A Closer Look at the 2025 PC Manitoba Leadership Vote
- kenrdrysdale
- Apr 27
- 12 min read
First, congratulations to each of the two leadership candidates for participating in a most intense and difficult process, Manitobans owe you a debt of gratitude for your dedication over the past 6 months.
We have spent a great deal of time and effort to understand what happened during the leadership election and this post presents the reader with our opinion based on an analysis of the available data.
Leadership Vote Rule Changes
At a January 2024 special meeting, the PC Party of Manitoba ratified new voting rules to be used in upcoming leadership elections. When political parties change the rules for leadership elections, members deserve transparency, not just about the procedures, but about the motivations and intentions behind those changes.
While members were told these changes would strengthen the grassroots voice and promote fairness, the results tell a very different story. In reality, the system was structured in a way that suppressed rural and grassroots influence, ensuring that centralized control remained firmly intact.
Throughout the 2024 Special Meeting and in the months that followed, we spoke with many members of the PC Party, and not a single one of them could clearly explain how the newly adopted voting system was supposed to work.
From what we observed, it appeared that only the Party administration truly understood the mechanics and implications of the new rules. Given their exclusive access to historical voting records and detailed riding turnout statistics, it is reasonable to conclude that the administration alone would have been able to accurately predict how the changes would affect the outcome of future leadership elections.
This leadership election technically complied with the new voting rules, but the spirit of democratic accountability was quietly undermined. In this post, we expose how the point system and voting method worked — and why many members now feel that the very foundation of grassroots participation within the Party has been compromised.
First Let's Review the Actual Results
Here is the Results Chart Provided on the PC Party of Manitoba Website:
Interesting enough, this document does not provide you with the totals, so below is a revised spreadsheet that provides you with the totals, and highlights a number of other items of interest.
Who Won and Why?
The PC Party of Manitoba announced that Obby Khan won the leadership election on Satruday April 26, 2025.
Overall Numbers
Total ballots processed = 6,750
Total valid votes = 6,750
Total votes per Candidate:
Obby Khan: 3,334
Wally Daudrich: 3,387
Total points awarded:
Obby Khan: 2,198.8
Wally Daudrich: 2,163.2
*We note that there were 29 "spoiled" votes cast.
Although Obby Khan has been declared the winner, Wally Daudrich actually got more votes than Obby Khan.
The candidate who won the election came out on top because the PC Party of Manitoba no longer decides the leadership of the party based on a one person one vote system.
For the first time in the history of the PC Party of Manitoba, the leader was not chosen based on who received the most votes from party members. Instead, the leadership race was decided by which candidate accumulated the most points under a complicated system that deliberately adjusted the value of individual votes. This new method abandoned the foundational principle that every member’s vote should carry equal weight (every voice matters), replacing it with a structure where some votes were diluted and others were artificially elevated, thereby fundamentally altering the meaning of democratic choice within the Party.
When the Points System Was Introduced
The points-based voting system used in the 2025 leadership election was officially adopted by the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba during a special meeting in January 2024.
Amendments to the Party’s Constitution at that meeting established the current structure:
A minimum of 100 points per riding, with the potential for higher point allocations in ridings with very high member turnout. In this election no riding qualified for more than a 100 point allocation.
These changes were presented to the membership as a way to balance regional representation with grassroots participation, ensuring that leadership elections reflected support from across Manitoba rather than just a few concentrated areas.
Based on this amendment, the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba leadership election used a "points per riding" system instead of simply counting total votes.
What is This New Points System?
Since the vote In January of 2024, when this new "Points System" was adopted by the PC Party of Manitoba, the subsequent elections would now be determined by this new standard of counting which did away with each vote simply be tallied on its own merit. It was through the use of this new "Points System" of voting that Obby was declared the winner, despite having received a lesser number of overall votes than his rival Wally Daudrich.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba leadership election used a "points per riding" system instead of simply counting total votes.
