Strategic Voting - It needs to be done

[CITIZEN_2015]

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.acy and right to vote the same privilege that billions others are deprived of as we speak and tens of millions are risking their lives and face jail and

Well I wouldn't be too harsh on those who don't participate, though I personally do encourage voting. We are enjoying a democracy and the right to vote freely and these are privileges that we must not take for granted as there are billions others who are deprived of same rights all over the world and tens of millions are facing jail and torture and even risking death in order to achieve what we have in Canada already. That said it is part of democracy and freedom not to vote as well if one wishes to and I can see their perspective that if none of the parties addresses their beliefs or concerns (or the general feeling among some that all politicians are same ..........), do they still have to vote for someone they don't like or don't believe in? Likely not.

Edited September 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

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

The fact remains that a party which only 25% of population (or eligible voters) agreeing with their policies form a majority and impose its will upon the remaining 75% who either did not agree with their policies and voted for the opposition OR did not vote for them because very likely they did not agree with their as well as other parties' policies and did not vote at all.

Edited September 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[ToadBrother]

The fact remains that a party which only 25% of population (or eligible voters) agreeing with their policies form a majority and impose its will upon the remaining 75% who either did not agree with their policies and did not vote for them or very likely did not agree with their and other parties policies and did not vote at all.

No, the fact remains that if you don't vote, you've excluded yourself from the process.

[Evening Star]

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.

I have no major problem with people doing this if this is how they feel, as long as they are doing it in an actually strategic way and looking at up-to-date local riding-level polls and riding history. There is still the factor that one could be wrong when trying to estimate how other people in a riding will vote. Someone who does this is basically admitting that they are voting against something, not voting for something: this is not inherently wrong but it is not especially inspiring either.

What I have a major problem with is people who insist that other voters vote in a 'strategic' manner by saying things like "it needs to be done" (no, it doesn't) or "if you vote NDP, you are effectively voting Conservative (based on polls from the last couple of days)" (and no, you're not, anyway).

Edited September 30, 2015 by Evening Star

[Evening Star]

I freely admit that I'm probably especially resentful because I feel that there is long history of Liberals more or less bullying anyone who is left of centre into voting for them using these arguments.

[CITIZEN_2015]

No, the fact remains that if you don't vote, you've excluded yourself from the process.

I am giving you a factual figure my friend but I see that we agree to disagree and I respect your view on the subject. Those who don't vote still are citizens of this country and will be counted as citizens but they do not have anyone or any party who will address their beliefs and issues. So should they vote anyhow for someone they don't believe in?

Btw, recent Nanos poll shows Liberals back in the lead even though it is statistically a clear tie. May be the strategic voting is very gradually materializing as NDP very gradually dropping or Trudeau is dong much better than what was expected of him.

Liberals, Conservatives in dead heat with NDP trailing: Nanos poll

Edited September 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[Boges]

no - that 2008 election result was a minority government. The point I emphasized, that you're missing here, is the number of other legitimate parties (splitting votes) running when Harper Conservatives won elections... 4, versus the 5 within the aforementioned 3 Chretien winning elections.

So would call the Mulroney majority in 1988 illegitimate because there were only 3 "legit" parties running at the time?

Edited September 30, 2015 by Boges

[ToadBrother]

Btw, recent Nanos poll shows Liberals back in the lead even though it is statistically a clear tie. May be the strategic voting is very gradually materializing as NDP very gradually dropping or Trudeau is dong much better than what was expected of him.

Considering every Tory and NDPer I talked to a month ago swore up and down that Trudeau was the Shiny Pony, and that Mulcair and Harper would wipe the floor with him, I'd say whatever happens on election day, Trudeau has already proven his detractors wrong.

[Boges]

So who picks which party has a better chance to unseat a CPC candidate? People don't pay attention to national polls let alone polling for an individual riding.

Strategic voting only works for those that are so partisan against Harper that they don't care who's PM JT or Mulclair. Talk about an informed voter! LOL

[ToadBrother]

So who picks which party has a better chance to unseat a CPC candidate? People don't pay attention to national polls let alone polling for an individual riding.

Strategic voting only works for those that are so partisan against Harper that they don't care who's PM JT or Mulclair. Talk about an informed voter! LOL

Threehundredeight.com has at least rough riding by riding estimates, so yes, strategic voting is far more plausible now than it was before. Mind you, if the calculus is now simply "Which party has the best chance of defeating Harper", then the answer seems to be "Vote Liberal".

[Boges]

Threehundredeight.com has at least rough riding by riding estimates, so yes, strategic voting is far more plausible now than it was before. Mind you, if the calculus is now simply "Which party has the best chance of defeating Harper", then the answer seems to be "Vote Liberal".

And people questioned why Harper continued to attack JT when the NDP were riding high in the polls.

Must suck to be Orange. At least their leader isn't an amateur hour rich kid that embarrasses himself more times than not.

I'm sure if people polled the average Canadian and asked if they knew what 308 was, they'd be like HUH?

Edited September 30, 2015 by Boges

[Evening Star]

Threehundredeight.com has at least rough riding by riding estimates, so yes, strategic voting is far more plausible now than it was before. Mind you, if the calculus is now simply "Which party has the best chance of defeating Harper", then the answer seems to be "Vote Liberal".

Yeah, there are plenty of sites that give riding-by-riding info, and you can even order a local poll yourself if you pony up the cash. I'm not sure that riding-level info can really be extracted from national polls, though, and just blindly voting Liberal can be a very un-strategic move for reasons I gave earlier.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Evening Star

[eyeball]

Why is strategic voting bad for democracy, and why do the most ardent defenders of FPTP also seem to be the most vocal critics of strategic voting? I understand why status quo defenders feel the way they do but what does that have to do with strategic voting?

