Can We Trust Canada’s Election Process After the Liberal Leadership Fiasco?

Officially Posted Results From Liberal Party Of Canada

By Roberta Buckridge

On March 9, 2025, Mark Carney was crowned the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, securing an overwhelming 85.9% of the vote in a leadership race that promised to be a model of modern democracy. Yet, beneath the surface of this decisive victory lies a troubling controversy that casts a shadow over the integrity of the party’s electronic voting system—and raises broader questions about whether Canadians can trust the federal election process as we approach a national vote on April 28, 2025. The Liberal leadership race, marred by technical glitches, voter disenfranchisement, and allegations of manipulation, serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of prioritizing security over accessibility and transparency in electoral systems.

A Flawed Process Under Scrutiny

The Liberal Party billed its online voting system as the "most secure and accessible" in Canadian history, a bold claim meant to reassure members amid heightened concerns about foreign interference. Partnering with Canada Post, the party implemented an identity verification process requiring voters to use the Canada Post Identity+ app or visit a post office to confirm their eligibility. What followed, however, was a cascade of failures. Many registered Liberals—particularly older or less tech-savvy members—struggled with the app’s clunky interface, unable to scan IDs or complete the process. Others faced inexplicable rejections, while in-person verification faltered as unprepared postal staff left voters in limbo.

The numbers tell a stark story: of the 400,000 registered Liberals, only 163,836 passed the authentication hurdle, and just 151,899 cast ballots—a participation rate of less than 40%. This dramatic drop-off, coupled with the disqualification of 250,000 members under opaque criteria, sparked outrage. Critics, including disqualified candidate Ruby Dhalla, alleged that the system may have been rigged to favor Carney, pointing to her claim of 100,000 sidelined supporters and the suspiciously lopsided vote tally. The lack of transparency around candidate disqualifications—like Dhalla’s for "serious violations" and Chandra Arya’s for undisclosed reasons—only fueled suspicions of internal meddling.

Security vs. Democracy: A Dangerous Trade-Off?

The Liberal Party’s stringent measures were ostensibly a response to real threats, including a public inquiry into foreign interference and a specific warning about a China-linked operation targeting candidate Chrystia Freeland. But in fortifying the process against external manipulation, the party may have opened the door to a different kind of vulnerability: internal control. Political analyst Jamie Carroll argues that while safeguarding elections is critical, the reliance on an untested Canada Post system created a bottleneck that disproportionately excluded legitimate voters—raising the possibility that the outcome was shaped less by grassroots will and more by design.

Could this have been manipulated? The evidence is circumstantial but troubling. The verification process’s complexity and the high disqualification rate suggest that those controlling the system—whether party officials or technical administrators—could have influenced who participated. Without clear public accountability for how eligibility was determined or why turnout plummeted, the process lacks the transparency needed to dispel doubts. Carney’s landslide victory, while not inherently suspect, feels less convincing against this backdrop of restricted access and unanswered questions.

Implications for April 28

The federal election is indeed called for April 28, 2025, the Liberal leadership debacle offers a sobering preview of what could go wrong on a national scale. Canada’s electoral system, overseen by Elections Canada, is more robust than a party’s internal vote, with established safeguards like paper ballots and manual verification options. Yet, the push toward digital solutions—evident in the Liberals’ experiment—is a growing trend. The federal government has explored online voting in the past, and while it’s not yet implemented, the Liberal race shows how such systems can falter under pressure.

The broader concern is trust. Elections Canada enjoys a strong reputation, but public confidence can erode quickly when flaws are exposed. If a national vote adopts even a fraction of the Liberal system’s reliance on third-party tech or convoluted authentication, we risk alienating voters and inviting skepticism about the results. The Liberal race’s low turnout and allegations of exclusion underscore a fundamental tension: elections must balance security with inclusivity, and tipping too far in either direction undermines legitimacy.

Should We Still Trust the Process?

For now, Canada’s federal election process remains distinct from the Liberal Party’s troubled experiment, and there’s no direct evidence that April 28—will mirror this mess. Elections Canada’s track record suggests it can deliver a fair outcome, even amid challenges. But the Liberal leadership race is a wake-up call: flawed systems can be exploited, intentionally or not, and opacity breeds distrust. To maintain faith in democracy, any move toward digital voting must prioritize simplicity, accessibility, and transparency—qualities the Liberal process sorely lacked.

As Canadians, we should trust the federal system until proven otherwise, but vigilance is warranted. The Liberal fiasco reminds us that even well-intentioned innovations can backfire, and the stakes are too high to take that lesson lightly. On April 28, we deserve a process that doesn’t just promise fairness but proves it beyond doubt. Anything less risks turning trust into a casualty of progress.

Roberta Buckridge is a freelance journalist and writer for Veritas Expositae

You can reach her at roberta.buckridge@veritasexpositae.com