Strategic Voting - It needs to be done

[eyeball]

Your not happy with the current voting system, i get that neither am i, but none of the current parties have that on their platform.....why because it seems it is not an issue....

You still don't get that this is on voter's agendas.

Can you name a party that is encouraging people to vote strategically?

[ReeferMadness]

The democratic process was set up not to defeat a government currently in power with the assumption that ANYONE is better than that guy.... but for Canadian citizens to vote for the candidate who's platform suits his or hers needs or the countries needs best.....

wtf exactly is "The democratic process". We have a voting system that has its roots in Britain at a time when only rich men could vote. Is that the democratic process that you are complaining we might corrupt?

We've decided which candidate will best suit the country. And that candidate is anyone other than Stephen Harper.

Your not happy with the current voting system, i get that neither am i, but none of the current parties have that on their platform.....why because it seems it is not an issue....

You need to read more than just the Conservative Party sound bites. The NDP, Liberals and Greens have all committed to reviewing or changing the voting system.

I think your putting to much faith into a lib or NDP coalition, both platforms are miles apart, they have both said they would not work well together....i think any minority government will fall, and we will be back at the polling stations before to long.....and we will continue to do so until platforms change or leadership changes.....And like you said the war chests are looking pretty slim.....and the tories know that.....

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

[ReeferMadness]

Strategic Voting Links for anyone who wants to read further:

http://www.votetogether.ca/ (nice color coded map to show where strategic voting will work best)

http://www.strategicvoting.ca/swingdistricts.php (lists 128 districts and recommendations as to which way to vote)

I'm not affiliated with any of these organizations and so I can't vouch for the accuracy of the recommendations. But it's important to Canada that we rid ourselves of this odious government so take a look!

[ToadBrother]

The democratic process was set up not to defeat a government currently in power with the assumption that ANYONE is better than that guy.... but for Canadian citizens to vote for the candidate who's platform suits his or hers needs or the countries needs best..... Not to organize a movement that will undermine the process....it is my opinion that this move contradicts your statement that 70 % of Canadians want harper out.....and yet thats not what the advanced polling charts are showing.....

The democratic process is purely about voting. Why a voter decides to vote any particular way is the voter's business. They owe you no explanation, and do not need to justify that vote to anyone but themselves. You're just inventing some standard out of thin air.

I can't even understand your opposition to strategic voting. Why shouldn't voters, if they deeply dislike a government, work to defeat it? How is that even the tiniest bit illegitimate. Sure, it may disadvantage the party you support, but frankly, why should any voter care about your partisan concerns?

Your not happy with the current voting system, i get that neither am i, but none of the current parties have that on their platform.....why because it seems it is not an issue....

Two parties are committing to electoral change.

I think your putting to much faith into a lib or NDP coalition, both platforms are miles apart, they have both said they would not work well together....i think any minority government will fall, and we will be back at the polling stations before to long.....and we will continue to do so until platforms change or leadership changes.....And like you said the war chests are looking pretty slim.....and the tories know that.....

There is a rather simple rule of hung parliaments, and that is that you take the parties' collective platforms and assume that at best only some portion of their commitments will happen, and even those commitments that do happen may look rather different than originally claimed.

This was a common complaint during the UK's recent experiment in full coalition; that neither the Tories or the Liberal Democrats were delivering on their promises, and it was absurd criticism, because a coalition of any kind is a creature of post-election politics, not a creature that can somehow be decided prior to the election. Maybe under another electoral system where coalitions are more predictable that might change, but at the moment, with the likelihood of no one getting a majority, your observation on their relative platforms is pointless.

Edited October 8, 2015 by ToadBrother

[Evening Star]

I am not usually a fan of strategic voting but this Tory campaign has become so toxic that I appreciate why it seems like a necessity at this point, for those in swing ridings.

Edited October 8, 2015 by Evening Star

[ReeferMadness]

I am not usually a fan of strategic voting but this Tory campaign has become so toxic that I appreciate why it seems like a necessity at this point, for those in swing ridings.

I normally despise strategic voting but there is a time and place for everything. And this is it.

[ToadBrother]

I normally despise strategic voting but there is a time and place for everything. And this is it.

I honestly don't see why strategic voting should be viewed as any worse than voting for a party that promising to hand you lots of money. If I voted for the Tories because they're going to give me more UCCB money, is that illegitimate?

