By Phil Henderson
With another election come and gone, I think it's time that we as a society have a conversation about the problem of our ballot.

Before you turn the page, no, this is not another harangue about the evils of first-past-the-post. (Although it is an awful system, that compounds the problem I want to address, and it should be abandoned). Enough ink will be spent on that issue in the coming months that I can focus on another topic.

We think of voting as single action: marking an 'x' beside the name of the candidate we feel best represents our interests. But every ballot has a second, more subtle, effect when it is cast. Embedded in every individual ballot is a tacit endorsement of the result of the collective balloting process. Put differently, when I cast my ballot not only do I affirm a candidate, but I also affirm the results of the election - regardless of who wins.

Now, this is all well and good - in theory. In theory we should be able to trust the electorate to cast their ballots for respectable candidates who will uphold the civic responsibilities of the nation. But in practice we know that this is often not the case.

The campaign that has just ended saw the (re)election of several candidates who have indicated nothing short of contempt for the basic foundations of our civil system. To list a few notable cases, various victorious candidates have: questioned the separation of church and state, suggested that immigrants who desire to practice their faith should stay where they came from, and indicated that 'lack of a job' is the most likely reason why indigenous women and girls are murdered or go missing, Yes, each person responsible for these statements was elected.

And herein lies the fallacy of our ballot: because we cast a vote at all - even against these candidates - we have each of us indicated that we accept the validity of their victory. Play this out on a national scale. This means that, because I cast a ballot in 2011, I affirmed that the Harper government was duly elected and could justifiably exercise its legislative agenda. Indeed, every single ballot cast in 2011 was a tacit affirmation of the government that systematically undermined Canadian democracy at every turn.

C-51, the (un)Fair Elections Act, assaults on scientists and activists, and a new crusade in the Middle East - to name a few. Our ballot gave us no protection against these excesses of the legislature. We can only be thankful that the tireless work of the judiciary was able to curb the most egregious elements in this assault. But remember, at the end of the day the Supreme Court justices must be appointment by the sitting Prime Minister. Harper lost that struggle, but only just.

I do not mean, despite my tone, to disparage the entire voting process. Only to suggest that it is more deeply flawed than we might wish to recognize. I must say, despite having cast a ballot and having done so with conviction, that I find it hard to stomach the result - particularly on the local level. I find myself unable to come to terms with a system that can invest authority in a figure who has repeatedly alienated large swaths of the population, and who shows neither remorse nor indeed recognition of the fact that his statements fuel an atmosphere of hatred and aversion.

The ballot should protect us from such clear abuse of power, we cannot rely on the good will of politicians to appoint good judges. That we are not protected from its potential to produce the very antithesis of democracy is the problem of our ballot.