The candidate who accumulated the highest number of points — not necessarily the highest number of votes — was declared the winner of the election.
How Were the Points Allocated
Ridings were allocated a certain number of "points" based on the number of valid votes that were cast in the specific riding.
If there were less than 100 votes cast in the riding, points were allocated to the riding as 1 valid vote = 1 point.
If there were Over 100 valid votes cast in the riding, but less than 400 votes cast, the riding was still awarded 100 points.
If there was over 400 valid votes cast in the riding, but less than 700 votes cast, the riding was awarded 200 points.
There were additional levels of vote / point allocations for ridings that would recieve more than 700 votes, but no riding exceded 400 votes, so we have not presented these additional levels.
There are 57 ridings in total in Manitoba
In the 2025 PC Party leadership election, 29 ridings where fewer than 100 valid votes were cast were allocated points on a one point per valid vote basis.
For example, in the riding of Selkirk, 76 votes were cast, and as a result, 76 points were awarded. In Selkirk, every valid vote was worth exactly one point.
In contrast, 28 ridings, where between 100 and 400 votes were cast, were each allocated a fixed total of 100 points, regardless of the exact number of votes.
For example, in Interlake-Gimli, 234 votes were cast, but only 100 points were awarded. This meant that in Interlake-Gimli, it took approximately 2.34 votes to generate a single point.
Candidates received a proportional share of the points based on the number of votes they received in the riding.
Example 1: Riding with 100 points to Allocate
Interlake-Gimli had 234 ballots cast, and the riding was awarded 100 points to be split between the candidates.
The formula for allocating the 100 points between the candidates follows:
Points Allocated to Each Candidate Per Riding =
(Number of Votes Received / Total Number of Votes Cast) x 100 = Number of Points
Obby’s Points=(169/234)×100=72.2.
Wally’s Points=(65/234)×100=27.8
(Totalling 100 points.)
Spoiled or disqualified ballots were excluded from the point calculation (only valid votes were counted).
Here is the list of the constituencies with the highest voter turnout (200+):
Riding | Total Ballots (B) | Points Awarded (P) | Votes Required to Earn 1 Point |
Morden-Winkler | 354 | 100 | 3.54 |
Fort Whyte | 302 | 100 | 3.02 |
Borderland | 295 | 100 | 2.95 |
Tuxedo | 285 | 100 | 2.85 |
Spruce Woods | 268 | 100 | 2.68 |
Lakeside | 262 | 100 | 2.62 |
Waverley | 247 | 100 | 2.47 |
Interlake | 234 | 100 | 2.34 |
Turtle Mountain | 233 | 100 | 2.33 |
Roblin | 226 | 100 | 2.26 |
Dawson Trail | 220 | 100 | 2.20 |
In the table, we have compared the total number of ballots cast in the riding to the total number of points awarded in the riding. The column labelled "Votes Required to Earn 1 Point" demonstrates how many votes are required to earn a single point. As the number of votes received in the riding increases, the more diluted the vote becomes. We call this calculation "Value of a Point".
Although the new rules allowed for varying levels of points to be allocated to ridings with a vote count exceeding 400 votes cast, in reality no riding received more than 400 votes.
All ridings capped at 100 points or 1 point per valid vote.
What Does All Of This Mean
If you voted in a riding that had more than 100 votes cast, the value of your vote was downgraded.
Let's take Morden-Winkler as an example: Since there were 354 votes cast, the riding was allocated only 100 points. So each individual vote had a "point value" of 354/100 =3.54. In other words, in Morden-Winkler it took approximately 3.5 people (votes) to equal to one point, or essentially one credible vote.
As a comparison, there were 29 ridings where less than 100 people voted. In those ridings 1 vote = 1 point. So each individual vote had a "point value" of 1. In other words, each point represented 1 valid votes. So in this case, every vote mattered.
Looking at the St. Johns riding there were only 56 votes and St Johns riding was awarded 56 points.
