Strategic Voting - It needs to be done

[eyeball]

You say potato, I saw putato...

That's how I feel about the difference between voting for something as opposed to against but apparently there's some essential principle or unprinciple that clearly differentiates the two.

Unless the Tories manage a majority, we will have two parties with a majority of seats who have stated they will reform the electoral system. Unless one or both of them are lying, I'd say that currently, three weeks out from the election, that gives far better than even odds that this will be the last Federal FPTP Canada has.

I'm not holding my breath. Wouldn't we have to open up the constitution/charter to amendment? Court challenges alone will take years.

I can only hope we don't go for a party list system, which I deeply dislike. MPs should at least have some sort of direct constituency.

So are there any examples of countries with PR where people and political parties clamour for FPTP and point to us as an example of electoral Nirvana?

Edited October 1, 2015 by eyeball

[angrypenguin]

That's how I feel about the difference between voting for something as opposed to against but apparently there's some essential principle or unprinciple that clearly differentiates the two.

I'm not holding my breath. Wouldn't we have to open up the constitution/charter to amendment? Court challenges alone will take years.

So are their any examples of countries with PR where people and political parties clamour for FPTP and point to us as an example of electoral Nirvana?

I strongly do not believe that a coalition government would last very long.

If Trudeau commited to not running a deficit, maybe. But if you really think it through, I don't think Mulcair and Trudeau could get along sufficiently to form a coalition government.

[Argus]

I strongly do not believe that a coalition government would last very long.

If Trudeau commited to not running a deficit, maybe. But if you really think it through, I don't think Mulcair and Trudeau could get along sufficiently to form a coalition government.

The history of coalition government in Canada is that if the government works well the senior party, the one with the PM, gets the credit and come next election, the junior partner gets its ass handed to it. If the government does poorly, both get tarred with it and the election goes to the other party. Either way, if you're the junior partner, it's pretty much lose-lose.

[scribblet]

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.

Exactly... It was fine when the Liberals wone with a similar % of votes.

I don’t like the idea of putting aside one’s principles by ‘voting strategically’, why would I vote for a party I don’t agree with simply to stop another party. IMO we should be voting for what we believe in and are for rather than what we are against.

[angrypenguin]

Exactly... It was fine when the Liberals wone with a similar % of votes.

I don’t like the idea of putting aside one’s principles by ‘voting strategically’, why would I vote for a party I don’t agree with simply to stop another party. IMO we should be voting for what we believe in and are for rather than what we are against.

1000% agree.

[ToadBrother]

I strongly do not believe that a coalition government would last very long.

If Trudeau commited to not running a deficit, maybe. But if you really think it through, I don't think Mulcair and Trudeau could get along sufficiently to form a coalition government.

So, let it collapse after a couple of years.

In reality we already had a coalition of sorts. When Ignatieff decided to support the Tories' post-prorogation budget in January 2009, the Liberals essentially became party to a confidence and supply situation, in which the Liberals pretty much decided not to defeat the government on confidence motions. In reality, outside the Throne Speech and budgets (which constitute the bulk of supply legislation), the only real confidence motions are the ones that Parliament decides are confidence motions.

I doubt either party is the least bit interested in a formal coalition, though the NDP may change their tune if they're third party, but at that point the last thing the Liberals would want is NDP ministers in Cabinet.

[ToadBrother]

Exactly... It was fine when the Liberals wone with a similar % of votes.

I don’t like the idea of putting aside one’s principles by ‘voting strategically’, why would I vote for a party I don’t agree with simply to stop another party. IMO we should be voting for what we believe in and are for rather than what we are against.

Then that's your choice. But really, since the Tories have put so much effort into basically describing both the NDP and Liberals as "progessives", it strikes me that using the Tories' logic, no one would be surrendering their principles.

Ultimately, no voter owes you an explanation, or is obliged to use your standard. If the electorate decides it's Anybody But Harper, that's as legitimate as "Anyone Who Bumps Up My UCCB Payment" or "Anyone Who Increases My TFSA Contribution Level".

[eyeball]

I don’t like the idea of putting aside one’s principles by ‘voting strategically’, why would I vote for a party I don’t agree with simply to stop another party. IMO we should be voting for what we believe in and are for rather than what we are against.

