saying hi ...

[hades_ibex]

Hello, I've just joined this forum. Thought I would say hi, and kick this off with a (silly?) question. Here goes:

Is it against the rules for a party to run more than one candidate in a riding during election time? Of course you could ask "now, why would they do this?" Just wondering.

[cybercoma]

Hello, I've just joined this forum. Thought I would say hi, and kick this off with a (silly?) question. Here goes:

Is it against the rules for a party to run more than one candidate in a riding during election time? Of course you could ask "now, why would they do this?" Just wondering.

I believe so, but if they could...why would they? It would only serve to split the vote between their supporters and both candidates have to vote the same way in parliament anyway, so no matter who you vote for he or she will do the same thing once elected.

[Spike22]

yes it is against the rules of major parties. That is why they have a (selection) process to get nominated in your riding.

[hades_ibex]

So it is against party rules but not Elections Canada rules?

I could imagine a smaller party that has no chance to win, but might be able to maximize their party vote (and their federal funding in subsequent years), by putting more than one name on the ballot.

[shoop]

A party *cannot* run more than one candidate per riding. Here is a quote from the Canada Elections Act.

68. (1) A political party may endorse only one prospective candidate in each electoral district for a given election.68.

Want more info? Elections Canada

Your logic of *maximizing* a vote escapes me. Most smaller party candidates have very low name recognition. Your suggested tactic would only work as a way of counter-balancing a candidate who has high name recognition, but isn't necessarily well liked.

So it is against party rules but not Elections Canada rules?

I could imagine a smaller party that has no chance to win, but might be able to maximize their party vote (and their federal funding in subsequent years), by putting more than one name on the ballot.

[tml12]

The "maximizing" description would definitely not work.

[shoop]

Completely agreed. I don't know if I read it right, but what I said in the last post was the only way two candidates in a riding *might* lead to higher votes for the party in that riding.

The "maximizing" description would definitely not work.

[hades_ibex]

Well, if you use your imagination you could conceive of some scenarios where a party might want to run more than one candidate in a riding. But it isn't that important. I just wondered if you could do it. I tried Elections Canada already, but didn't see the answer. I'll check again later. Thanks.

[shoop]

Use my imagination or not, I cannot see one conceivable reason to run more than one candidate in a riding. How about helping me out with that.

Here is the link to the Canada Elections Act read it for yourself.

Well, if you use your imagination you could conceive of some scenarios where a party might want to run more than one candidate in a riding. But it isn't that important. I just wondered if you could do it. I tried Elections Canada already, but didn't see the answer. I'll check again later. Thanks.

[hades_ibex]

I'm not saying that there are any practical reasons to design it this way. But I could imagine at the last hour a popular independent (but not so popular that he would have a chance of winning) deciding he wants his $1.79 per vote to go to, say, the Greens. So the Greens could pull him into their party even though there is already a Green on the ballot.

Or a party might have a point to make, and so they throw a couple of candidates onto the ballot in a particular riding. Maybe it is a protest against FPP.

Or maybe there is some marketing gimmick for doing this.

[geoffrey]

I'm not saying that there are any practical reasons to design it this way. But I could imagine at the last hour a popular independent (but not so popular that he would have a chance of winning) deciding he wants his $1.79 per vote to go to, say, the Greens. So the Greens could pull him into their party even though there is already a Green on the ballot.

Or a party might have a point to make, and so they throw a couple of candidates onto the ballot in a particular riding. Maybe it is a protest against FPP.

Or maybe there is some marketing gimmick for doing this.

You can't change parties after the nomination deadline.

Either way, you can't do it anyways. The only way I could see is if said protesting party ran like 1500 candidates and the ballot was so long you couldn't find our guy on it.

[shoop]

It is a bit of a stretch, albeit a little impractical.

To run as a candidate in a general election you have to pay a $1000 deposit. I believe the candidate has to receive a certain percentage of the vote to get their deposit back.

My guess would be that it would serve to discourage frivolous candidacies...

Either way, you can't do it anyways. The only way I could see is if said protesting party ran like 1500 candidates and the ballot was so long you couldn't find our guy on it.

[geoffrey]

It is a bit of a stretch, albeit a little impractical.

To run as a candidate in a general election you have to pay a $1000 deposit. I believe the candidate has to receive a certain percentage of the vote to get their deposit back.

My guess would be that it would serve to discourage frivolous candidacies...

Either way, you can't do it anyways. The only way I could see is if said protesting party ran like 1500 candidates and the ballot was so long you couldn't find our guy on it.

I wasn't being serious, just others expressed that there was no imaginable way. Well, I imagined one.