Strategic Voting

[Evening Star]

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

Exhibit A - the recent debate.

I completely agree with this. I still think that the platform itself is quite detailed though!

[Evening Star]

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.

I was 14 but I remember that election well. I actually wrote a Gr 10 history (now called "civics") paper on the NDP platform. (We had to pick one party's.)... Even then, I thought it was in-depth, well-thought-out, and eminently reasonable. McLaughlin was no star personality but she seemed knowledgeable and capable to me... It actually hurt a little to watch them get so thoroughly decimated in that election.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Evening Star

[punked]

I was 14 but I remember that election well. I actually wrote a Gr 10 history (now called "civics") paper on the NDP platform. (We had to pick one party's.)... Even then, I thought it was in-depth, well-thought-out, and eminently reasonable. McLaughlin was no star personality but she seemed knowledgeable and capable to me... It actually hurt a little to watch them get so thoroughly decimated in that election.

I know but the Liberal platform "The redbook" at the time was also very detailed full of hope and promises. We all thought here they are the progressives Liberals out there telling us about big ideas, a vision for Canada. Then they won the election and promptly took that book and burned it. I still hold them for breaking those promises. A new red book is out and they plan again on delivering none of it. Well fool me once.

[Bryan]

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

Notice they only do that in ridings they know for a fact that the LPC can't win. They aren't campaigning FOR the NDP to win in those cases, they are simply promoting the CPC loss. It's still the same purpose. The promoting a CPC to NDP shift is still specifically for the purpose having the Liberals win.

[scribblet]

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.

As of now, I feel that the CPC is the best party for Canada, especially when it comes to the Bloc who would be part of any coalition. I don't believe the CPC is going to destroy anything, most of that is just fear mongeriing etc.

You pick a party which best represents you, I doubt any one party would fit 100%, I could never, vote NDP, even if it meant blocking someone I didn't want. Liberal is a possibility depending, and this isn't a 'depending' situation.

[Evening Star]

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.

Notice they only do that in ridings they know for a fact that the LPC can't win. They aren't campaigning FOR the NDP to win in those cases, they are simply promoting the CPC loss. It's still the same purpose. The promoting a CPC to NDP shift is still specifically for the purpose having the Liberals win.

Good points but... Looking at the Project Democracy site, I don't actually see this Liberal bias. They recommend BQ and NDP candidates when they are close to winning and don't seem to favour Liberals in ridings where another candidate can beat the CPC. They (bizarrely) even recommend Elizabeth May in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Perhaps you're right when it comes to partisan LPC proponents of strategic voting.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

I know but the Liberal platform "The redbook" at the time was also very detailed full of hope and promises. We all thought here they are the progressives Liberals out there telling us about big ideas, a vision for Canada. Then they won the election and promptly took that book and burned it. I still hold them for breaking those promises. A new red book is out and they plan again on delivering none of it. Well fool me once.

I don't remember the Red Book that well tbh. I never voted for the Chretien/Martin Liberals... But punked, why do you think the Liberals won another majority in 1997?

[punked]

I don't remember the Red Book that well tbh. I never voted for the Chretien/Martin Liberals... But punked, why do you think the Liberals won another majority in 1997?

2 reasons:

1) The NDP in 1993 actually lost party status and weren't even allowed to speak in the house of commons. The NDP is a small party that fights for the media in first place but not having that soap box AND having the reform party eat up the populist (Senate reform, Pay cuts for MPs, Pension cuts etc.) eat up their message they were forces into the wilderness. They actually had to rebuild the party from the ground up. So they were not the strongly funded progressive alternative they are today or that they played in 80s.

2) The rights vote was split so the Liberals were able to win all the seats in Ontario something they couldn't even dream of repeating today.

So with their red book they were able to take enough of the left to kill the only progressive party in the House of Commons for a number of years and stake out the middle. So they won in 97 because they changes the map in 1993. If todays parliament was their in 1997 it would have looked much more like 2004 or 2006 with the Liberals getting Hammered for their cuts to health care, education, and the military AND the all the lies they told.

[Sir Bandelot]

I am not against the idea of strategic voting, and in fact I used to do it. Then some years ago I came to realize that the system will never reform itself, certainly not as long as I or anyone continues to participate in endorsing wrong people to be in government. In fact there may never be any meaningful reform at all, without some kind of revolution. Marx believed that there should be a political revolution every twenty years or so, to root out the pervasive creep of corruption and re-establishment of control by the bourgosie. But this to me only means, the potential for social violence every tweny years. Now exasperated, and with a sense of hopelessness I have decided to stop voting. This now comes down to a personal decision, between me and my maker to stop prostituting my ideals, for the sake of sanctioning someone I would never hold in high regard. But besides this I am an active participant in society, I have a job, pay my taxes and never cheat on anything.

[WIP]

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've never called his office, but I've talked to a lot of people who went to him about issues other than unemployment insurance, and were happy with the attention they received. Even people who live outside of his riding are able to get help. That's been an NDP strategy for ages...since they don't get a chance to be part of a government, they make sure that they do good constituency work.

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!

Interesting you should mention that, since Christopherson started as a union local president...I believe at the International Harvester plant that used to be here.

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?

How many of the people who don't bother voting do you think like Harper? The non-voters are more likely expressing the view that our political system is mostly performance art that does not address real issues.

