Strategic Voting

[WIP]

This is a moot point for me personally, since I live in Hamilton Center, which is about as safe an NDP seat as they'll ever get! In all but one federal election, Dave Christopherson has received more votes than the combined Liberal and Conservative tally....which is why they are not even bothering to find major candidates to run.

So, I can go ahead and give the Green Party an extra vote without worrying about some Harper lackey dividing and conquering in my backyard. But for many voters who would like Harper out, or at least make sure he doesn't get to his goal of majority government, choosing the most viable opposition party to support is serious business:

More than 60 percent of Canadians do not support Harper and his government's contempt for democracy. Yet, he could win a majority with as little as 35 percent of the popular vote.

Project Democracy.ca provides a handy little guide for the anti-Harper voter in more contested districts. Strategic voting becomes more and more crucial as the years go on, since our parliamentary system makes it more difficult for small parties to make the major breakthrough to win seats in Parliament; an already difficult task that is made worse by the increasing costs of running for office against the major parties, who also enjoy free promotion through their cozy relationships with mainstream media.

[scribblet]

I don't understand how you can compromise your beliefs and principles by voting for another party other than the one you believe in.

[bloodyminded]

I don't understand how you can compromise your beliefs and principles by voting for another party other than the one you believe in.

So...you "believe" in the Conservatives?

[Wild Bill]

This is a moot point for me personally, since I live in Hamilton Center, which is about as safe an NDP seat as they'll ever get! In all but one federal election, Dave Christopherson has received more votes than the combined Liberal and Conservative tally....which is why they are not even bothering to find major candidates to run.

So, I can go ahead and give the Green Party an extra vote without worrying about some Harper lackey dividing and conquering in my backyard. But for many voters who would like Harper out, or at least make sure he doesn't get to his goal of majority government, choosing the most viable opposition party to support is serious business:

More than 60 percent of Canadians do not support Harper and his government's contempt for democracy. Yet, he could win a majority with as little as 35 percent of the popular vote.

Howdy, neighbour! I'm in the middle of buying a house just around the corner from "Two Cougars and a Cafe". Best breakfast in town!

As you can imagine, a classic Liberal like me is not thrilled with getting Dave Christopherson and the NDP. Still, one strength of the NDP has always been the quality of service at their riding offices. If your pogey cheques are screwed up or you are having troubles getting your pension, an NDP riding office worker will straighten it out faster than that of any other party, it seems. They do a great job.

I think it's because socialists tend to be the type that LOVES nitpicking bureaucracy! Like union negotiators for a contract at a steel plant - lots of clauses and sub-clauses. A specific rule for EVERY possible situation!

Of course, as the perpetual opposition, the NDP rarely has the power to bring home any pork. Unless they are the key in propping some other party up in a minority situation they have diddley-squat power to get anything for their own ridings. Might as well be represented by the Yogic Flyers!

That's just the way it is with politics. The only party with any power is the one IN power! The only exception is the BQ. Somehow Ottawa hasn't figured out that it's a waste of time to keep bribing them. They will never change their minds and only become dependent on the freebies.

Still, I'm getting older. Soon I might NEED Dave's folks to help with my pension!

Meanwhile, I keep hearing people talk about how "60% of the people don't like Harper". What an inflated, illogical load of crap!

First off, that 60% often includes those who didn't vote. How on earth can anyone tell what those who didn't vote wanted? If they wanted anything at all?

Second, who says that ALL those people would get along if one of the other parties won? Would all the NDP just smile and cheer because they got a Liberal government instead of a Tory one?

Isn't it possible that Liberals and NDippers have different values? Perhaps that's why they have different parties! How can you just lump their numbers together as an attack on Harper?

I can't figure out if it's patronizing or just insulting!

Speaking for myself, I would have no problem seeing the NDP become the Official Opposition and the Liberals fading away. We then would have clear choices. The NDP have their values. I may not agree with most of them but I can't deny they have them and respect them for it.

The Liberals haven't had any fixed values or political philosophy for generations, if ever. They have been just a brokerage party. They will play any music you want as long as you listen to the station! This has been a very successful strategy as long as they have been a party that has either been in power or was most likely to be returned to power. When they are as far down as they are now it is proving to be a very POOR strategy!Their promises are empty, since it is very unlikely they will be in a position to make good on them!

Unless they make some major changes, they no longer bring anything to the electoral party. Give us a choice between the Tories and the NDP. If the NDP would just get out of the 60's and become more like Tony Blair's Labour Party, or even Gary Doer's NDP!

Might be worth a thread to discuss, do we even need the Liberal Party anymore?

Edited April 17, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't understand how you can compromise your beliefs and principles by voting for another party other than the one you believe in.

What if you don't believe in any party?

It sucks for me, because while i lean left-of-center overall, my views on important issues are all over the political spectrum.

Personally, i'm still deciding who will get my vote. I live in a strong Conservative riding so how i vote won't make much of a difference, but still. Ideally i would like a Conservative minority again. I don't really want a CPC majority because i think their foreign policy is absolute garbage (besides maybe arctic sovereignty), among other things. On the other hand, i think 5 years of the CPC would help bring this country a bit back to the center.

