Strategic Voting by Trudeau in the 2015 Federal Election

286 posts / 0 new
Last post
mark_alfred

terrytowel wrote:

Evidenced by  the last two elections where strategic voting worked.

But strategic voting did not elect the progressive option.  It elected a right-wing regressive option.  So it failed.

terrytowel

mark_alfred wrote:

Can someone nudge the needle a bit?  That record keeps repeating, stuck in the same old groove.

Let's stop this merry go round as Mark had said

The bigger discussion is that the NDP needs a new narrative.

The 'Don't vote out of Fear' is NOT WORKING.

Evidenced by the last two elections where that line fell on deaf ears.

As Robin Sears said on one of the panel shows, Strategic Voting is in the Libs blood. They have been using this line for the last 20 years.

The NDP needs a new narrative AGAINST strategic voting.

A_J

It is very hard to establish to what degree strategic voting took place based only on the polls and election results (as opposed to simply asking people whether they voted strategically - which as far as I know nobody has done).

You can certainly say that the support for the three top contenders shifted throughout the campaign, and that Chow fell and Tory rose, but I don't think you can definitively say 7 points, or 65,000 voters, shifted from Chow to Tory.

Other than one poll in September, the last time Chow had consistently been at 30% or higher was way back in July. The last time she was leading was 21 July, with 35% (versus 27% for Rob Ford and 32% for Tory). Compared to those numbers, she lost 12 points, "Ford" picked up about 7 and Tory gained 8.

Did some people prefer Chow but vote for Tory instead? Yes. I'm sure there were some people who even preferred Chow but voted for Ford instead (seeing him as a less competent and likely less effective version of Tory).

But can we say that there was a cohort of Chow supporters (at least 65,000 strong) who buoyed Tory and ensured his victory, without whom Ford would have won? There's no evidence for this.

I know some people would like to comfort themselves with the thought that while Chow only received 23% of the vote, there is a "secret" block of Chow supporters out there who only voted for Tory for strategic reasons. I don't think this is the case, and the likely reality is that only about 23% of Torontonians saw Chow as "the mayor they want", to borrow from her anti-strategic voting campaign.

swallow swallow's picture

Maybe Toronto is more racist than Calgary. 

jas

Strategic voting in the Anything But Conservative campaign means voting for whichever candidate in your riding is best positioned to defeat the Conservative candidate. Depending on your riding, that could be NDP or Liberal, or in one select riding, Green. I believe in people voting for the candidate they love, but if it's a toss-up at all, I would hope, at this desperate point in Canadian history, that folks would consider their ABCs.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

jas wrote:

Strategic voting in the Anything But Conservative campaign means voting for whichever candidate in your riding is best positioned to defeat the Conservative candidate. Depending on your riding, that could be NDP or Liberal, or in one select riding, Green. I believe in people voting for the candidate they love, but if it's a toss-up at all, I would hope, at this desperate point in Canadian history, that folks would consider their ABCs.

It doesn't mean any of those things. The only thing it means is vote Liberal. Even in ridings where the NDP would win if Libs voted for the NDP candidate, the Libs have voted Liberal. SV and ABC are ONLY about getting Liberals elected or knocking of New Democrats. It isn't about anything. That is how the NDP should attack this. Call it out for what it is, point to who are the loudest advocates, and call on Canadians looking for change to vote NDP. It probably won't happen, but to pretend these "strategies" are about anything else but electing Libs and knocking off New Democrats is intellectually dishonest.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

genstrike wrote:
terrytowel wrote:

Which means you would rather have Doug Ford as Mayor, cause if Toronto didn't vote strategically that is what would have happened. The numbers don't lie.

You keep repeating the assertion that strategic voting is what defeated Doug Ford. Do you have any evidence that over 65,000 but less than 105,000 of the people who voted for John Tory were Olivia Chow supporters who decided to vote "strategically"?

You are kidding right? That is all people in Toronto talked about 'strategic voting' to stop Ford.