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?

What we need are more choices, not fewer! I believe the mainstream media and some business leaders behind the scenes who have a lot of influence, are trying to steer us down the road to a two party system like they have in the U.S. Having a rightwing party and some sort of center-left party might make it easier for media wags and pundits to do their horse race election coverage, and two parties will make it less challenging for corporate lobbyists to buy the political establishment; but a two party duopoly, regardless of whether the opposition is Liberal or NDP will do nothing but further reduce the input from the general public.

[Evening Star]

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?

Maybe if people are saying this based on opinion polls. But the CPC has never received more than 36% of the popular vote in an election afaik.

[Wild Bill]

Maybe if people are saying this based on opinion polls. But the CPC has never received more than 36% of the popular vote in an election afaik.

Star, anyone who tried to use math in that way with an exam problem would fail! The statement is not commutative - it doesn't work both ways.

All you can say for certain is that the 36% that voted for Harper most probably liked him! The other 64% is an unknown quantity. We can guess as to how that unknown quantity felt but that's all. We know that many people don't give a damn about politics. We know that some folks are incapable of understanding and making a choice. Some folks are just lazy. Some folks voted NDP but would NEVER vote Liberal! Others are die-hard Liberals and would never be happy if the NDP won.

Some folks might actually LIKE Harper but would never abandon their perpetual choice. They will vote Liberal, even though they don't like Ignatieff. Considering Harper's personal high numbers in the polls this is quite likely.

On and on and on. We can't tell what that 64% represents because we simply don't know. To make the claim that it is ALL anti-Harper is like statistical data that was just pulled out of your butt! I'm surprised that some of the posters who are always demanding cites for statements would themselves make this one.

We have to deal with the world as it is, not as how we dream it would be, if we wish to have any hope of changing it. It wouldn't bother me a whit to see Harper brought down, as long as a BETTER choice won! Until then, Harper is the least of all evils. Let's hope the "other guys" spruce up their acts and give us some better choices next time.

We can't blame Harper because the "other guys" suck!

Edited April 18, 2011 by Wild Bill

[Evening Star]

I was only responding to this part:

First off, that 60% often includes those who didn't vote.

and pointing out that even out of the people who do vote, no more than 36% have ever voted for the CPC. I totally agree with the rest of what you're saying.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Evening Star

[Harry]

I was only responding to this part:

and pointing out that even out of the people who do vote, no more than 36% have ever voted for the CPC. I totally agree with the rest of what you're saying.

Actually it is a lot less than 38% that have ever voted for Harper. When you take into account all the eligible voters support for Harper drops down to around 22% I believe.

[WWWTT]

Wild Bill,are you saying that in order you to vote Conservative you have to like Harper?But if you vot NDP or Liberal you could be doing so for less desirable reasons.

What a load of bunck that is.

Conservative voters are one of the most blinded bunch ever.

Helena Guergis is proof bonofica of the type of people the party attracts.

Good luck attracting any creative cross linear thinking minds!

WWWTT

[Harry]

You are best off voting for the party that comes closest to what you believe in. Strategic voting usually does not work as there is so much BS flying around about which party is 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in your riding that it is usually impossible to tell what is actually going on. As we know well political parties play lots of games including setting up supposedly neutral websites for strategic voting such as the one mentioned in the opening post. However upomn closer examination you will see it is just another of the many many Liberal attempts to take away the NDP vote. Liberals for a long time now campaign on the left, and then govern on the right, and that is why their platform has basically a carbon copy of the NDPs apart from a few differences.

Project democracy.ca is a Liberal front just like electionprediction.org is. Many polling companies have connections to political parties as well.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Harry

[Harry]

---------------------------------------------------

Edited April 18, 2011 by Harry

[Tilter]

Fortunately the winner doesn't know who you vote for so if you decide to throw in with a certain loser, vote with a party who gets 17% of the voters to agree with them, in other, words the NDP.

It is also an indication the you have never lived under an NDP government in Ontario, don't care if the Provincial government budgets for a 19 million buck defiant IN GOOD TIMES or have lost all long term memory.

As I said, Layton can promise the sky B'cos he'll never have to live up to any promise he makes.

Iggy is now screaming about how Harpers fiscal policy can only work if he cuts Medical funding by 11 billion. and that's without any adscam buddies to help him. If Harper's fiscal policy is in the mud, how come we are doing so well compared to the Rest Of the world?

Edited April 18, 2011 by Tilter

[punked]

Fortunately the winner doesn't know who you vote for so if you decide to throw in with a certain loser, vote with a party who gets 17% of the voters to agree with them, in other, words the NDP.

It is also an indication the you have never lived under an NDP government in Ontario, don't care if the Provincial government budgets for a 19 million buck defiant IN GOOD TIMES or have lost all long term memory.

As I said, Layton can promise the sky B'cos he'll never have to live up to any promise he makes.

Iggy is now screaming about how Harpers fiscal policy can only work if he cuts Medical funding by 11 billion. and that's without any adscam buddies to help him. If Harper's fiscal policy is in the mud, how come we are doing so well compared to the Rest Of the world?

Nope I lived under an NDP government in both Sask and Manitoba man was it better then the other guys.

[Evening Star]

Some good points perhaps: http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/04/why-the-conservatives-love-the-strategic-voting-sites/