Longest Ballot Committee
@longestballot.bsky.social
Having fun breaking records while pointing out that politicians shouldn't be in charge of their own ethics & election rules😃
Want to vote for yourself? (It's free) Write us at longestballot@gmail.com
Want to vote for yourself? (It's free) Write us at longestballot@gmail.com
Reposted by Longest Ballot Committee
What they SHOULD'VE zoomed-in on was the book I was holding in my right hand. Page 175 is shown below...
October 31, 2025 at 12:21 PM
What they SHOULD'VE zoomed-in on was the book I was holding in my right hand. Page 175 is shown below...
🧵4/4 This has been a good lesson on the dangers of photoshop, misinformation, and malicious politics.
What has surprised us most is just how easily a random bozo on Youtube fooled dozens of MPs.
The LBC will continue to take great pride in our spotless record and strict observance of election law❤️
What has surprised us most is just how easily a random bozo on Youtube fooled dozens of MPs.
The LBC will continue to take great pride in our spotless record and strict observance of election law❤️
October 26, 2025 at 2:47 AM
🧵4/4 This has been a good lesson on the dangers of photoshop, misinformation, and malicious politics.
What has surprised us most is just how easily a random bozo on Youtube fooled dozens of MPs.
The LBC will continue to take great pride in our spotless record and strict observance of election law❤️
What has surprised us most is just how easily a random bozo on Youtube fooled dozens of MPs.
The LBC will continue to take great pride in our spotless record and strict observance of election law❤️
🧵3/4The good news is we have the original unedited photo! The forms are still blurry, but you can definitely make out where the name is.
And...by a stroke of luck we also held on to the original forms featured in the photo😀 (though we won't be sharing those on a bluesky post)
And...by a stroke of luck we also held on to the original forms featured in the photo😀 (though we won't be sharing those on a bluesky post)
October 26, 2025 at 2:47 AM
🧵3/4The good news is we have the original unedited photo! The forms are still blurry, but you can definitely make out where the name is.
And...by a stroke of luck we also held on to the original forms featured in the photo😀 (though we won't be sharing those on a bluesky post)
And...by a stroke of luck we also held on to the original forms featured in the photo😀 (though we won't be sharing those on a bluesky post)
🧵2/4
Northern Perspective worked hard to get their accusation known, repeating it many times on their Youtube Channel during the Battle River Crowfoot Byelection. Their edited photo even made it to parliament: Below is MP Michael Cooper holding up the image they manipulated.
Northern Perspective worked hard to get their accusation known, repeating it many times on their Youtube Channel during the Battle River Crowfoot Byelection. Their edited photo even made it to parliament: Below is MP Michael Cooper holding up the image they manipulated.
October 26, 2025 at 2:47 AM
🧵2/4
Northern Perspective worked hard to get their accusation known, repeating it many times on their Youtube Channel during the Battle River Crowfoot Byelection. Their edited photo even made it to parliament: Below is MP Michael Cooper holding up the image they manipulated.
Northern Perspective worked hard to get their accusation known, repeating it many times on their Youtube Channel during the Battle River Crowfoot Byelection. Their edited photo even made it to parliament: Below is MP Michael Cooper holding up the image they manipulated.
The "1 official agent per candidate" proposal (not one OA per candidate per riding, which would specifically target us) is particularly devious:
bsky.app/profile/long...
bsky.app/profile/long...
1/3 Last week at PROC, profs lined up to support the "1 candidate/OA" proposal. What caught our attention was that they are not proposing 1 candidate/per OA/per riding. To get a better grasp on why they are so interested in this change we took a look at the 2025 election returns...
October 16, 2025 at 10:51 PM
The "1 official agent per candidate" proposal (not one OA per candidate per riding, which would specifically target us) is particularly devious:
bsky.app/profile/long...
bsky.app/profile/long...
Reposted by Longest Ballot Committee
Yet more manufactured outrage. This talking point relies on the fact that most Canadians won't really know, or understand what an OA actually does.
As someone who was, years ago, a campaign manager for an independent candidate, there is no reason an OA cannot rep multiple candidates.
As someone who was, years ago, a campaign manager for an independent candidate, there is no reason an OA cannot rep multiple candidates.
October 14, 2025 at 6:14 PM
Yet more manufactured outrage. This talking point relies on the fact that most Canadians won't really know, or understand what an OA actually does.
As someone who was, years ago, a campaign manager for an independent candidate, there is no reason an OA cannot rep multiple candidates.
As someone who was, years ago, a campaign manager for an independent candidate, there is no reason an OA cannot rep multiple candidates.
3/3 Just another very obvious example of why MPs shouldn't be in charge of their own election rules.😀
October 14, 2025 at 4:02 PM
3/3 Just another very obvious example of why MPs shouldn't be in charge of their own election rules.😀
2/3 As you can see from the results below, sharing OA's is very common. It is disproportionally relied on by the NDP, Green and PPC.
The PROC experts likely had zero clue about this reality, so it's unfortunate their eager endorsements have given a non-partisan cover to a very partisan rule change
The PROC experts likely had zero clue about this reality, so it's unfortunate their eager endorsements have given a non-partisan cover to a very partisan rule change
October 14, 2025 at 4:02 PM
2/3 As you can see from the results below, sharing OA's is very common. It is disproportionally relied on by the NDP, Green and PPC.
The PROC experts likely had zero clue about this reality, so it's unfortunate their eager endorsements have given a non-partisan cover to a very partisan rule change
The PROC experts likely had zero clue about this reality, so it's unfortunate their eager endorsements have given a non-partisan cover to a very partisan rule change