Bonnie Crombie stayed on as OLP leader, after not being elected, and with approval from the party.

The "they'll win anyways" wasn't my primary argument - it was an aside. My central point is that we need to break this cycle of strategic voting that keeps us locked in a broken system.

Let's examine your premise: when you say "splitting the vote only benefits conservatives," you're making two assumptions:

1. That preventing Conservatives from winning is the primary goal
2. That there's a meaningful difference between Liberals and Conservatives on democratic reform

But here's the reality: Liberals have promised PR since 1919 without delivering. Trudeau explicitly broke his promise after getting elected. Why would Carney be different?

As for "mental gymnastics" - the real gymnastics is convincing yourself that voting for a party that consistently blocks PR will somehow get us PR. That's like trying to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it.

The mathematical reality is that our current system distorts representation. Until we implement proportional representation, we'll be stuck in this strategic voting trap.

Look at our effective number of parties (2.76 in 2021) - it's declining due to Duverger's Law. We're heading toward American-style two-party polarization unless we change course.

The real question is: how many more elections will you vote for parties that block PR before realizing they'll never deliver it?

You make a fair point about connection mapping - with enough data points, you can create tenuous links between almost anything.

However, what matters isn't just the existence of connections but their nature, strength, and influence on policy. The concern isn't merely that Poilievre has connections (all politicians do), but rather the specific power dynamics these connections create in our democratic system.

Under our First-Past-the-Post system, a party can form a majority government with around 39% of the vote. This means corporate and wealthy interests only need to influence a relatively small portion of the electorate to gain 100% of governing power. This vulnerability is significantly reduced in proportional representation systems where coalition-building necessitates broader consensus.

The connection between corporate lobbying and our winner-take-all electoral system is precisely why many wealthy interests resist proportional representation - it dilutes their influence by making our democracy more resilient to capture.

Rather than focusing solely on Poilievre's connections, we should question why our electoral system makes it so profitable for special interests to influence so few decision-makers. A more proportional system would require influencing a much broader coalition.

There's a fundamental difference between the NDP and Liberals that's often overlooked: proportional representation.

The NDP consistently supports proportional representation, while the Liberals have repeatedly promised and abandoned it. This isn't a small policy disagreement - it's about whether every vote should count in our democracy.

The NDP's declining support is partly structural - our First-Past-the-Post system inherently punishes third parties through Duverger's Law. Canada's effective number of parties is already down to 2.76 and declining, pushing us toward a two-party system.

The Liberals are actually closer to the Conservatives than to the NDP on many issues. Remember when 107 Liberal MPs (68.6%) voted against a Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform?

The NDP's challenge isn't being "Liberal Light" - it's fighting against a system mathematically designed to eliminate parties beyond the big two.

Ok, let's get real.

The concept of "vote splitting" only exists within winner-take-all systems like FPTP. It's a logical fallacy created by the broken system itself.

"Vote splitting" assumes your vote belongs to a particular party unless you "waste" it elsewhere. But your vote belongs to you, not to any party. It's meant to express your democratic will.

Under proportional representation, there's no such thing as vote splitting because every vote counts toward representation. When you vote for what you believe in, you're not splitting anything - you're exercising your democratic right.

If you're concerned about "strategic voting," consider this: continuing to vote strategically for parties that refuse to implement PR perpetuates the very system that forces you to vote strategically. It's a vicious cycle.

The only wasted vote is one cast for a party that won't fix our democracy.

Also see: Poilievre’s ‘anti-elite’ Tories stack top council with corporate lobbyists. Nearly half of the Conservatives’ governing body are lobbyists for oil, pharma, real estate and anti-union companies | The Breach

Honestly, just vote for parties supporting PR. It's not vote splitting, because the LPC is still projected to win.

I honestly can’t vote for either.

I'll only vote for parties that suppose proportional representation.

We gotta be vocal about ending FPTP

We have to be vocal about getting proportional representation, let's not fall into that 2015 trap again.

Shoot I know the liberals picked Carney by ranked choice

I think IRV actually makes the most sense for single member "districts" (in this case, for a single leadership role). But a true democracy deserves proportional representation.

DeSmog notes:

Conservative party members several years ago voted down a resolution barring lobbyists from the council, as The Breach reported.

Corporate capture right in front of our eyes.

Also see: Canadian Owned and Operated Media.