Why do you think Olivia said over and over again 'Don't vote out of fear'

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/10/15/olivia_chow_dont_vo...

She even had a card madeup

Anytime reporter did streets with voters, a majority said the same thing. Voting for Tory to stop Ford.

65,000 is a low estimation. It could be as high as 150,000 that swiched from Chow to Tory.

Either way a swing of either number stopped Ford.

No, what happened was a fear campaign. It wasn't about voting strategically. The NDP needs to point that out. Their problem is they don't call the advocates of this for what they are, anit NDP hacks. ST didn't do anything. Your stories are anecdotal, and not supported by peer-reviewed research. Stop preetending they are anything other then your opinon.

ETA: Or spend you time and own money and produce a peer-reviewed study.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

No, what happened was a fear campaign. It wasn't about voting strategically. The NDP needs to point that out. Their problem is they don't call the advocates of this for what they are

Again as Robin Sears said the Libs are masters at telegraphing strategic voting, and have doing so since the 1990s.

He has said the NDP (which even you say) needs to point this out and come up with a different narrative.

Their current narrative of 'Don't vote for fear' is NOT WORKING. Thus they need to come up with a different strategy to combat strategic voting.

If not strategic voting will happen in 2015.

terrytowel

A_J wrote:

I know some people would like to comfort themselves with the thought that while Chow only received 23% of the vote, there is a "secret" block of Chow supporters out there who only voted for Tory for strategic reasons. I don't think this is the case, and the likely reality is that only about 23% of Torontonians saw Chow as "the mayor they want", to borrow from her anti-strategic voting campaign.

Well I could dig up some letters to the editors written by Chow supporters (and who even signed their names) that said they voted Tory to stop Ford.

here is one

As a social democrat, I have happily voted for a losing cause many times. This election, though, I must follow the prime directive – RoFo (now DoFo) must go. If the polls continue as they have, I will be voting for John Tory. 

Michael Greason
Toronto

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=200046

Do you guys want more? Cause I can find tons more

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Again,the only difference between the Fords and Tory is about 300 lbs.

Toronto social democrats have nothing to celebrate.

terrytowel

alan smithee wrote:

Again,the only difference between the Fords and Tory is about 300 lbs.

Toronto social democrats have nothing to celebrate.

As I said this election was a referrendum on Ford Nation. When she was polling in the 30s all Olivia Chow had to say everyday all day was

"If you want to stop Ford, you cannot vote John Tory"

If she said that from day one, she would be mayor today.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

A_J wrote:

I know some people would like to comfort themselves with the thought that while Chow only received 23% of the vote, there is a "secret" block of Chow supporters out there who only voted for Tory for strategic reasons. I don't think this is the case, and the likely reality is that only about 23% of Torontonians saw Chow as "the mayor they want", to borrow from her anti-strategic voting campaign.

Well I could dig up some letters to the editors written by Chow supporters (and who even signed their names) that said they voted Tory to stop Ford.

here is one

As a social democrat, I have happily voted for a losing cause many times. This election, though, I must follow the prime directive – RoFo (now DoFo) must go. If the polls continue as they have, I will be voting for John Tory. 

Michael Greason
Toronto

http://www.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=200046

Do you guys want more? Cause I can find tons more

We are talking about 10s of thousands of voters. You are cherry-picking. Secondly, lets assume for a second that strategic voting is an opition, its still about electing ONLY Liberals. The NDP has to explain to voters why voting Liberaal is voting Tory. That is the issue this shows needs to be addressed. Its time to take the gloves off and call out the Libs for what they are, the opposite side of the same coin.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
We are talking about 10s of thousands of voters. You are cherry-picking. Secondly, lets assume for a second that strategic voting is an opition, its still about electing ONLY Liberals. The NDP has to explain to voters why voting Liberaal is voting Tory. That is the issue this shows needs to be addressed. Its time to take the gloves off and call out the Libs for what they are, the opposite side of the same coin.

