Jump to content

Strategic Voting - It needs to be done


marcus

Recommended Posts

Unless an extreme movement for strategic voting somehow works...

And then it would be possible...that's the problem with FPTP

I think even under FPTP, a party getting 33% of the popular vote and receiving only 40 seats would require almost impossible levels of vote inefficiency. Maybe there is some set of circumstances that could deliver that, but then again, there's some small chance that if I walk outside right now I'll be struck by a meteorite, or that I'll win the lottery, but I'm not going to count on those as a certitude. I do agree, however, that getting well below 33% of seats in an elected assembly is far more likely under FPTP and some of the dumber kinds of ranked voting than under something like STV or MMPR. In fact, I'd say these systems would make such a result virtually impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 534
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Maybe someone might want to take a crack at defining exactly what "progressive" means? Is it the NDP philosophy of protectionism, insularism...including Unionist/Socialist ideology that drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator?

What the heck does "progressive" mean anymore? We've got healthcare, pensions, workplace protection, a Charter of Rights.....where are we "progressing" to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone might want to take a crack at defining exactly what "progressive" means? Is it the NDP philosophy of protectionism, insularism...including Unionist/Socialist ideology that drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator?

What the heck does "progressive" mean anymore? We've got healthcare, pensions, workplace protection, a Charter of Rights.....where are we "progressing" to?

You've got me. Over the last few years, it is a term that has been used by Conservatives to attack the Liberals and the NDP, but at the end of the day, all three parties are so close to the middle these days that I frankly think the term has no meaning whatsoever. It seems to me that it's more like three armies that have basically fought to stalemate and are now bickering over a very tiny stretch of territory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you are calling for actions that you hope will greatly diminish the number of seats the Conservatives will win below their popular vote percentage. So clearly, you aren't so very much interested in the seat count reflecting popular support as all that eh?

Both the LPC and NDP have vowed to reform our electoral system through all party and citizens committee recommendations. The CPC has not. If we vote strategically we have a chance to install a government that will end the need to vote strategically. If we do not, vote splitting will again grant CPC voters more representation than deserved.

Imagine a system that creates a parliament that actually reflects the way us citizens vote. Imagine percentage of support, matching percentage representation created. Fair can be scary, but I think parliament accurately reflecting they way citizens vote is important to a representative democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the LPC and NDP have vowed to reform our electoral system through all party and citizens committee recommendations. The CPC has not. If we vote strategically we have a chance to install a government that will end the need to vote strategically. If we do not, vote splitting will again grant CPC voters more representation than deserved.

It might for now, but eventually even the Tories will find themselves on the wrong side of vote efficiency.

Imagine a system that creates a parliament that actually reflects the way us citizens vote. Imagine percentage of support, matching percentage representation created. Fair can be scary, but I think parliament accurately reflecting they way citizens vote is important to a representative democracy.

But oh my god, the Nazis will take over!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe someone might want to take a crack at defining exactly what "progressive" means? Is it the NDP philosophy of protectionism, insularism...including Unionist/Socialist ideology that drags everyone down to the lowest common denominator?

What the heck does "progressive" mean anymore? We've got healthcare, pensions, workplace protection, a Charter of Rights.....where are we "progressing" to?

Conservatives often use the term to mean anything not conservative and in my posts here I have used it to mean the same. So by progressive voters I am referring to mainly those who would vote for the Liberal, NDP and Green parties. So substitute the word left if your prefer.

Also keep in mind that the current NDP has moved closer to the centre. Oh and when you speak of the lowest common denominator remember that Stephen Harper has been found in contempt of parliament, cheated on multiple elections and used our tax dollars to pay the legal bills.

Regardless of the views of a party, and the current political tide in a nation, I'm sure most can agree that a voting system should install a parliament that accurately reflects how Canadians actually vote. Every vote should be equal and every vote should help to create representation regardless of where you live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think even under FPTP, a party getting 33% of the popular vote and receiving only 40 seats would require almost impossible levels of vote inefficiency.

You're missing the point. This chart was drawn up to encourage progressives in this direction. This is what the poster was enthusiastic about. I bet most progressives would be delighted at such a result, and wouldn't care a single iota that this meant the popular vote percentage was being deliberately frustrated.

Yet this is the same group crying about how the popular vote isn't being mirrored by seat counts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair can be scary, but I think parliament accurately reflecting they way citizens vote is important to a representative democracy.

As long as the citizens aren't conservative, you mean. Because the chart you posted is clearly hoping to somehow arrange for them to NOT get the seat count which reflects your fairness. Its not calling for a way to ensure the seat count reflects the voters, but the opposite.

I am willing to bet that if you could get most lefties or progressives to admit it, they don't believe conservative beliefs are legitimate - any of them, fiscal or social, and don't believe any political party should be allowed to reflect any of those views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the citizens aren't conservative, you mean. Because the chart you posted is clearly hoping to somehow arrange for them to NOT get the seat count which reflects your fairness. Its not calling for a way to ensure the seat count reflects the voters, but the opposite.

I am willing to bet that if you could get most lefties or progressives to admit it, they don't believe conservative beliefs are legitimate - any of them, fiscal or social, and don't believe any political party should be allowed to reflect any of those views.

And what, the Conservatives believe other parties' views are legitimate. The Conservatives have done what they could to try to game the system, and almost got away with more than that before Poilevre was smacked down by Harper.

