Evening Star

That's a different question than the one I was asking. (I know the answer to this one.) I just have a suspicion that Liberals promote 'strategic' voting as a way to boost Liberal support. I don't remember seeing as many Liberals insisting that strategically voting NDP was a necessity a couple of weeks ago.

I guess this is also my issue: the method only works on a riding-by-riding level and, to be even remotely effective and not just a Liberal bullying tactic, would require that people keep up with riding-level polling information on a regular basis, which most people do not do. When 'strategic' voting is promoted as a national strategy, I am not sure that everyone can be expected to do this. I would be more in favour of just promoting greater education and involvement in the election process. Somehow, I don't remember seeing as many calls for strategic voting when the NDP was leading or even when the parties were tied. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Why not? There were still 'stronger bets' in individual ridings. Is it just because we're closer to the election? I have doubts.

Strategic voting is usually based on the assumption that FPTP is flawed and unrepresentative and that one needs to vote strategically in order to work around its limitations. Presumably, if you think FPTP works, you are less likely to support a voting strategy that is based on this assumption.

Yeah, there are plenty of sites that give riding-by-riding info, and you can even order a local poll yourself if you pony up the cash. I'm not sure that riding-level info can really be extracted from national polls, though, and just blindly voting Liberal can be a very un-strategic move for reasons I gave earlier.

I freely admit that I'm probably especially resentful because I feel that there is long history of Liberals more or less bullying anyone who is left of centre into voting for them using these arguments.

I have no major problem with people doing this if this is how they feel, as long as they are doing it in an actually strategic way and looking at up-to-date local riding-level polls and riding history. There is still the factor that one could be wrong when trying to estimate how other people in a riding will vote. Someone who does this is basically admitting that they are voting against something, not voting for something: this is not inherently wrong but it is not especially inspiring either. What I have a major problem with is people who insist that other voters vote in a 'strategic' manner by saying things like "it needs to be done" (no, it doesn't) or "if you vote NDP, you are effectively voting Conservative (based on polls from the last couple of days)" (and no, you're not, anyway).

Do we need two new threads on this in one day?

Is this really true? People, including Reform and Harper himself, did complain about the electoral system at that time, from what I recall. Even as a teenager, I was aware of it.

I disagree for several reasons: i) A vote for the NDP is a vote for the NDP. It might not stop the Conservatives in every riding (and nor does a Liberal vote) but it does not actively help them either. ii) There are many ridings where the two strongest candidates are NDP and Conservative. In my riding, for instance, the NDP are almost guaranteed the seat but the #2 candidate was a Tory last time. If anything, the chances of the Tories winning the riding are higher if NDP voters switch to the Liberals. (This has happened before as a result of 'strategic' voting. Scroll down to "When centre-left progressives indiscriminately vote Liberal...": http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2006/12/response-to-terry-glavin.html). If people are going to go in for strategic voting (I wouldn't anyway), there should at least be some, well, strategy involved: get detailed information on a riding-by-riding level. This is not a referendum or Presidential election. iii) You are trying to calculate your vote based on an assumption about how other people vote. There is no guarantee that you will be right. The polls are already quite different from what they were like two weeks ago. We do not know what they will look like in three weeks. If anything, the more that people try to vote 'strategically', the harder it could be to predict this. iv) As Euler noted, just because someone supports the NDP or Greens does not mean that their support transfers to the Liberals! They are different parties for a reason.

The MOE was 2.8%. Boges was doubling this. A poll with a MOE of 5.6% would be useless.

I don't get these strawman arguments about nuclear power. Over half of Ontario's electricity comes from nuclear power, although the province has been run by the Liberals for over a decade.

I'm not sure that having an environmental policy makes you an environmental idol.

When was Justin Trudeau ever any sort of idol on the environment?

I like the plaid niqab in this picture too.

This is from a Finnish street style blog from about 10 years ago but I thought it was pretty striking (as a look; she's too young for me at this point).

So it's OK to ban articles of clothing only when they have some connection to religion and cultural pressure? That matters more than whether they can cause bodily harm? I don't get that at all.

I would be open to considering the liberalization of laws about polygamy, actually. However, the legal recognition of a marriage has far-reaching consequences, affecting taxes, benefits, insurance, etc. I don't think an article of clothing is comparable.

Cybercoma is making my argument much more articulately than I would have but, just to add to what he is saying, even if the above is true, I don't see why a particular article of clothing should be banned. I would not even support the banning of Nazi paraphernalia. What about high-heeled shoes? Only women wear these (usually), generally because they are considered attractive in our culture, which many feminists argue is a patriarchal one. Unlike the niqab, they can actually cause physical pain and injury in the long term. Should they be banned?

Well, FGM actually involves irreparable physical violence to a person's body while this is a type of clothing.

Especially if it's only being banned during one particular ceremony.

It might be an anti-Israel or anti-Zionist comment but I don't think that makes it anti-Semitic.

The thing is, I don't think making a dumb tasteless joke to your friends years ago actually is that huge of a crime. Not knowing what Auschwitz is, on the other hand, does seem a little troubling in a school board trustee.

Yeah, I'd be more willing to shrug it off if she said something like "I wrote that quickly while a little drunk and didn't notice the exact location, to be honest. My friends ribbed me for months afterwards."

How did Chretien do this? Ironically, Chretien did this too.

JT's comments were dopey. For all I know, though, he could have been thinking of Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines" or one of his students might have worn a grindcore band's T-shirt. I don't know that his comment about music was racist per se.