This sentiment really sounds lame after a while. It's like a last ditch appeal to a Leave it to Beaver/Brady Bunch naivete that everyone wins in an election and that we're all represented no matter who we elect. Like a politically correct baseball game in Kindergarten where there are no losers.

[eyeball]

IMO we should be voting for what we believe in and are for rather than what we are against.

I bet a LOT more people would do just that in a PR system.

[angrypenguin]

So, let it collapse after a couple of years.

In reality we already had a coalition of sorts. When Ignatieff decided to support the Tories' post-prorogation budget in January 2009, the Liberals essentially became party to a confidence and supply situation, in which the Liberals pretty much decided not to defeat the government on confidence motions. In reality, outside the Throne Speech and budgets (which constitute the bulk of supply legislation), the only real confidence motions are the ones that Parliament decides are confidence motions.

I doubt either party is the least bit interested in a formal coalition, though the NDP may change their tune if they're third party, but at that point the last thing the Liberals would want is NDP ministers in Cabinet.

I have no disagreements, which is why I'm against strategic voting. Vote for whatever party you believe in, and let the politicians duke it out. That's why we pay them!

Edited October 1, 2015 by angrypenguin

[eyeball]

I have no disagreements, which is why I'm against strategic voting.

It sounds like you're conflating SV with FPTP.

Vote for whatever party you believe in...

Don't you mean representative? Apparently principled voters are not partisans. That said why does it seem that every conservative prescribes this?

...and let the politicians duke it out. That's why we pay them!

Except they don't duke anything out. They just do as they're told by their party and represent that in turn to us.

[Wilber]

As much as anything our system has suffered from turning the Parliamentary system on its head. Instead of a Prime Minister who serves at the pleasure of Parliament, we have a bunch of MP's who serve at the pleasure of a party leader, chosen by a bunch of party members who have no more qualifications other than paying ten or fifteen dollars for a party membership.

Australia seems to have no problem changing a PM without an election. Almost impossible in Canada because party leaders have the power of life and death over the people's elected representatives.

I'm not sure proportional representation would change that. We really need to re-evaluate the powers of party leaders and put it back where it belongs, with the people named on your ballot.

[Evening Star]

As much as anything our system has suffered from turning the Parliamentary system on its head. Instead of a Prime Minister who serves at the pleasure of Parliament, we have a bunch of MP's who serve at the pleasure of a party leader, chosen by a bunch of party members who have no more qualifications other than paying ten or fifteen dollars for a party membership.

Australia seems to have no problem changing a PM without an election. Almost impossible in Canada because party leaders have the power of life and death over the people's elected representatives.

I'm not sure proportional representation would change that. We really need to re-evaluate the powers of party leaders and put it back where it belongs, with the people named on your ballot.

Yes! This is what I always say but NONE of the parties want this. PR would make it worse!

Edit: At least the Greens consider it to some extent.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Evening Star

[Wilber]

PET was right, MP's are nobodies but they made themselves nobodies. The have the power to change that but don't have the balls. Too busy sucking up to the big guy for plum positions.

[ToadBrother]

I have no disagreements, which is why I'm against strategic voting. Vote for whatever party you believe in, and let the politicians duke it out. That's why we pay them!

Then don't vote strategically. What I don't like is the insinuation that somehow it is illegitimate. I reject that utterly. No voter owes you or anyone else a justification for their vote. If some large portion of voters decide to vote against a government in a fashion that guarantees its defeat, then maybe the supporters of that government should ask themselves why they became so disliked that such a large number of voters decided to make their re-election impossible.

As much as I disagree with Eyeball on many things, I have to agree with him that in the absence of a better, more representative electoral system, strategic voting may be the only way governments that are actually representative of some significant proportion of the electorate. If we had, say, STV or AV as a voting system, then strategic voting would be unnecessary.

[waldo]

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

I didn't speak to legitimacy at all. Again, I was replying to a member's statement on a vote percentage relative to a past Harper Conservative (presumed) majority government result... relative to the percentage results for Chretien majority governments. Firstly, I corrected him by stating that Harper result was in fact a minority government. I then made the distinction between elections with varying mixes/numbers of legitimate party choices... that is to say, for example, a 40% majority result realized with 5 parties in the mix... versus that same result with only 4 parties in a position to win significant seat numbers. The Chretien governments all reflected upon a mix of 5 parties getting significant seat results. In your Mulroney 1988 example, that 43% majority result was against only 2 other parties with winning seat results (Liberals at 32%; NDP at 20%). This upcoming election will once again only have 3 parties in a position to return significant seat wins... currently aggregate polling projections suggest neither the BQ or Greens will win beyond 1 or 2 seats each (4-5% of the vote).