You can do that but I doubt it will be any more successful in 2015 then any other time.  People don't have to be told to choose their second favorite if they can't have their first. As a global tactic it would be better to show examples of ridings the NDP placed second in to illustrate why strategic voting in those ridings would have meant supporting the NDP. Each riding association should use the argument most pertinent to their position in that riding.

In ridings that the NDP lost and is likely to lose by a large margin, I might use the argument that there is little difference between the Liberals and Conservatives but I would be more likely to use the argument that their vote is a declaration of support for the policies of whomever they vote for. If they won't support the people that truely represent their values then they will never have true representation in parliament. I would say voting against their true interests becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even if their candidate doesn't win it still sends a message about your true sentiments to the government. The more votes the more powerful the statement. I would say that if the people who truely do represent you still can't get your vote then what incentive is there for them to even bother running? Every vote is an incentive for that person or for another progressive to continue offering themselves as a candidate. I would say that even Trudeau emphasizes the importance of a representative actually representing a specific riding and being answerable to it's people. Give your vote to the person who deserves it.

In ridings in which the NDP has the best chance I would promote strategic voting. I would explain that voting Liberal strategically is what will give the Conservatives a win. Voting strategically means voting NDP.

In competitive ridings I would emphasize the ridings in which the NDP has come in second to illustrate that the Liberals are not necessarily in the strongest position to win so they should vote with their heart.

But that's just me.

Winston

All this talk about "strategic" voting and voting for something I don't want to "stop" something I "should" want even less "at this desperate point in Canadian history" just makes me want to stop voting altogether.

Seriously, if all a party has to convince me to support them is "only we can beat candidate X" then I despair for the possibility that ANYTHING can ever be better.

I disagree with the Harper Tories' policies, but I neither hate nor fear them. Before that, I disagreed with the Liberals', draconian cuts, corruption and bait-and-switch approach to policy, but did not hate or fear them. Reducing voters' choices to fear and "strategy" creates nothing but disappointment and disillusion. Shame on anyone using these tactics. This goes as much for the Manitoba and BC NDP as it does for the pathetic circus of vapid celebrity politics that is the federal Liberal party with their airhead Ken Doll leader.

Harper is bad for Canada; on that you will get no disagreement from me. But I remember the 1990s and the broken Liberal promises; that period wasn't so sh*t-hot either. The Liberals aren't promising any departure from the last miserable 21+ years whatsoever.

I believe that Canada can be so much better and only the NDP can make it so. I think that Tom Mulcair is head and shoulders better than anything on offer from the other parties (including even the Greens), and that is the only message I will be pushing over the next year. We don't need a better response to "strategic" voting; we simply need to reject the concept wholesale. You can only get the change you want by choosing it.

If nothing else, that was Jack Layton's legacy: convincing New Democrats to reject it. "Don't let them tell you it can't be done!"

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
We are talking about 10s of thousands of voters. You are cherry-picking. Secondly, lets assume for a second that strategic voting is an opition, its still about electing ONLY Liberals. The NDP has to explain to voters why voting Liberaal is voting Tory. That is the issue this shows needs to be addressed. Its time to take the gloves off and call out the Libs for what they are, the opposite side of the same coin.

You can do that but I doubt it will be any more successful in 2015 then any other time.  People don't have to be told to choose their second favorite if they can't have their first. As a global tactic it would be better to show examples of ridings the NDP placed second in to illustrate why strategic voting in those ridings would have meant supporting the NDP. Each riding association should use the argument most pertinent to their position in that riding.

In ridings that the NDP lost and is likely to lose by a large margin, I might use the argument that there is little difference between the Liberals and Conservatives but I would be more likely to use the argument that their vote is a declaration of support for the policies of whomever they vote for. If they won't support the people that truely represent their values then they will never have true representation in parliament. I would say voting against their true interests becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even if their candidate doesn't win it still sends a message about your true sentiments to the government. The more votes the more powerful the statement. I would say that if the people who truely do represent you still can't get your vote then what incentive is there for them to even bother running? Every vote is an incentive for that person or for another progressive to continue offering themselves as a candidate. I would say that even Trudeau emphasizes the importance of a representative actually representing a specific riding and being answerable to it's people. Give your vote to the person who deserves it.