[Evening Star]

why do the most ardent defenders of FPTP also seem to be the most vocal critics of strategic voting?

Strategic voting is usually based on the assumption that FPTP is flawed and unrepresentative and that one needs to vote strategically in order to work around its limitations. Presumably, if you think FPTP works, you are less likely to support a voting strategy that is based on this assumption.

[Keepitsimple]

Why is strategic voting bad for democracy, and why do the most ardent defenders of FPTP also seem to be the most vocal critics of strategic voting? I understand why status quo defenders feel the way they do but what does that have to do with strategic voting?

I don't think people are saying it's bad for democracy. People are free to cast their vote any way they choose. It just seems like a fruitless and confusing exercise - dependent on "knowing" how everyone else will vote. But that's the beauty of democracy - and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. People have the right to be dumb, er...strategic.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[Boges]

And election is based on the premise you vote for who you want to win. A strategic approach is that you vote for who you want to lose, which means you care less about who governs the country than you do who doesn't.

Do it if you want but my position is that there is hardly a popular approach to this other than those that are hyper partisan. So it's not likely to produce the desired result.

Edited September 30, 2015 by Boges

[ToadBrother]

And election is based on the premise you vote for who you want to win. A strategic approach is that you vote for who you want to lose, which means you care less about who governs the country than you do who doesn't.

Do it if you want but my position is that there is hardly a popular approach to this other than those that are hyper partisan.

To my mind, almost all elections are a referendum on the current government.

At any rate, why is voting against something any less legitimate than voting for something?

[Evening Star]

I'm sure if people polled the average Canadian and asked if they knew what 308 was, they'd be like HUH?

I guess this is also my issue: the method only works on a riding-by-riding level and, to be even remotely effective and not just a Liberal bullying tactic, would require that people keep up with riding-level polling information on a regular basis, which most people do not do. When 'strategic' voting is promoted as a national strategy, I am not sure that everyone can be expected to do this. I would be more in favour of just promoting greater education and involvement in the election process.

Somehow, I don't remember seeing as many calls for strategic voting when the NDP was leading or even when the parties were tied. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Why not? There were still 'stronger bets' in individual ridings. Is it just because we're closer to the election? I have doubts.

[Boges]

To my mind, almost all elections are a referendum on the current government.

At any rate, why is voting against something any less legitimate than voting for something?

It isn't. It may be just a vote against the least undesirable option. I would do that in Ontario where I find the Ontario Liberals a reprehensible party.

In a society where it's hard enough to get more than 2/3 of the public to vote, I anticipate getting people to vote only for those that realistically have a shot to beat a CPC candidate is fruitless.

What about ridings where the fight is only between and Liberal and an NDP candidate? Or with the Bloc? Should NDP voters vote Liberal so that their seat will help ensure that the Liberals win in the FPTP system?

Edited September 30, 2015 by Boges

[ToadBrother]

I guess this is also my issue: the method only works on a riding-by-riding level and, to be even remotely effective and not just a Liberal bullying tactic, would require that people keep up with riding-level polling information on a regular basis, which most people do not do. When 'strategic' voting is promoted as a national strategy, I am not sure that everyone can be expected to do this. I would be more in favour of just promoting greater education and involvement in the election process.

Considering 308 is now heavily promoted and linked to CBC, I'd say it's probably getting a lot of hits.

As to its methodology, Eric happily explains it and the limitations.

Somehow, I don't remember seeing as many calls for strategic voting when the NDP was leading or even when the parties were tied. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) Why not? There were still 'stronger bets' in individual ridings. Is it just because we're closer to the election? I have doubts.

You've phrased the question wrong. The question should be "Why are the Tories so unpopular that Liberals and NDPers are willing to abandon their own party and vote for the other one based upon the likelihood of depriving the Tories of government?"

[eyeball]

To my mind, almost all elections are a referendum on the current government.

At any rate, why is voting against something any less legitimate than voting for something?

Exactly. Throwing the bums out is a time worn phrase so its not like voting against as opposed to for something is new. Doing so is a simple exercise in a two-party system in a unitary state but not in a multi-party confederation.

[PIK]

What scares the lefties ,is the fact harper has done a amazing job as PM and that just does not sit well with them. Especially after realizing Chretien really did nothing in 13 yrs as PM, except rip off the taxpayer.

[On Guard for Thee]

And election is based on the premise you vote for who you want to win. A strategic approach is that you vote for who you want to lose, which means you care less about who governs the country than you do who doesn't.

Do it if you want but my position is that there is hardly a popular approach to this other than those that are hyper partisan. So it's not likely to produce the desired result.

The obvious desired result this tie around is to unseat Harper. People will shift their vote to their second choice if need be to achieve that.

[CITIZEN_2015]

Another good indication of strategic voting is very gradually but surely building up as Liberals gain 0.5% in just two days (since last poll tracking) likely same exact 04% that NDP dropped and the conservatives no change. Keep up the good work.

CPC NDP LIB BQ GRN OTH 31.8% 27.3% 31.3% 4.3% 4.6% 0.8% +0.0 -0.4 +0.5 +0.1 -0.1 -0.1

Edited September 30, 2015 by CITIZEN_2015

[eyeball]

And election is based on the premise you vote for who you want to win. A strategic approach is that you vote for who you want to lose, which means you care less about who governs the country than you do who doesn't.

Why is caring more about who doesn't run the country any less valid and how else are you supposed to vote other than strategically to achieve that?

Do it if you want but my position is that there is hardly a popular approach to this other than those that are hyper partisan. So it's not likely to produce the desired result.

I find that a rather strange position. I'm of the sense strategic voting actually reflects an anti-partisan approach. If it looked like the NDP might form a majority I would vote with a view towards ensuring they only got a minority.