[eyeball]

Let's put it this way. If I vote for the best candidate even if he stands no chance of winning, I'll have at least expressed my general support for his ideas, and so encourage other candidates to won my vote next time.

If I merely vote for the second-best candidate, I falsely signal that I like his ideas and so encourage future candidates to adopt his ideas to win my vote.

If politicians are faced with growing numbers of strategic voters working together they will receive a message that says they better work together too if they want to impress.

[cybercoma]

It all boils down to this. If you have a Conservative incumbent in your riding who's being challenged then what's more important to you? Is it the policy differences between the LPC and NDP who are very close on nearly every issue or is it overthrowing a Conservative incumbent? I used to be dead set against strategic voting, but it occurred to me that I care less about the differences between the NDP and LPC than ensuring the CPC MP doesn't get re-elected. The differences between the parties on the left are very small compared to denying a Conservative incumbent his seat.

[angrypenguin]

It all boils down to this. If you have a Conservative incumbent in your riding who's being challenged then what's more important to you? Is it the policy differences between the LPC and NDP who are very close on nearly every issue or is it overthrowing a Conservative incumbent? I used to be dead set against strategic voting, but it occurred to me that I care less about the differences between the NDP and LPC than ensuring the CPC MP doesn't get re-elected. The differences between the parties on the left are very small compared to denying a Conservative incumbent his seat.

You're saying the NDP and the Liberals are basically the same??

HELLO? One involves 3 huge deficits, spending triple on infrastructure vs the Conservatives, who have spent the most amount of money on Infrastructure in the history of Canada, versus the NDP plan which at least keeps our economy in the black (probably through hiking taxes).

These are two HUGE differences.

[Evening Star]

the LPC and NDP who are very close on nearly every issue

The thing is that I don't really agree with this. The differences are pretty significant on C-51, taxes (the Lib plan seems to be closer to the Tories to me - they want to create a new tax bracket on the top 1% of income earners while reducing taxes on the 2nd to 32nd percentiles, while the NDP at least wants to begin closing the current loopholes and will probably actually collect more tax from the wealthy), pharma care, child care, and trade. There are also significant differences where I don't always agree with the NDP on the Senate, federalism, and electoral reform.

[Evening Star]

And, while it may not be fair to hold the current federal Liberals to account for what Liberals have done previously, I just have a hard time trusting them to follow through on promises and also am really troubled by the record of Liberal governments, including provincial ones, when it comes to using force against lawful protests.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Evening Star

[angrypenguin]

And, while it may not be fair to hold the current Liberals to account for what Liberals have done previously, I just have a hard time trusting them to follow through on promises and also am really troubled by the record of Liberal governments, including provincial ones, when it comes to using force against lawful protests.

But Ontario is doing so well!!

[cybercoma]

You're saying the NDP and the Liberals are basically the same??

HELLO? One involves 3 huge deficits, spending triple on infrastructure vs the Conservatives, who have spent the most amount of money on Infrastructure in the history of Canada, versus the NDP plan which at least keeps our economy in the black (probably through hiking taxes).

These are two HUGE differences.

They're closer to each other than they are to the Conservatives. That's my point.

[eyeball]

Isn't the fact they're not Conservatives the more salient one? I'm pretty sure it is in the minds of conservatives.

[SpankyMcFarland]

So, you don't like Harper. Why does your dislike of Harper motivate your desire to change Canada's voting system? Our voting system has existed for over 100 years. It works. (Canada is a democratic, civilized state.) You would change all this because you happen to dislike one guy?Marcus, people like you scare me. You'd change something, even if it works, on a whim.

So our voting system is ancient. Is that necessarily a recommendation for indefinite use? Do we still have horse-drawn carriages in the gaslit streets? Of course not. FPTP's time has come and gone. It is not fit for purpose when more than two parties are involved.

I dislike Harper but that has nothing with my antipathy to FPTP. It simply produces unrepresentative results. If we believe that every vote counts, we should replace it.

Edited October 2, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland