Doug Ford called an early election February 27, citing the need for a “strong mandate” against Trump’s tariffs. Critics argue it was a distraction from the ongoing RCMP investigation into his government’s Greenbelt land swap, where select developers stood to gain over $8 billion. The RCMP launched the probe in October 2023 after the Auditor General exposed flaws in the process. With the investigation still active, many suspect Ford’s snap election aimed to deflect attention before further revelations emerged.
Although a “historic victory,” the election results suggest a different reality. Instead of securing greater support, Ford’s Progressive Conservatives actually lost seats, dropping from the 83 they won in 2022 to 80. While he still maintained a majority government, the outcome did not indicate a surge in public endorsement. Meanwhile, the NDP remained the official opposition despite losing four seats, from 31 to 27. The Ontario Liberals, while still a distant third, made gains by increasing their seat count from 8 to 14, regaining official party status.
Despite the Liberals earning 29.95% of the popular vote compared to the NDP’s 18.55%, Ontario’s first-past-the-post system left them with fewer seats. This highlights a broader issue with the province’s electoral system, where seat distribution does not always reflect the actual vote share. If Ontario had proportional representation, the combined vote share of the Liberals, NDP, and Greens, together accounting for a significant portion of the electorate, might have led to a different government outcome. Instead, Ford’s majority, with a plurality of the vote, was secured mainly because the opposition remained divided, allowing his party to govern with less than half of the overall vote despite losing seats.
The legitimacy of Ford’s “strong mandate” is further weakened by the low voter turnout. Just 45.4% of eligible Ontarians cast a ballot, a slight increase from the record-low 43.5% in 2022, but still a troubling figure. More than half of the province did not participate in the election, meaning Ford’s continued governance is due more to opposition fragmentation and voter disengagement than an enthusiastic endorsement from the public. When a party can hold power despite winning the support of only a fraction of eligible voters, it raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of Ontario’s electoral process. Locally, voter turnout in Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry (SDSG) was slightly lower than the 2025 provincial average at 43.97%. In comparison, the more competitive race in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell resulted in a voter turnout of 48.37%, slightly above the provincial average.
While Ford centered his campaign on the potential economic impact of Trump’s tariffs, other major issues that directly affect Ontarians were pushed into the background. Housing affordability and homelessness continue to be major crises, yet these concerns received little attention in the election. Healthcare remains under strain, with staffing shortages and concerns over privatization, yet there was no significant focus on solutions during the campaign. Education and post-secondary institutions are also facing funding challenges, but the election discourse largely ignored these realities. By making the tariff issue the central theme of his campaign, Ford avoided addressing some of the most pressing problems in Ontario.
The results of this election reinforce the argument for electoral reform or greater opposition unity. Ontario’s first-past-the-post system consistently rewards parties that benefit from a divided opposition. If proportional representation were implemented, seats would be distributed more fairly, ensuring that the overall composition of the legislature reflects the actual votes cast. In 2007, Ontario held a referendum on adopting a mixed-member proportional (MMP) system, but 63% of voters rejected it, largely due to a lack of public awareness, weak political support, and a high 60% approval threshold.
Many Ontarians found the MMP system confusing, and major parties did not actively campaign for it, making the status quo more appealing. For proportional representation to succeed in the future, a stronger public education campaign, broader political backing, and a lower approval threshold would be crucial. Additionally, introducing a simpler proportional representation model—such as ranked ballots or a regional proportional system—could make the transition less intimidating for voters, increasing the likelihood of public acceptance. Addressing voter concerns and ensuring clearer communication on the benefits of electoral reform would further improve its chances in a future referendum.
Without reform, opposition parties may need to merge or work more collaboratively to avoid further vote-splitting. While the Liberals, NDP, and Greens have policy differences, they share far more in common than they do with the Progressive Conservatives. They all support climate action, affordable housing, public healthcare, and stronger worker protections. The federal Progressive Conservatives and Alliance/Reform party successfully merged in 2003 to become the Conservative Party, preventing right-wing vote-splitting and enabling long-term electoral success as seen with the Harper government. Ontario’s progressive parties should consider whether a similar strategy is necessary to prevent Ford from continuing to govern by default.
The 2025 snap election did not deliver the stronger mandate Ford claimed to need. Instead, he lost seats, spent $189 million in taxpayer money, and held an election that ultimately changed very little. Meanwhile, the key issues that Ontarians face — affordable housing, healthcare, and education — remain unresolved. If the opposition continues to remain divided and fails to push for electoral reform, Ford’s PCs may continue winning without majority public support. Ontario cannot afford another election where disengagement and a broken electoral system dictate the outcome. Whether through proportional representation or a more unified opposition, change is needed. Otherwise, Ontarians may find themselves in the same position four years from now, wondering if anything has really changed.