The Liberals suck tremendous balls, as do the Greens, so i may vote NDP because i would prefer a CPC minority with an NDP opposition. I'm not sure i'd like the NDP to govern, but they seem to most strongly represent the things i most disagree with the CPC policies & would provide the best check on their bullcrap.

[Tilter]

This is a moot point for me personally, since I live in Hamilton Center, which is about as safe an NDP seat as they'll ever get! In all but one federal election, Dave Christopherson has received more votes than the combined Liberal and Conservative tally....which is why they are not even bothering to find major candidates to run.

So, I can go ahead and give the Green Party an extra vote without worrying about some Harper lackey dividing and conquering in my backyard. But for many voters who would like Harper out, or at least make sure he doesn't get to his goal of majority government, choosing the most viable opposition party to support is serious business:

More than 60 percent of Canadians do not support Harper and his government's contempt for democracy. Yet, he could win a majority with as little as 35 percent of the popular vote.

Project Democracy.ca provides a handy little guide for the anti-Harper voter in more contested districts. Strategic voting becomes more and more crucial as the years go on, since our parliamentary system makes it more difficult for small parties to make the major breakthrough to win seats in Parliament; an already difficult task that is made worse by the increasing costs of running for office against the major parties, who also enjoy free promotion through their cozy relationships with mainstream media.

OK=--- more than 83% of the population do not support the NDparty

More than 70 % don't support the liberals about 95% of Canada abhors the BQ

About 97 % of the voters don't support Green

That makes the 40% of us who support Harper look pretty damn good

More than 60 percent of Canadians do not support Harper and his government's contempt for democracy. Yet, he could win a majority with as little as 35 percent of the popular vote.

It's FPTP. When the NDP are GovCan HA HA HA HA HA HA (sure, that'll happen ) with 40% of the vote they can change it to Proportional (and if they are governing Canada with 40% of the vote would they? I'd bet not.

Let's face it, the reason Jack's platform can sound so good is because he will NEVER be PM and he doesn't have to fulfill any campaign promise he ever makes.

So NDP---- What's your point?

Edited April 17, 2011 by Tilter

[bloodyminded]

OK=--- more than 83% of the population do not support the NDparty

More than 70 % don't support the liberals about 95% of Canada abhors the BQ

About 97 % of the voters don't support Green

That makes the 40% of us who support Harper look pretty damn good

So NDP---- What's your point?

40% support the Conservatives because their vote isn't split.

That's it. It's that simple.

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shakeyhands]

I don't understand how you can compromise your beliefs and principles by voting for another party other than the one you believe in.

Parking your vote with a party you don't necessarily have 100% in commomn with in order to stop the party that you believe is bent on destroying the very fabric of your system makes perfect sense to me.

It's hardly compromising your beliefs and values... it must surely piss off the Booster Club though.

[bloodyminded]

Parking your vote with a party you don't necessarily have 100% in commomn with in order to stop the party that you believe is bent on destroying the very fabric of your system makes perfect sense to me.

It's hardly compromising your beliefs and values... it must surely piss off the Booster Club though.

I'm not especially a Rick Mercer fan, but I agreed with him when he said:

"People say 'why bother, if I'm only voting for the lesser evil?' Are you crazy? Do you want the more evil to win?"

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Evening Star]

40% support the Conservatives because their vote isn't split.

That's it. It's that simple.

Do you see the NDP as splitting the Liberal vote, BM, or do you see them offering a distinct third alternative?

[Evening Star]

Parking your vote with a party you don't necessarily have 100% in commomn with in order to stop the party that you believe is bent on destroying the very fabric of your system makes perfect sense to me.

It's hardly compromising your beliefs and values... it must surely piss off the Booster Club though.

It just seems like a weird argument to make in the first place... It would never occur to me to 100% agree with or 'believe in' a political party. Going by a number of factors, I see aspects that I like about both the Liberals and the NDP and aspects that make me sceptical of either. However, I would prefer either to the CPC.

[bloodyminded]

Do you see the NDP as splitting the Liberal vote, BM, or do you see them offering a distinct third alternative?

I don't think they're splitting the Liberal vote, because, despite what Liberals often seem to think, none of those votes "belong" to them.

I see the centre-left and leftist vote is split; but I don't blame the parties, it's simply a matter of democracy.

If there were more conservative parties, the rightward vote would split as well.

[Evening Star]

I don't think they're splitting the Liberal vote, because, despite what Liberals often seem to think, none of those votes "belong" to them.

I see the centre-left and leftist vote is split; but I don't blame the parties, it's simply a matter of democracy.

If there were more conservative parties, the rightward vote would split as well.

I get what you're saying... I guess I just don't place too much emphasis on the 'left-right' spectrum as a way of looking at these things. Right now, the Liberal platform and NDP platform are quite similar. However, there were many times in the fairly recent past when they advocated or stood for very different positions on issues, when even going by the l/r spectrum, I wouldn't have placed the LPC on the left.