In the end, most studies show the larger portion of voters tend to vote altruistically, in other words, they vote in the way they perceive will best help the greater good. If some significantly large bloc of voters decide that defeating the incumbent serves the greater good, you're free to disagree with them, but I fail to see how that bloc of voters' decision is in any way illegitimate, or in any way compromises democratic principles, since the real democratic principle is that people decide who governs, not that they decide which party is best and vote for that party. That's nothing more than Army Guy and like-minded Tories, fearful that ABH may actually be real, trying once again to rhetorically delegitimize a perfectly rational and reasonable decision by some group of voters.

[ReeferMadness]

I honestly don't see why strategic voting should be viewed as any worse than voting for a party that promising to hand you lots of money. If I voted for the Tories because they're going to give me more UCCB money, is that illegitimate?

Illegitimate? It's your vote - do with it what you will. There are a number of Conservative supporters on MLW whose statements indicate that they support Harper because they are greedy and selfish; and at least one has come right out and said so.

Personally, I have benefited from Harper tax measures, as have millions of others. If I voted simply on my own short term self interest, I'd need to go and take down all the mirrors in my house because I couldn't look at myself. I believe in bigger things.

In the end, most studies show the larger portion of voters tend to vote altruistically, in other words, they vote in the way they perceive will best help the greater good. If some significantly large bloc of voters decide that defeating the incumbent serves the greater good, you're free to disagree with them, but I fail to see how that bloc of voters' decision is in any way illegitimate, or in any way compromises democratic principles, since the real democratic principle is that people decide who governs, not that they decide which party is best and vote for that party. That's nothing more than Army Guy and like-minded Tories, fearful that ABH may actually be real, trying once again to rhetorically delegitimize a perfectly rational and reasonable decision by some group of voters.

There's nothing wrong with voters forming blocs and coalitions but that's not exactly what is going on here. It's depressing to sit here and ask people to cast their ballot for someone they don't like to stop someone they really dislike. Voting should be a positive affirmation, not an exercise if fear and distaste.

My hope is that the NDP will, as a condition of supporting the Liberals, make them implement PR instead of AV. Then we won't have to debate strategic voting in the future.

[angrypenguin]

Illegitimate? It's your vote - do with it what you will. There are a number of Conservative supporters on MLW whose statements indicate that they support Harper because they are greedy and selfish; and at least one has come right out and said so.

Personally, I have benefited from Harper tax measures, as have millions of others. If I voted simply on my own short term self interest, I'd need to go and take down all the mirrors in my house because I couldn't look at myself. I believe in bigger things.

There's nothing wrong with voters forming blocs and coalitions but that's not exactly what is going on here. It's depressing to sit here and ask people to cast their ballot for someone they don't like to stop someone they really dislike. Voting should be a positive affirmation, not an exercise if fear and distaste.

My hope is that the NDP will, as a condition of supporting the Liberals, make them implement PR instead of AV. Then we won't have to debate strategic voting in the future.

Since when was making more money a bad thing?

[ToadBrother]

Since when was making more money a bad thing?

Making money isn't a bad thing. Believing that the only thing in the whole world that counts is making money is.

[angrypenguin]

Making money isn't a bad thing. Believing that the only thing in the whole world that counts is making money is.

And it's up to you to judge others?

[ToadBrother]

And it's up to you to judge others?

I'm free to judge whomever I like. What I can't say is "You're voting purely for your self-interest, so therefore you're violating democratic principles."

As I said, you have every right to question why someone would vote strategically, heck, you're even free to consider it wrong. But to declare that that voter is doing something illegitimate, well, that I don't agree with. No one, not even the world's most selfish sociopathic jerk, owes anyone else an explanation as to who they voted for.

[angrypenguin]

I'm free to judge whomever I like. What I can't say is "You're voting purely for your self-interest, so therefore you're violating democratic principles."

As I said, you have every right to question why someone would vote strategically, heck, you're even free to consider it wrong. But to declare that that voter is doing something illegitimate, well, that I don't agree with. No one, not even the world's most selfish sociopathic jerk, owes anyone else an explanation as to who they voted for.

Violating democratic principles? What a joke. The entitlement of the left is such a joke.

Want something you can't afford? Go make more money.

I can't wait for the tax hikes to start to affect the middle class. The rest of us will watch with pleasure.

[ToadBrother]

Violating democratic principles? What a joke. The entitlement of the left is such a joke.

It was a Conservative supporter, Army Guy, who claimed strategic voting violated democratic principles.

Want something you can't afford? Go make more money.

I can't wait for the tax hikes to start to affect the middle class. The rest of us will watch with pleasure.

If voters decide they want a government to borrow and spend, that sounds like the democratic principle at work.

And I thought you had abandoned making up fictions about yourself.

[BC_chick]

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......

