A Two-Party Illusion

Alright Canada, let‘s have a real conversation. No party talking points. No screaming matches in the comments. Just a genuine, no-bull discussion about what’s happening as we head into this election.

Because honestly? I fear a lot of us are walking into this one completely misinformed - not because we’re stupid, but because we’ve been fed so much garbage in the media, social media, and our own echo chambers that we don’t even know what’s real anymore.

We’re stuck in this weird, Americanized version of politics where people act like there are only two choices: Poilievre or Carney. The second anyone suggests voting for another party, they’re met with eye rolls, accusations of “throwing away” their vote, or outright hostility.

But Canada is not a two-party system. It never has been. And if we actually voted the way our democracy was intended, we’d have a very different political landscape.

I don’t know when exactly it happened, but somewhere along the way, we stopped treating politics as a means to elect people who represent our interests and started treating it like a cult.

Watch how people talk about their preferred party or leader. It’s not “I agree with some of their policies, but I have concerns about others.” It’s full-on devotion. Worship. Defending every mistake, dodging every valid criticism, and parroting whatever their side’s media outlet tells them.

The news doesn’t help. You flip on CBC or CTV, and they treat the Liberals like the default good guys, glossing over scandals and failures as though they’re minor inconveniences. Switch to the National Post or Rebel News, and suddenly Pierre Poilievre is Canada’s savior, here to save us from “woke madness” and “Trudeau’s destruction.”

Neither is true. And if you get all your information from these sources, you’re not informed - you’re indoctrinated.

Then there’s the social media effect. Algorithms don’t care about truth; they care about engagement. And nothing engages like outrage.

Facebook & Twitter (I still refuse to call it X) are echo chambers. You’re either in a far-right bubble where Trudeau is the literal devil or a left-wing bubble where Poilievre is a fascist dictator waiting to happen.

Tik Tok & Instagram are a nightmare of AI-generated content and misleading memes designed to trigger emotional responses, not critical thought.

Youtube & Podcasts are where nuance can exist, but more often users get sucked into a rabbit hole, leading to hyper-partisan narratives.

And the result? People are walking into this election with completely skewed perceptions of reality.

Let’s talk about facts. Here’s a real one:

For years, Canada prided itself on being a country that welcomes immigrants with open arms, offering opportunities while maintaining a balance between growth and sustainability. But in the last few years, immigration policy has spiraled out of control, not because immigration itself is bad, but because the Liberals mismanaged it so catastrophically that we’re now facing both an identity crisis and housing crisis. Instead of implementing policies that ensure sustainable integration - balancing newcomers with housing availability, healthcare access, and job markets - the Liberals threw open the floodgates with loose criteria and no real infrastructure to support the influx. The result? Over a million new arrivals in a country that was already struggling to house its existing residents. Even Justin Trudeau recently admitted his government made a mistake, quietly shifting course and capping international student visas. But it’s too little, too late - rent is at record highs, homelessness is increasing, and now, immigration itself is unfairly becoming the scapegoat for Liberal incompetence, fueling political division instead of productive solutions.

On the flip side, Pierre Poilievre isn’t just some populist firebrand yelling about gatekeepers. He’s actually one of the few MPs who has consistently pushed for housing reform - long before it became a hot-button issue.

Years before he was Conservative leader, Poilievre was criticizing restrictive zoning laws and the bureaucracy preventing new housing developments. He was talking about supply issues when other politicians were still focused on foreign buyers. And yet, the media rarely gives him credit for being ahead of the curve on this.

One of the most ironic twists in this election cycle is how much of Poilievre’s campaign messaging - initially dismissed by the Liberals as “right-wing nonsense” - has now become Mark Carney’s talking points. For the past two years, Poilievre hammered the Liberals over inflation, housing failures, and the Bank of Canada’s mismanagement. He was ridiculed, called a fear monger, and accused of not understanding economics. Fast forward to today, and Carney is now openly admitting that Trudeau’s policies fueled inflation, that housing affordability is a national crisis, and that the Bank of Canada needs to course-correct - which is exactly what Poilievre has been saying all along. And let’s not forget about Carney’s empty gesture to ‘axe the tax’. It’s almost comical. The very same policies the Liberals mocked as “Conservative scare tactics” are now being adopted as though they were Carney’s ideas all along. The question is: If the Liberals now agree with Poilievre’s criticism, why should voters trust the people who created the mess instead of the guy who called it out first?

Pierre Poilievre is many things - calculated, strategic, a master of political messaging. But when it comes to gender issues, his stance has been a little murky, and that should concern Canadians. Unlike past Conservative leaders who made their positions on 2SLGBTQIA+ rights and gender policies clear - whether you agreed with them or not - in a terrible ‘interview’ where he was asked about their being more than 2 genders, he was vague and dismissive, and let’s be honest, quite rude. And in today’s political climate, where gender debates have become a cultural battleground, vagueness isn’t neutrality - it’s a tactic. I mean, thank the stars he clarified afterward that he believes the federal government should mind its own business in such matters, but again, it could be too little, too late.

