I was having a beer on the weekend with a friend who backed Maxime Bernier in the recent Conservative Party of Canada leadership contest. He had a long list of reasons to explain why his horse lost in a photo-finish. Many of his complaints revolved around the way the leadership election system was designed to work — with ridings in Labrador and northern Quebec with dozens of members having as much clout as his own riding in Alberta, with thousands of members.

But he also cited irregularities in the process itself that he believes may have cost Max the prize — missing ballots, voters denied a vote because of traffic jams around the Toronto Convention Center. Some in the Bernier camp have been questioning the integrity of the vote and — until today, at least — were “demanding answers.”

There is an apparent discrepancy between the ballots cast and the number of CPC members who claim to have cast them. The discrepancy is reported to be a little over 7,000. More ballots cast than people to cast them — that’s how elections are won in banana republics. Former candidate Kevin O’Leary (not a man known for measured responses) has called for a recount. Small chance of that; all of the ballots have been destroyed.

Managing an undertaking of this magnitude, using mostly volunteer labour, is always going to be daunting. Mistakes are inevitable. But the party must be able to defend both the system and the validity of the result. Leadership contests are inherently divisive. If there is any insinuation that the process was contaminated, anything to suggest the results might be suspect, schism will replace unification.

And matters were surely moving in that direction until late Tuesday/early Wednesday, when Bernier himself, and supporters Tony Clement and Kory Teneycke, all took to social media to reaffirm (or at least affirm) their “unconditional” support for Andrew Scheer as undisputed leader of the CPC.

Why are the wagons suddenly being circled? Common sense.

Any cloud over Scheer’s leadership severely comprises his ability to hold the government to account as he tries to nurture a relationship with Canadian voters — most of whom have no idea who he is. Any cloud over Scheer’s leadership severely comprises his ability to hold the government to account as he tries to nurture a relationship with Canadian voters — most of whom have no idea who he is.

Dan Nowlan, chairperson of the leadership organizing committee, confirmed that it is over. The auditing firm Deloitte has signed off on the final result (although, as the Globe and Mail points out, Deloitte was never tasked by the party with auditing the result). “That’s it. No appeal. It’s very clear in the rules,” said Nowlan.

Bernier can in no way be seen to be challenging the outcome — and likely now regrets saying that he wants “answers” from the party. He and his team probably deserve those answers. They’re still not going to get them.

For Bernier, there is no upside to fruitlessly demanding action on this. There’s a very obvious downside, as well: If he should keep beating this drum, he will be demonized within the party as a malcontent, as someone who is not a ‘team player’.

I have witnessed local nomination contests that have ended up in court. I’m grateful I was never involved in one. Such conflicts always turn into protracted exercises in the public airing of dirty laundry. Irregularities are sometimes proven; seldom do they change the results. Often the matter becomes moot because an actual election arrives before the results of the contested nomination can be determined in our gridlocked judicial system.

Many parties and riding associations now require that candidates sign non-litigation agreements to spare everyone the ignominy. No riding association or party wants its misdeeds and errors put on public display. So Bernier’s supporters will not get any “answers” they don’t already have.

That’s likely for the best. We are less than two and a half years away from the next federal election. Any cloud over Scheer’s leadership severely comprises his ability to hold the government to account as he tries to nurture a relationship with Canadian voters — most of whom have no idea who he is.

Better to take one for the team. I am reminded of Al Gore in 2000, who — notwithstanding numerous irregularities in the deciding state of Florida — decided not to contest. I think he sincerely believed that the damage uncertainty over the election results would do to the nation was a far bigger threat than reported issues with the count. He took one for Team America.

Now, CPC insiders are asking Bernier and his crew to take one for Team CPC. And they will.

Parliament likely will rise next week. Over the summer recess, Scheer will be assembling his shadow cabinet and then his election team for 2019. Certainly, Bernier and Clement want to be part of the former; Teneycke likely wants some paid role in the latter.

There might be something magnanimous behind the Bernier camp’s sudden expressions of loyalty to their new leader. But self interest is playing a significant role here as well. Bernier can’t change the result — and he doesn’t want to be on the outside looking in after the dust settles.

Party leaders use both the carrot and the stick to keep caucuses in line — but it’s the carrots that hold the party together. My friend and Kevin O’Leary, however, might continue to snipe from the cheap seats. There are only so many carrots.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.