A closer examination reveals that this perspective overlooks critical factors that likely impacted the election outcome.
1. Boundary Changes Significantly Altered the Riding’s Composition
The 2022 federal electoral redistribution brought substantial changes to the Carleton riding. Notably, it lost the suburban neighborhood of Findlay Creek, which had previously voted 60–70% Liberal, and gained rural areas from Kanata-Carleton, traditionally Conservative strongholds. While these changes might appear to balance out, the addition of new areas introduced voters unfamiliar with Poilievre, potentially affecting his support base. Moreover, the redistribution’s timing meant that Poilievre had limited opportunity to engage with these new constituents before the election.  
2. The 90-Candidate Ballot Introduced Unprecedented Complexity
The presence of 91 candidates on the Carleton ballot, a record in Canadian federal elections, was not a mere coincidence. This “Longest Ballot” initiative aimed to protest the first-past-the-post system by overwhelming the ballot. While the total votes for independent candidates were relatively low, the sheer number of names could have caused confusion among voters, potentially leading to ballot errors or voter fatigue. Such factors, while difficult to quantify, can influence election outcomes, especially in closely contested ridings. 
3. National Vote Share vs. Seat Distribution Highlights Systemic Issues
Nationally, the Conservative Party secured approximately 41.27% of the popular vote in 2025, surpassing the vote shares that led to majority governments in previous elections (e.g., Jean Chrétien’s 38.5% in 1997 and Stephen Harper’s 39.6% in 2011). Despite this, the Conservatives did not form the government, underscoring the disparities inherent in the first-past-the-post system. This discrepancy between popular vote and seat allocation suggests that structural factors, beyond individual candidate appeal, play a significant role in election outcomes.
While voter sentiment undoubtedly influences election results, it’s essential to acknowledge the structural elements—such as boundary redistributions and ballot design—that can significantly impact outcomes. In the case of Carleton, these factors likely played a role in Pierre Poilievre’s defeat, and dismissing them oversimplifies the complexities of electoral dynamics.
Actually, I read the piece closely—which is exactly why I found it incomplete, not incorrect, but selectively framed.
Yes, Wally includes some data on added areas and historic voting patterns. What it doesn’t fully address is voter familiarity with the incumbent, Poilievre, in the new areas, or the short runway he had to engage with them. Redistribution isn’t just about raw partisan history—it’s about name recognition, voter mobilization, and changes to campaign strategy with little lead time. In already highly liberal areas. That’s political reality, not denial.
Parties and affiliated groups routinely submit proposals during redistribution. That’s not a conspiracy—it’s literally how the process works. Elections Canada itself invites MPs, parties, and the public to submit feedback, and it becomes part of the record. You can check the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario’s public consultation records to confirm that all major parties weighed in, including the Liberals and NDP.
The impact of a 91-candidate ballot definitely fragmented and confused and distorted the process—not just siphon a few votes, but clutter the ballot and suppress clarity. No other candidate in the country had to run against a literal protest tactic disguised as a ballot.
So yes—facts do matter. But all of them, not just the ones that support your conclusion.
the process is heavily influenced by public submissions—often orchestrated by political parties trying to shape outcomes in their favour. In Carleton, Liberal-aligned groups absolutely pushed for boundary changes that diluted Conservative strongholds by adding suburban and rural areas with different voting patterns. That’s political strategy 101—done through “independent” processes but driven by partisan advocacy.
A closer examination reveals that this perspective overlooks critical factors that likely impacted the election outcome.
1. Boundary Changes Significantly Altered the Riding’s Composition
The 2022 federal electoral redistribution brought substantial changes to the Carleton riding. Notably, it lost the suburban neighborhood of Findlay Creek, which had previously voted 60–70% Liberal, and gained rural areas from Kanata-Carleton, traditionally Conservative strongholds. While these changes might appear to balance out, the addition of new areas introduced voters unfamiliar with Poilievre, potentially affecting his support base. Moreover, the redistribution’s timing meant that Poilievre had limited opportunity to engage with these new constituents before the election.  
2. The 90-Candidate Ballot Introduced Unprecedented Complexity
The presence of 91 candidates on the Carleton ballot, a record in Canadian federal elections, was not a mere coincidence. This “Longest Ballot” initiative aimed to protest the first-past-the-post system by overwhelming the ballot. While the total votes for independent candidates were relatively low, the sheer number of names could have caused confusion among voters, potentially leading to ballot errors or voter fatigue. Such factors, while difficult to quantify, can influence election outcomes, especially in closely contested ridings. 
3. National Vote Share vs. Seat Distribution Highlights Systemic Issues
Nationally, the Conservative Party secured approximately 41.27% of the popular vote in 2025, surpassing the vote shares that led to majority governments in previous elections (e.g., Jean Chrétien’s 38.5% in 1997 and Stephen Harper’s 39.6% in 2011). Despite this, the Conservatives did not form the government, underscoring the disparities inherent in the first-past-the-post system. This discrepancy between popular vote and seat allocation suggests that structural factors, beyond individual candidate appeal, play a significant role in election outcomes.
While voter sentiment undoubtedly influences election results, it’s essential to acknowledge the structural elements—such as boundary redistributions and ballot design—that can significantly impact outcomes. In the case of Carleton, these factors likely played a role in Pierre Poilievre’s defeat, and dismissing them oversimplifies the complexities of electoral dynamics.
A closer examination reveals you just ignored this detailed factual analysis because it didn’t agree with your pre-determined conclusion.
It includes the added areas and voting patterns.
You offered no evidence to back your claim about public submissions.
Facts matter. You have none.
Actually, I read the piece closely—which is exactly why I found it incomplete, not incorrect, but selectively framed.
Yes, Wally includes some data on added areas and historic voting patterns. What it doesn’t fully address is voter familiarity with the incumbent, Poilievre, in the new areas, or the short runway he had to engage with them. Redistribution isn’t just about raw partisan history—it’s about name recognition, voter mobilization, and changes to campaign strategy with little lead time. In already highly liberal areas. That’s political reality, not denial.
Parties and affiliated groups routinely submit proposals during redistribution. That’s not a conspiracy—it’s literally how the process works. Elections Canada itself invites MPs, parties, and the public to submit feedback, and it becomes part of the record. You can check the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario’s public consultation records to confirm that all major parties weighed in, including the Liberals and NDP.
The impact of a 91-candidate ballot definitely fragmented and confused and distorted the process—not just siphon a few votes, but clutter the ballot and suppress clarity. No other candidate in the country had to run against a literal protest tactic disguised as a ballot.
So yes—facts do matter. But all of them, not just the ones that support your conclusion.
the process is heavily influenced by public submissions—often orchestrated by political parties trying to shape outcomes in their favour. In Carleton, Liberal-aligned groups absolutely pushed for boundary changes that diluted Conservative strongholds by adding suburban and rural areas with different voting patterns. That’s political strategy 101—done through “independent” processes but driven by partisan advocacy.