Bill Davis amd Prime Minister Mulroney understood that bureaucrats and consulting engineers don't always get it right, and that the singular focus on economic growth can sometimes leads to ecological disaster. Look before you leap. Ensure that government decisions to approve new highways, oil sands mines, or pipelines at least consider possible adverse environmental effects. Otherwise you get Chornobyl, Fukushima, Deepwater Horizon, and the Mount Polley and Giant mines. Ontario's Bill 5 and federal Bill C-5 effectively override these environmental assessment laws for the very projects that most need assessment and public discussion. Thank goodness we have elected such wise men who truly understand that a tunnel under the 401 highway, a trans-Canada energy corridor, and new roads to the Arctic are environmentally sustainable and will generate amazing benefits to regular Canadians. As catastrophic climate change and species extinctions accelerate, Canadians may be comforted by the thought that oil and gas and mining companies and investment banks will enjoy healthy profits for at least a few more quarters. Stephen Hazell is a veteran environmental lawyer, a member of the Energy Mix Productions Board of Directors, and an advisor to two national organizations assessing the impacts of Bill C-5. Source: The Energy Mix


Toronto Sun
3 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
Letters to the Editor, June 9, 2025
Monday letters Photo by Illustration / Toronto Sun CARNEY IS THE SAME OLD LIB While I was deeply disappointed that Pierre Poilievre wasn't successful in the past election, I had hope that, although the team was the same, Mark Carney would turn out to be someone different than his predecessor. Turns out he is the same. Watching question period over the past week the Liberals continue using the same talking points and refuse to answer a question, Carney included. I guess honesty and transparency are not Liberal attributes. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Jane Gilbert Ajax (Evasion is the language the Liberals understand. It's too bad we have to endure for another term) AFFORDABLE AT WHAT COST? Could someone please explain the term 'affordable housing.' I keep hearing this term from every politician wanting to get elected. Is there a price on these houses? Are they mortgage free? How about affordable housing for seniors? Mayor Olivia Chow has raised property taxes more than 20% over her short term of office. My fixed income, based on the amount I was entitled to some 10 years ago, has no inflation clause to keep up with present-day costs. I guess Chow's idea of creating new housing is to squeeze pensioners out of their homes when they cannot afford to pay the taxes! I have never heard this socialist elite mayor ever say the words 'cut back' on anything. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Tony Di Stasi Etobicoke (None of them ever define what is affordable housing, it's just a term that sounds good but is meaningless in reality) JUST OPEN IT I read that the Eglinton Crosstown should be up and running by September ('Eglinton Crosstown rolling soon: Ford,' Jane Stevenson, June 4). Please inform all the politicians to not waste time and money on a grand opening ceremony. There's nothing to celebrate. Just open it. How anything that's long overdue and way overbudget can be celebrated for finally being in service is beyond me. Ha, that could be Metrolinx mantra: 'If it's not overdue and overbudget, it's not Metrolinx.' Todd Keller (That has a sad and expensive ring to it) World Canada Sports Crime Editorials


Calgary Herald
11 hours ago
- Calgary Herald
Chris Selley: Earth to Liberals — First Nations are not an anti-development monolith
Article content Sean Fraser — the federal Liberals' supposed master communicator who did a bad job as immigration minister, and then a bad job as housing minister, and then said he wasn't running again to spend time with his family, and then opportunistically changed his mind and was rewarded with the justice and attorney general portfolio — laid his first dog's egg of the Mark Carney era this week. Article content Article content Fraser said Indigenous groups don't have a 'complete veto' over natural-resource projects or any other government decisions — but that wasn't the turd in question, because it was absolutely true. Article content Article content The turd came later, apparently after getting his ears boxed by Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse: Fraser disavowed his entirely truthful statement. Article content 'I think even accepting the premise of the question that was put to me (about a 'veto') really made people feel like there may be an attempt by the government to work unilaterally, not in partnership (with First Nations),' Fraser told reporters in a public apology. Article content 'Despite innocent intentions, I think my comments actually caused hurt and potentially eroded a very precarious trust that has been built up over many years to respect the rights of Indigenous people in this country,' he said. Article content Article content Coming up on 500 years since Jacques Cartier first set foot here and named it Canada, and 150-plus years after the Crown concluded the first treaties with First Nations, and with President Donald Trump suddenly bringing our crippling dependence on the United States into very sharp focus, if we can't even speak the plain truth to each other in plain language, we might be in even bigger trouble than we realized. Article content Article content But I think we can speak the plain truth to each other in plain language, so long as we rightly marginalize fringe and unreasonable voices. While apologizing for speaking the truth, Fraser also accurately pointed to 'a frankly dangerous trope that paints a false picture of Indigenous peoples as being anti-development.' Article content The 2021 Census recorded 1.8 million Indigenous Canadians — five per cent of the Canadian population, give or take. No one would ascribe monolithic opinions like 'supports/doesn't support resource development' to any other ethnic five per cent of the Canadian population. Yet most Canadian media reliably frame these issues as 'First Nations versus the colonialist menace.'