[punked]

Strategic voting always means "Vote Liberal" and I say no way. The Liberals are the Conservatives I would never vote for them. I would throw my vote to the greens before I vote for cutting health care funding, cutting education funding, giving huge corporate tax cuts and promises every election for national child care with out ever doing it.

If you are going to vote Liberal you might as well vote for Harper because he just carried on everyone of the Liberal policies the Liberals are now running against. A vote for a Liberal is a vote for the Harper agenda.

[Evening Star]

Strategic voting always means "Vote Liberal" and I say no way.

No, not necessarily. In some ridings, the NDP candidate has a better chance of beating the Conservative candidate. The "Liberals for Linda" campaign in Edmonton-Strathcona is probably one of the best examples of effective strategic voting, for example.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Evening Star

[Shakeyhands]

Strategic voting always means "Vote Liberal" and I say no way. The Liberals are the Conservatives I would never vote for them. I would throw my vote to the greens before I vote for cutting health care funding, cutting education funding, giving huge corporate tax cuts and promises every election for national child care with out ever doing it.

If you are going to vote Liberal you might as well vote for Harper because he just carried on everyone of the Liberal policies the Liberals are now running against. A vote for a Liberal is a vote for the Harper agenda.

Not true Punked. I voted for my local NDP guy in the last election because in my riding the CPC candidate has squeaked through the last two elections. If I was in a riding where the Liberal was closest, I'd vote for them.

And to be truthful Punked, in the vast majority of ridings, a vote for the Liberal can in many places beat the CPC.

[bloodyminded]

I get what you're saying... I guess I just don't place too much emphasis on the 'left-right' spectrum as a way of looking at these things.

No, fair enough. I use it as shorthand, but it doesn't always tell us much.

Right now, the Liberal platform and NDP platform are quite similar. However, there were many times in the fairly recent past when they advocated or stood for very different positions on issues, when even going by the l/r spectrum, I wouldn't have placed the LPC on the left.

Normally, I don't think they are a "left" party, no.

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Shady]

Strategic voting always means "Vote Liberal"

Exactly. It's always Liberals telling NDPs they support the Liberal candidate in their riding.

[punked]

No, not necessarily. In some ridings, the NDP candidate has a better chance of beating the Conservative candidate.

I would tend to agree with you if in Canada that is what the code word "strategic voting meant" but it really doesn't. Here it translates to vote Liberal no matter what. I wont vote Liberal ever, I am tired of their lies.

[Bob]

I don't understand how you can compromise your beliefs and principles by voting for another party other than the one you believe in.

You're taking things too seriously and being too dramatic. It's strategic voting. It's a components of our system and these folks are welcome to engage in it to work towards their political objectives ("we must stop Harper!"). And if you think about it, these people aren't compromising their beliefs and principles. Indeed, many of them are staying true to their beliefs and principles - many of them are exclusively committed to one value: opposition to the CPC and conservative values. Listen to Ignaiteff's campaign and you'll be hard-pressed to find anything substantial beyond attacks on Harper. He has defined himself through what he's opposed to, and by extension, his party-loyalists are doing the same.

It's really sad and really pathetic, but that's how it is. If we're gonna have a beef with these folks, it should be with the warped perspectives that Canadian leftists hold. Don't hate on them for using the system in a particular way. Instead, we should challenge their messed up political perspectives and propaganda.

[Evening Star]

Listen to Ignaiteff's campaign and you'll be hard-pressed to find anything substantial beyond attacks on Harper. He has defined himself through what he's opposed to, and by extension, his party-loyalists are doing the same.

No, the Liberal platform is very detailed.

[Evening Star]

I would tend to agree with you if in Canada that is what the code word "strategic voting meant" but it really doesn't. Here it translates to vote Liberal no matter what. I wont vote Liberal ever, I am tired of their lies.

The Edmonton-Strathcona example seems to contradict this, though.

[punked]

The Edmonton-Strathcona example seems to contradict this, though.

Iggy was in Edmonton yesterday trying to win leftest votes. The Liberals only have one office in all of Alberta and the NDP have strong candidates in every Edmonton ridding they not only are fighting for their lives there but they have a chance of picking up 2 seats. It didn't stop Iggy going in their with Paul Martin to tell all of Edmonton "We are the only party who can win here". Strategic voting to the Liberal party means "vote Liberal no matter what". I am tired of it. Those of us who went Liberal in 90s regret it I wont do again.

[Bob]

No, the Liberal platform is very detailed.

The Ignatieff is doing an unbelievably terrible job when he is given opportunities to explain that platform.

Exhibit A - the recent debate.

[punked]

The Ignatieff is doing an unbelievably terrible job when he is given opportunities to explain that platform.

Exhibit A - the recent debate.

Its because he only wanted to talk about it the first 2 weeks when trying to take NDP voters now he is playing for the middle because he never plans on actually following it. This is the 1993 campaign the problem for the Liberals is the Cons and the NDP remember that one well and are doing all the things they should have done then.