One thing I will say however, since Carney came in as the Liberals new golden boy, Pollievre has clearly changed his tactics (not his stances). I do appreciate that most times I hear him answer questions, first of all he accepts the question, and then he answers clearly. A lot of the media I’ve consumed with Carney, I’ve found he fumbles over his words and circles the question for so long I almost forget what it was in the first place. So who really is this character?

Mark Carney isn’t just a banker parachuted in from the UK. He has a record of economic leadership, but believing whether he successfully led the Bank of Canada through the 2008 financial crisis and later stabilising the Bank of England depends on who you talk to, and what you believe. And isn’t that frustrating?

He’s portrayed as a steady hand in turbulent economic times, but his background raises serious concerns - especially for Canadians who value transparency and consistency in leadership. His ties to Blackrock, one of the world’s most powerful investment firms, and his involvement with the Century Initiative, which pushes for Canada’s population to hit 100 million by 2100, suggest he’s more aligned with corporate global interests than everyday Canadians. Even more questionable is his hypocrisy on pipelines. Carney has directly invested in and supported pipeline projects around the world - including developing nations - yet he refuses to support new pipelines in Canada, citing environmental concerns. How does that make sense? If pipelines are acceptable in other countries, why not here, where we have some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world? Is he simply okay with ‘exploiting’ other countries for monetary gain? It’s a glaring contradiction that should make Canadains wonder: Is Carney really standing on principle, or is he just another elite who says one thing to voters and does another behind closed doors? Not to mention his ties to Brookfield. He’s now trying to sell us on the idea of our government building affordable homes for people, and it’s difficult not to worry that the contract won’t conveniently involve Brookfield in some way. Perhaps I’m being a little cynical or pessimistic, but haven’t ALL of our politicians over the last several years made us feel their positions are an opportunity to corner markets and build their own wealth?

The real issue here isn’t just misinformation about leaders - it’s that Canadians have been tricked into thinking they only have two choices. It doesn’t help that we, at least I, haven’t heard jack squat from the leaders of the Green or NDP Parties. Of course, that might not be completely their fault. It’s hard to compete for any of the spotlight when up against two huge whales like the Liberals and Conservatives, but still. I feel like this would have been an opportune time to shout from the rooftops that there is a third (or fourth) option. Especially with all of the anger and negativity surrounding both campaigns, but I digress.

The other challenge we face is that though our politics and campaigns have always had faces, or leaders, to provide faces for the parties - this one feels very different. I rarely hear or read about the Liberals, I read about Mark Carney, or Carney’s plan, or Carney’s administration. The same with Poilievre. It’s his party, they’re his goals, his intentions, his schemes. We seem to have lost ourselves and become more like the U.S.

But the reality is, we don’t elect prime ministers. We elect Members of Parliament in 338 separate ridings. And then the party with the most MPs forms the government - whether it’s a majority or minority. Imagine if enough Canadians voted outside the Liberal-Conservative binary? We’d likely see a dramatic shift in power.

Imagine a Canada where the NDP held more influence, pushing policies on healthcare and workers’ rights, the Greens had enough seats to demand real climate action, and independent candidates actually won ridings, forcing Parliament to focus on local issues.

Instead, we keep falling for the same trap: voting “strategically” instead of voting for what we actually believe in.

Not even this image shows all of the parties, or candidates, available in your area. Look it up!

We need to break out of the echo chamber. Read news from both sides, fact-check memes, and don’t let AI-generated garbage dictate our views. We need to research the candidates of all parties in our ridings - not just the big two. Look at platforms, candidates, and actual policies. Vote based on values, not fear. If enough people stop playing into the two-party game, the game changes.

We’re walking into this election like we’re zombies, repeating whatever our preferred media outlet told us, fighting each other over leaders instead of policies, and acting like we have no real choices.

But we do. We always have. We just have to use them.

Now, are we going to actually vote like an informed democracy? Or are we just going to let memes, media, and misinformation choose for us?

In a world flooded with misinformation, biased reporting, and social media echo chambers, it has never been harder to be truly informed - and that’s exhausting. It takes more effort than ever to sift through the noise, question sources, and seek out facts instead of just accepting what’s most loudly repeated. But isn’t it worth it? Isn’t the future of our country, our economy, our rights, and our values important enough to put in that effort? Because if we don’t, someone else will decide for us - and history shows that rarely works in our favor.

Ⓒ April 2025. Beki Lantos. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted in any form by any means without prior written permission of the author.