This means that if you voted in the riding of St. Johns your vote earned more points than if you voted in Morden-Winkler. In Morden-Winkler 3.54 people needed to vote for each 1 point allocated, while in St. Johns, only 1 person needed to vote to earn 1 point. So a vote in St. Johns was 354% more valuable than a vote cast in Morden-winkler. (One could also say that if you voted in the St. John's riding you were valued as one whole person, but if you voted in the Morden-Winkler riding, you were valued as a third of a person.)
Urban vs Rural Classification
Now let's examine the split between Urban and Rural ridings to allow us to analyze if the intended purpose of ensuring "grassroots" representation of the party was the ultimate effect of this points system of voting.
Approximate breakdown:
About 24 ridings - urban (Winnipeg)
About 33 ridings - rural or small towns
Turnout Patterns Urban vs Rural
Urban ridings often had smaller turnout:
Some urban ridings had only 40-100 votes (e.g., Elmwood, St. Johns, Point Douglas).
Meanwhile, some rural ridings had very strong turnout:
Morden-Winkler (354 ballots)
Spruce Woods (268 ballots)
Lakeside (262 ballots)
Turtle Mountain (233 ballots)
Borderland (295 ballots)
Some rural ridings massively outperformed urban ridings in raw ballots cast!
Did the Points System Hurt Rural Ridings?
YES, THE POINT SYSTEM HURT RURAL RIDINGS
Here’s why:
Just to reitereate the point: Even if a rural riding turned out 354 ballots (like Morden-Winkler), it still only got 100 points — while a riding like St. Johns with 56 ballots got 56 points! Again, if you voted in St. Johns, your one vote was worth one point; if you voted in Morden-Winkler 3.54 people had to vote to earn 1 points. So the voter in St. Johns had 354% MORE INFLUENCE, than a voter in Morden-Winkler.
Thus, rural members who participated strongly had their votes diluted compared to urban members with lower turnout.
Rural grassroots enthusiasm (more ballots cast) was capped and had no extra weight.
Meanwhile, low-turnout urban ridings still got their full 100 points (or got one point = one vote).
Therefore, rural and grassroots efforts were disadvantaged as were areas that were highly motivated to vote.
High-turnout rural ridings could not leverage their organizing strength.
Strategic Summary
Element | Result |
High-turnout rural ridings | Disadvantaged — votes capped at 100 points |
Low-turnout urban ridings | Helped — got proportionally more weight |
Mass rural participation | Muted by the cap |
Who system favored | Candidates stronger in urban areas or with smaller, strategic organizing |
The 2025 points system disadvantaged rural "grassroots" areas.
The "fixed 100 points" rule helped low-turnout urban ridings punch above their weight.
Thus, the system suppressed the strength of rural ridings, despite large grassroots turnout.
What Would the PC Party Administration Have Known Ahead of Time?
Before setting the January 2024 constitutional amendments, the Party administration had full access to historical voter turnout data from previous leadership elections and current constituency membership levels. Based on this data, it is reasonable to conclude that:
Based on historical turnout data and past election results the Party administration would have clearly understood that the new point allocation system would dilute the strength of individual votes in high-turnout rural ridings. At the same time, they would have recognized that in small urban ridings — where fewer than 100 votes were often cast — the value of each individual vote would be disproportionately elevated under the 1 point per vote or 100-point allocation method.
The Party administration would also have realized that, by increasing the relative weight of votes in low-turnout urban ridings, and given the higher concentration of ridings in the Winnipeg area, the collective influence of these small, low-turnout, urban constituencies could overpower the larger number of votes coming from rural areas. In effect, the new system ensured that many small urban ridings — despite casting fewer total ballots — would collectively control the leadership outcome by diminishing the influence of the more numerous grassroots voters in rural Manitoba.
In short, the Party leadership would have known, with a high degree of certainty, that rural ridings could not realistically trigger the increased point allocations built into the new system.
The System Design: Intentional or Not?
