I am delighted to be here today, because this is something I've been following for some time. In this statement, I want to focus on the goals, trade-offs, effects and risks to our democratic institutions of the longest ballot committee's activities.
Let's start with trying to conceive of what this thing is. I mean, it's a protest. The goal is to protest to effect change. As a protest, it's meant to disrupt, because that's what protests do. Disruptive tactics are typical for protests, but the mechanism here is a slightly unusual one, at least in the way the longest ballot committee has proceeded, because they've effectively weaponized election rules meant to facilitate public access to the ballot to raise awareness of two perceived problems and to subsequently make the case for change.
Now, the perceived problems, as far as I can tell, are these: one, inadequacies and distortions inherent in the first-past-the-post electoral system; and two, the fact that politicians who stand to benefit from electoral rules are the ones who set those rules. This is what I take to be their complaint. We can discuss my personal opinions on those issues if you want, but I want to focus on the longest ballot for now.
The effect of long ballots, as far as I can tell, has been to draw attention to the group—and to their goals, I believe, to a lesser extent—but I've seen no evidence that the tactics have helped make the case for electoral reform or for a non-partisan electoral rules-making body. In fact, a poll from the Angus Reid Institute this summer found that a plurality of Canadians support a law restricting the capacity of the longest ballot committee to stack ballots with names. In that sense, the efforts of the organization may in fact be undermining their stated goals, at least at this time.
We shouldn't overstate the scale or the effects of the longest ballot committee's actions, as previous witnesses have suggested. The effects on election outcomes and voting are likely limited, but we can imagine a protest like this at scale becoming a more serious problem that would undermine the trust in our elections, discourage voter turnout at an equal scale and even shape the outcome of a race or races. As the world faces a democratic recession, from which Canada may not be immune, maintaining trust in elections is critical.
While our elections are regulated, some elements of the process rely on the forbearance of individuals and groups to maintain electoral integrity: There are certain things you can do that may, strictly speaking, be legal or permitted, but you shouldn't do them. Doing those things undermines the spirit of the laws and regulations that govern the process. The net outcome may be deleterious effects on the public good, even if the stated aims of certain actions are perceived to be rooted in other, complementary public goods.
Ultimately, I believe that those who take part in the activities of the longest ballot committee are acting in good faith to protest in favour of changes they think will help strengthen Canadian elections and electoral outcomes. But I also believe that their efforts don't serve those ends, and in fact undermine them by disrupting the electoral process, irritating voters and election workers, and encouraging election law changes that will make it harder for candidates to get on the ballot.
Thank you.