In ridings in which the NDP has the best chance I would promote strategic voting. I would explain that voting Liberal strategically is what will give the Conservatives a win. Voting strategically means voting NDP.

In competitive ridings I would emphasize the ridings in which the NDP has come in second to illustrate that the Liberals are not necessarily in the strongest position to win so they should vote with their heart.

But that's just me.

OK, I'll give you that some of what you write makes a lot of sense. But, I still say "strategic voting", is voting out of fear. Look, I don't know what the NDP will do. But for me, I can say over my whole life I have never done anything out of fear (not including whatever I did as a little boy). So, I simply don't get what would motiviate anyone to do anything because they were afraid. By nature, I am a leader, and not a follower. I don't care which way the crowd is going. I'm going to go in whichever direction works for me. That is the problem with our society. People are afraid to stand up. I don't get it; OK, I do, but it still doesn't make any damn sense. That was a good post Pondering. Two on which I mostly agree with what you posted, maybe I need couselling. Wink

alan smithee alan smithee's picture
jas

Arthur Cramer wrote:

It doesn't mean any of those things.

On the ground, yes, that is what it means. If you're saying that the Liberals are exploiting the concept to fool voters who don't understand what SV is into blanket voting for Liberals as some kind of "strategy", I can't say either way whether or not that's true. But the actual definition of strategic voting in the Canadian context is to vote for the candidate best poised to defeat the candidate of the party you want to oust. Again, in ridings all across Canada, this could mean either a Lib or an NDP vote, and in at least one riding, a Green vote.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

"But the actual definition of strategic voting in the Canadian context is to vote for the candidate best poised to defeat the candidate of the party you want to oust. Again, in ridings all across Canada, this could mean either a Lib or an NDP vote, and in at least one riding, a Green vote."

That is nonsense. The whole idea of SV was created and introduced by Liberals masking as non-partisan advocates. Your whole premise is flawed. As to the "Canadian Context", at best, that's your say so.

SV is only about electing Liberals. Lets try and be honest about this for once, OK?

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

That was a good post Pondering. Two on which I mostly agree with what you posted, maybe I need couselling. Wink

Pragmatism not fear.

Embrace the maddness. Wink

jas

Arthur Cramer wrote:

That is nonsense. The whole idea of SV was created and introduced by Liberals masking as non-partisan advocates. Your whole premise is flawed. As to the "Canadian Context", at best, that's your say so.

SV is only about electing Liberals. Lets try and be honest about this for once, OK?

Sorry, but strategic voting is an actual thing. It's not a Liberal invention. You may be arguing that most people don't understand it and think that it means they should vote Liberal no matter what because the Liberals are best poised to defeat the Conservatives in every riding. That's not what I'm saying and I made that pretty clear. It has everything to do with the dominant parties and candidates in your riding.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

jas wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

That is nonsense. The whole idea of SV was created and introduced by Liberals masking as non-partisan advocates. Your whole premise is flawed. As to the "Canadian Context", at best, that's your say so.

SV is only about electing Liberals. Lets try and be honest about this for once, OK?

Sorry, but strategic voting is an actual thing. It's not a Liberal invention. You may be arguing that most people don't understand it and think that it means they should vote Liberal no matter what because the Liberals are best poised to defeat the Conservatives in every riding. That's not what I'm saying and I made that pretty clear. It has everything to do with the dominant parties and candidates in your riding.

