Strategic Voting - It needs to be done

[waldo]

Your continuing denial will not alter what is coming.

huh! I prefaced my comment on 'accepting the current polling as representative'... and that it carries through to election day results; obviously change can occur in the ~3 weeks remaining. I don't read/interpret anyone, including pollsters, suggesting a majority government by any party. Accordingly, again, both leaders of the current Opposition parties have stated their respective parties will not support a Harper Conservative minority government..... which, as I said, the duration of that minority Harper Conservative government (should it occur) will be for as long as Harper can delay bringing forward a money related bill; one that would allow for a non-confidence vote.

[Keepitsimple]

Proportional representation is more democratic.

There are plenty of other topics on that......

[Moonlight Graham]

How can 39% of the votes get over 50% of the seats? We need representation by population.

EDIT: Nevermind, I answered my own question, had a brain fart.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Moonlight Graham

[Moonlight Graham]

If you want to vote strategically you need to ignore the national polls and look at polls for your specific riding as well as the results for your riding the last few elections

[Keepitsimple]

huh! I prefaced my comment on 'accepting the current polling as representative'... and that it carries through to election day results; obviously change can occur in the ~3 weeks remaining. I don't read/interpret anyone, including pollsters, suggesting a majority government by any party. Accordingly, again, both leaders of the current Opposition parties have stated their respective parties will not support a Harper Conservative minority government..... which, as I said, the duration of that minority Harper Conservative government (should it occur) will be for as long as Harper can delay bringing forward a money related bill; one that would allow for a non-confidence vote.

VK was rightly pointing out that your "preface" was wrong.....because there's a traditionally larger turnout of Conservative voters that exceed poll estimates by 3, 4 or even 5 points. Under-estimate it at your own peril.

[Keepitsimple]

If a party can get a majority with ~39% of the total votes then there's clearly something very wrong with the way our districts are drawn. How can 39% of the votes get over 50% of the seats? We need representation by population.

If you have to ask that question - then you don't understand the voting system.

[waldo]

VK was rightly pointing out that your "preface" was wrong.....because there's a traditionally larger turnout of Conservative voters that exceed poll estimates by 3, 4 or even 5 points. Under-estimate it at your own peril.

there's this thing called 'efficiency of voting'... see reputable pollsters for more information!

there's also this movement within First Nations to get out the vote - other than reading somewhat cursory suggestion from a few pollsters that this might be a significant factor in close ridings, I've not seen any real detailed analysis to that end. Care to suggest where the majority of First Nations people will cast their votes... under-estimate it at your own peril!

considering this thread is about strategic ABC voting... under-estimate it at your own peril!

[angrypenguin]

If you have to ask that question - then you don't understand the voting system.

Agreed. Last election in 2011, I remember reading the Liberals/NDP cry foul over how the Cons got a majority but they didn't get majority vote. I remember facepalming. People need to understand how our voting system works.

[angrypenguin]

I am trying to find out if there is a down side to this strategy.

Yes, it's a collasal insult to those that fought for our freedom. As I have mentioned, I have voted Lib/NDP/Con in my life. Pick the one that aligns to your value. Maybe I'm just far too old, but I shake my head at posts like this.

[Hydraboss]

If a party can get a majority with ~39% of the total votes then there's clearly something very wrong with the way our districts are drawn. How can 39% of the votes get over 50% of the seats? We need representation by population.

The other option would be a two party system which would guarantee the winner would have 50%+1 vote, would it not?

[angrypenguin]

The other option would be a two party system which would guarantee the winner would have 50%+1 vote, would it not?

LOL. This suggestion (not yours, but others) is like saying...

MOM, I can't have what I want. So let's change the entire game then so I can have what I want.

[ToadBrother]

The other option would be a two party system which would guarantee the winner would have 50%+1 vote, would it not?

But then you would have the Democrats and Republicans, tents so large that they both stand for everything, and for absolutely nothing.

[angrypenguin]

But then you would have the Democrats and Republicans, tents so large that they both stand for everything, and for absolutely nothing.

That's an easy one.

Democratic vote: Spend more, tax more.

Republican vote: Spend more, tax less

Uhh....screwed anyways

[Argus]

The "first past the post" electoral system and the way our electoral districts are set up, has shown its shortcoming; A party who becomes a majority government with only 39% of the votes.

Which was never a problem before a conservative government got into power, right? But now it's a crisis of democracy! Oh my!

[Argus]

It is accurate to say given current polling, if we don't vote strategically on Oct. 19th we are destined for 4 more years of Stephen Harper.

How is THAT accurate?

[Argus]

You ignored marcus' point. Direct voting is the most democratic thing, so we could also redesign the whole system to implement that if "more democratic" trumps all other goals. There needs to be a balance.

I seem to recall some of those in favour of this 'more democratic' system recoil in horror at the thought of direct voting, calling it 'mob rule'.

Apparently 'more democratic' means 'likely to produce results which agree with me' to progressives.

[angrypenguin]

Which was never a problem before a conservative government got into power, right? But now it's a crisis of democracy! Oh my!

It's called being a hypocrit...

[Argus]

If a party can get a majority with ~39% of the total votes then there's clearly something very wrong with the way our districts are drawn. How can 39% of the votes get over 50% of the seats? We need representation by population.

It IS representative. It's representative of the broad will of the public across the country. Parties often have tremendous regional support in specific areas, which under the FPTP system gets them a lot of seats, if not all the seats, in that particular region or area. Under proportional rep that huge surplus of votes in one or two areas trumps the fact the party might enjoy very little support across the country.

Proportional rep makes this even more important since the limits on how many seats a big regional support base can give are now removed. Just as an example, under prop rep, the party which gets into power is going to be the party Ontario likes. Period. Ontario has almost 40% of the population, which is underrepresented by the number of seats the province gets in the House. Given prop rep tho and Ontario will call the shots even more than it already does.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Argus

[PIK]

It sounds like me some people prefer a system that does not allow conservatives to win. And strategic voting is bad for democracy. I could never understand how the left would destroy the best country in the world , just so the conservatives cant rule. That is very stupid and I would be ashamed to be involved with that sort of trickery.

[ToadBrother]

It sounds like me some people prefer a system that does not allow conservatives to win.

Probably true. But then again, the Conservatives tried to create a situation in which the Liberals could never win, so I think that accusation goes both ways.

And strategic voting is bad for democracy. I could never understand how the left would destroy the best country in the world , just so the conservatives cant rule. That is very stupid and I would be ashamed to be involved with that sort of trickery.

Why is strategic voting any worse than any other reason for picking a party? I could just as easily retort that voting for a party that promises to give me lots of money in the form of UCCB cheques and bizarre tax credits is bad for democracy.

If the majority of the electorate decides that a government has to go, that sounds exactly why we have democracy. Maybe a better question, and one you should ask yourself, is why the Tories' nine years in power have angered 2/3s of Canadians so much that many are contemplating voting in a way to deprive the Tories of power.

[waldo]

Maybe a better question, and one you should ask yourself, is why the Tories' nine years in power have angered 2/3s of Canadians so much that many are contemplating voting in a way to deprive the Tories of power.

Harper could have fulfilled his dream and buried the Liberal party for good... all he had to do was be responsible, transparent and accountable... and throw an occasional bone to "progressives". He could have left under his terms and with a so-called legacy of "positive" accomplishments... not ones that simply await reversal by alternate governments.

.

[Moonlight Graham]

If you have to ask that question - then you don't understand the voting system.

Wait you're right I effed up LOL, me brain no work today.

[Moonlight Graham]

I don't see any problem with strategic voting. People are free to vote however they like. Sometimes people dislike a particular party/candidate more than like any other party/candidate.

[Wilber]

YES we must vote strategically to prevent another nightmare and for the sake of democracy and Canada. As I said in another thread, (now that NDP is a distant third) a vote for NDP is a vote for conservatives. This statement is a fact. If Liberals and conservatives are tied and you vote for a party that statistically has no chance to be elected as government you prop up the Tories and their core religious right supporters to take over again and implement the good for rich only policies by taking a vote away from challenging Liberals. Is that what NDP supporters want? One said we should vote for the party we believe in regardless but that is not true. We should vote for what we believe in and that is by all means prevent the wrong from happening not to mention that both Liberals and NDP address my beliefs almost equally (that is to vote for any party who stands a chance of the worst for Canada happening and prevent what can harm the future of democracy in Canada)

Not true it is much worse than you think marcus. A party can form a majority with only 25% of eligible voters like last time. Considering that only 60 to 70% of eligible voters vote in an election (and the most likely reason the other 30 to 40% don't participate is likely because they have no faith in any of the parties or no party represent their beliefs) then with 39% of vote means only 25% of eligible voters vote for the party which formed a majority. In other words the minority religious right dictates the remaining 75 to 80% of us how t live our lives. These are facts and figures not my invention.

If a party can get a majority with 25% of eligible voters, shame on those who don't vote, there is no excuse not to.

[ToadBrother]

If a party can get a majority with 25% of eligible voters, shame on those who don't vote, there is no excuse not to.

To my mind, if you don't vote, then you simply don't count.