The January 2024 point system, which established a minimum of 100 points per riding with scaling only after 400 ballots, had several predictable effects:
It set a threshold that most ridings could not realistically reach thereby effectively capping points for almost all constituencies at 100.
It guaranteed that low-turnout urban ridings would carry a much higher point weight as high-turnout rural ridings.
It diminished the influence of strong rural participation and enthusiasm.
It protected candidates who had stronger bases in urban or establishment-aligned areas.
The structure of the point system effectively muted the strength of rural ridings — which tend to be more grassroots, traditional, and less tied to centralized party leadership.
Thus, while the system was likely framed as a technical update to "balance" the vote, its practical impact was highly political and served to entrench urban and establishment advantages. In effect, it did the opposite of its proposed intent.
Could This Have Been Designed to Serve Administration Goals?
Given the predictable outcomes of the point system, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the Party administration could have intentionally structured the system in this way. Specifically:
They would have known that the system would cap rural riding influence regardless of high turnout.
They would have understood that low-turnout urban ridings would maintain disproportionate power.
They would have ensured that candidates with mass rural grassroots support would be less able to mount a winning challenge.
This is a classic political strategy: use technical rule changes to control outcomes while maintaining the appearance of fairness. In this case, the administration could achieve its preferred political outcome without appearing to directly manipulate the membership or the voting process.
Conclusion — In Plain Language
Would the Party administration have known that rural ridings could not hit 400 ballots?
Yes, very likely, based on the historical data in their possession.
Could they have reasonably foreseen that the system would mute the rural vote?
Yes, clearly.
Was the system neutral in its effect?
No. It systematically favored urban and establishment-oriented voting bases.
Could this be interpreted as a deliberate move to protect establishment interests and scale down or minimize grassroots influence?
Yes, very reasonably.
What This Means for Party Members and the Future
The 2025 leadership election raised serious concerns about how political organizations can manipulate their own internal processes, not by breaking the rules, but by writing additional rules to serve specific interests. Leadership selection is one of the most consequential decisions a party can make, and when the process is engineered in advance, the integrity of the outcome is inevitably compromised.
While concerns about the lack of preferential balloting were not relevant due to there being only two candidates, the handling of the points allocation system reveals a far deeper and more troubling issue.
The Party administration, with full knowledge of past voter turnout patterns and membership distributions, designed and implemented a system that effectively muted the rural grassroots base. By setting point thresholds that they knew rural ridings could not realistically meet, they guaranteed that every riding, regardless of turnout, would be capped at 100 points thereby affecting the voting outcome.
This was not an accidental oversight. It was a deliberate strategy to concentrate control, maintain the influence of the urban and establishment core, and suppress the rising strength of rural and grassroots members who might have steered the Party in a different direction.
For party members, the lesson is undeniable: Vigilance is not optional. It is not enough to trust that constitutional rules will serve fairness simply because they exist. Members must critically examine how rules are written, who benefits from them, and whether the spirit of democracy is truly being honored.
Moreover, very importantly, party leadership must be held to delivering a thorough and comprehensive explanation for every new change or implementation of new rules. There should be no outstanding or ignored questions before any new rule is passed. Members must be vigilant to enforce tranparency and accountability otherwise the membership risks losing meaningful control over the very future of the Party.
As the PC Party of Manitoba moves forward, members must insist that both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution are respected. Anything less threatens not only the credibility of leadership contests but the very foundation of grassroots democracy within the Party itself.
Want to learn more, Download the PC Party of Manitoba Constitution below:
Stay Engaged — Your Voice Matters
As members of Manitoba Stronger Together, it is vital that we continue to engage, ask questions, and expect transparency from every political party and organization. The strength of democracy lies not just in the rules that are written, but in the vigilance of the people who hold leaders accountable to them. By staying informed and involved, we help ensure that the principles of fairness, openness, and respect for the grassroots remain at the heart of political life in Manitoba.
Kommentare