Maybe you're a one-party kind of guy so you don't understand, but for most people the candidates all fall on a spectrum as opposed to all or nothing.

For example, the NDP may be my first choice but the LPC is my second choice so if my first choice doesn't have a chance in my riding, I'll vote for the second.

It's actually a pretty simple concept.

[ToadBrother]

Maybe you're a one-party kind of guy so you don't understand, but for most people the candidates all fall on a spectrum as opposed to all or nothing.

For example, the NDP may be my first choice but the LPC is my second choice so if my first choice doesn't have a chance in my riding, I'll vote for the second.

It's actually a pretty simple concept.

Exactly. This is a mistake partisans always make. They seem to think the majority of the electorate is as partisan as they are. It's a bizarre mistake, because if it were true, we would only ever have one governing party.

[Argus]

No, it's a loophole that troubled voters use.

Stupid voters, you mean.

[ToadBrother]

Stupid voters, you mean.

Why, because they don't agree with you?

[Argus]

Actually, this is exactly the way the system is supposed to work. It was never designed such that 38% of the votes would give 100% of the power to a backroom PMO filled with guys in short pants.

How would you know?

[Argus]

And there's no reason a Liberal minority supported by the NDP couldn't go the distance.

Other than the country would probably be bankrupt by then?

[ToadBrother]

Other than the country would probably be bankrupt by then?

I think you'd better prepare yourself for a Liberal minority.

And no, we won't be bankrupt.

[Hydraboss]

There are a number of Conservative supporters on MLW whose statements indicate that they support Harper because they are greedy and selfish; and at least one has come right out and said so.

Greedy and selfish? Absolutely. I am greedy and selfish about anything that makes my kids' lives better.

Voting should be a positive affirmation, not an exercise if fear and distaste.

It should, should it? So voting for anyone but the Conservatives because of a fear of them winning again would be what? Positive affirmation?

[Hydraboss]

In the end, most studies show the larger portion of voters tend to vote altruistically, in other words, they vote in the way they perceive will best help the greater good.

I would really like to read any of these (and no, this isn't a cite, cite, cite!!! post). Quite honestly, I would think that the majority of voters put their vote where it benefits them. If they didn't, then what good are all the campaign promises focused on individual people?

[Army Guy]

wtf exactly is "The democratic process". We have a voting system that has its roots in Britain at a time when only rich men could vote. Is that the democratic process that you are complaining we might corrupt?

We've decided which candidate will best suit the country. And that candidate is anyone other than Stephen Harper.

You need to read more than just the Conservative Party sound bites. The NDP, Liberals and Greens have all committed to reviewing or changing the voting system.

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Not sure what to comment here, i'm sure if you goggled it. It would explain the whole process.....

This system that you have a problem with IS the system that we currently operate under.....It takes an act of Parliament to change it......last time i checked no one has a bill to do that....in fact no party has even put forth a bill as of yet.....But this election , because harper is not going down like a wounded deer, NOW everyone wants to change it.....

No "we" don't choose which Candidate is the best suit for the country.....That is done at the party level, really it's politics 101....Once that is done then you get a vote, one vote .....for the candidate of your liking.....Also politics 101....You can't change it mid stream because your limp ass party is not going to remove a party or candidate you don't like.....And who is the "we" bullshit, since when do you talk for the rest of Canadians.....Oh i forgot 70% of Canadians want a change, IF that was fact then there should be no problem booting out the cons or Harper....but the polls show something very different....so different that the citizens who don't like Harper are afraid and have cooked this hair ball scheme of strategic voting....in an act of desperation....

[ToadBrother]

Not sure what to comment here, i'm sure if you goggled it. It would explain the whole process.....

This system that you have a problem with IS the system that we currently operate under.....It takes an act of Parliament to change it......last time i checked no one has a bill to do that....in fact no party has even put forth a bill as of yet.....But this election , because harper is not going down like a wounded deer, NOW everyone wants to change it.....

No "we" don't choose which Candidate is the best suit for the country.....That is done at the party level, really it's politics 101....Once that is done then you get a vote, one vote .....for the candidate of your liking.....Also politics 101....You can't change it mid stream because your limp ass party is not going to remove a party or candidate you don't like.....And who is the "we" bullshit, since when do you talk for the rest of Canadians.....Oh i forgot 70% of Canadians want a change, IF that was fact then there should be no problem booting out the cons or Harper....but the polls show something very different....so different that the citizens who don't like Harper are afraid and have cooked this hair ball scheme of strategic voting....in an act of desperation....

So are you finally backing off these bizarre claims that strategic voting is somehow wrong and a violation of the democratic principle?