I said legitimate opponent. Meaning she seems like a good person for the job. Not that she was a serious contender with a chance to win.
She’s an independent not an LPC or CPC member so you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Name recognition is the single most important factor in being elected. It’s factually incorrect to suggest that there would be no difference between a few independent candidates and over 100.
At the end of the day what does LBC stand for if they’re undermining legitimate independent candidates?
If they’re a serious contender, then it shouldn’t matter how many people are on the ballot; their supporters will be voting for them by name.
Just like the LBC didn’t affect the end result in Carlton, it won’t make a huge difference here either.
I said legitimate opponent. Meaning she seems like a good person for the job. Not that she was a serious contender with a chance to win.
She’s an independent not an LPC or CPC member so you’re comparing apples to oranges.
Name recognition is the single most important factor in being elected. It’s factually incorrect to suggest that there would be no difference between a few independent candidates and over 100.
At the end of the day what does LBC stand for if they’re undermining legitimate independent candidates?
If you don’t think she has a serious chance to win, then I’m not sure I understand what the complaint is here. What “harm” are they causing?
The stand for electoral reform (and against the first-past-the-post voting system).