Here's what I think. Any government who gets a majority with less than 50% approval of some kind cannot claim to be a fully democratically elected government. Heck, any candidate who cannot have an at least nominal 50% cannot claim to be fully democratically elected.

And you know how I know, because political parties would never use FPTP to elect a leader. They all use runoff voting systems, which shows you just how much party membership need to have leaders with a wide base of support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the citizens aren't conservative, you mean. Because the chart you posted is clearly hoping to somehow arrange for them to NOT get the seat count which reflects your fairness. Its not calling for a way to ensure the seat count reflects the voters, but the opposite.

So the vote distorting properties of FPTP bother you too? That chart is just showing the hypothetical results of 100% strategic, left wing voting under our existing FPTP system.

Anyway, the non-conservative options support electoral reform. The CPC does not.

With two major parties vowing to put an end to our unfair and dysfunctional voting system coupled with a legitimate shot at a left dominated minority parliament we are facing the best opportunity for change I have witnessed in my lifetime. Voting strategically in two weeks will yield more progressive seats and create the real possibility for electoral reform.

I'm in favour of granting any party their real, accurate share of the vote....and soon that may be a real possibility.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things that can't be done:

  • display partisan symbols or material inside or near a polling place, which may include the parking lot, grounds and sidewalk;
  • display campaign literature or other material that could be taken as an indication of support for or opposition to the election of a candidate or a political party; and
  • use or wear colours or emblems in the polling place that would identify your candidate or party.

So I'd guess it would be illegal...if you were serious...

http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand/gui&document=index〈=e

Asking people to vote strategically is simply that, I wouldn't be endorsing or disparaging anyone in particular. Just a plain sign with two words, Vote Strategically.

It should be no more cause a problem than if I held a sign that said Vote Intelligently. I should put that on the other side of the sign.

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 16 ridings that can defeat Harper

These ridings are uniquely important because:

  • Conservatives have a defeatable lead (less than 6% on average).
  • The progressive parties are in 2nd and 3rd places.
  • The party in 2nd-place is significantly ahead of the one in 3rd (19% lead on average)! Therefore, even when factoring in the most extreme polling errors, it is all but guaranteed that the party in 3rd-place is not going to win.
  • Finally, the party in 3rd-place has a sizeable number of votes (18% on average) that can meaningfully impact the election result.

1*vadElvT5kAdd-sIDPCo3PA.png

Let’s take action!

First and foremost, we must encourage the Liberals and the NDP to cooperate in the 16 ridings. Calls, emails, and social media campaigns directed at the leaders of the progressive parties are the best ways to advocate their cooperation:

A petition asking party leaders to cooperate has already garnered over 8,500 signatures.

Ridings to Vote for the Liberal Party

These are the ridings where the NDP supporters must vote for the Liberal Party candidate:

Ridings to Vote for the NDP

These are the ridings where the Liberal Party supporters must vote for the NDP candidate:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am willing to bet that if you could get most lefties or progressives to admit it, they don't believe conservative beliefs are legitimate - any of them, fiscal or social, and don't believe any political party should be allowed to reflect any of those views.

I admit it, I think conservative beliefs are the product of some of the stupidest minds on the planet.

Political parties can reflect whatever they wish. What they shouldn't do is wield any more power than the popular vote they receive would dictate, unless otherwise approved by Parliament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was surprised to not see Nippising-Temiskaming on that list...(you know the riding that the Tory won by 18 votes)

But apparently the boundaries changed such that its not even an issue anymore...And that the Liberal (Rota) will win by a sound margin. Somehow, I think something weird will happen in that riding again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what, the Conservatives believe other parties' views are legitimate.

Sure. I believe those views are legitimate, though wrong. I don't attach a sense of moral failings to different economic beliefs like progressives do. Now if your social beliefs if that women should be covered in bedsheets their whole lives, then, okay, I think that is not a legitimate view. But even then I think it's backwards and ignorant, not immoral.

The Conservatives have done what they could to try to game the system, and almost got away with more than that before Poilevre was smacked down by Harper.

Referencing what?

Here's what I think. Any government who gets a majority with less than 50% approval of some kind cannot claim to be a fully democratically elected government.

Don't you think that's a tad unrealistic? Under such a view virtually every government in Canadian history was undemocratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit it, I think conservative beliefs are the product of some of the stupidest minds on the planet.

You're perfectly free to believe that just as I believe most of the opinions you've expressed here are just a shade this side of flaky (and sometimes not even the shade).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must piss you guys off to no end that there may be a chance that the Cons might win once again.....How desperate do you have to be to devise this scheme up.....And still call it a democratic election.......My party can't win , so i'll vote for the other team.....it's finding a loop hole in the system and taking advantage of it.....desperate times i guess.....and desperate people.....whats next paying people to vote for your party......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must piss you guys off to no end that there may be a chance that the Cons might win once again.....How desperate do you have to be to devise this scheme up.....And still call it a democratic election.......My party can't win , so i'll vote for the other team.....it's finding a loop hole in the system and taking advantage of it.....desperate times i guess.....and desperate people.....whats next paying people to vote for your party......

Are you trying to infer strategic voting is somehow a form of corruption?

And isn't your gloating a wee but premature? How long do you think a Tory minority of 130-140 seats is going to last?

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...