So there is a reference to it in Wikipeida. So what? You can't use Wikipedia as a source in academic study, so I don't care what it is. I have no idea who put that referene so I have no idea the force behind its origin. I stand by what I worte; it is simply a meme embraced by LPC supporters in attemtp to dupe Candians into voting for Liberals. Strategiv huh, who electe Harper? Ontario Liberals. It has NOTHING to do with "stoppng Harper".

Aristotleded24

jas wrote:
Arthur Cramer wrote:

That is nonsense. The whole idea of SV was created and introduced by Liberals masking as non-partisan advocates. Your whole premise is flawed. As to the "Canadian Context", at best, that's your say so.

SV is only about electing Liberals. Lets try and be honest about this for once, OK?

Sorry, but strategic voting is an actual thing. It's not a Liberal invention. You may be arguing that most people don't understand it and think that it means they should vote Liberal no matter what because the Liberals are best poised to defeat the Conservatives in every riding. That's not what I'm saying and I made that pretty clear. It has everything to do with the dominant parties and candidates in your riding.

Art is bang-on correct. Whatever Wikipedia says about tactical voting, in the Canadian context, the practical application means you vote Liberal. In the name of strategic voting, people in Regina Qu'apelle voted for the third-place Liberal even though their incumbent MP was an NDP MP, and wound up electing a Conservative. In the name of strategic voting, voters in Trinity-Spadina voted Liberal to stop a PC candidate who couldn't even make back the deposit. In the name of strategic voting, people in Oshawa voted for the third-place Liberals to stop the Conservatives from winning. In the name of strategic voting, voters in Huron-Bruce voted Liberal and Conservative to stop the other party, and paved the way for that riding to become a Conservative stronghold. In the name of strategic voting, people in Bramalea-Gore-Malton voted for the third-place Liberals to block a Conservative.

Notice any trends here? Notice which party tries to play on this, which party always benefits in the end, and which party always ends up being squeezed?

jas

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Art is bang-on correct. Whatever Wikipedia says about tactical voting, in the Canadian context, the practical application means you vote Liberal.

No, that's not how I understand it or how anyone else I know who talks about strategic voting understands it. In many ridings the strategic vote is NDP. Why? Because that is the candidate who can best hold and/or defeat the Conservative candidate in that riding.

I'm not sure where you guys are getting your information. I am simply clarifying the definition of the term, regardless of which political party has misused or misrepresented it.

wage zombie

The last few federal elections there have been "strategic voting" web sites set up that are "non-partisan".  These sites have invariably given terrible recommendations for tactical voting, and they've all skewed Liberal.  This is "where we get our information".

If you're going to wage a strategic voting campaign, then maybe you would do things differently.  That's great.  But so far, nobody's launched a strategic voting campaign that wasn't a thinly veiled attempt to get people to vote Liberal almost everywhere.

terrytowel

terrytowel wrote:

We are talking about 10s of thousands of voters. You are cherry-picking. Secondly, lets assume for a second that strategic voting is an opition, its still about electing ONLY Liberals. The NDP has to explain to voters why voting Liberaal is voting Tory. That is the issue this shows needs to be addressed. Its time to take the gloves off and call out the Libs for what they are, the opposite side of the same coin.

There have been several polls where Ford attracts upwards of 25% of committed NDP voters. These voters are lower-income, less educated. Votes that should have gone to Olivia Chow. One poll even showed Doug Ford attracted MORE NDP support than Olivia Chow!

So while Chow own base voted for Ford rather than her, Tory had to push the argument that he was the only one to stop Ford.

Because Chow own supporters were abandoning her for Ford, it left progressives no choice but to vote for Tory to STOP Ford.

Because of that, you can make the argument that because Chow failed to appeal to her own base, voting for Ford instead of her, it left a huge chunk of her supporters no choice but to vote for Tory to stop Ford.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

SV is only about voting Liberal. See Wage Zombie's post above. That is the ONLY reason this keeps coming back over an over; especially now as people see the NDP as a real alternative. The old line parites want to keep up the red door/blue door meme. Its entirely about power and prestige and privilege.

NO ONE has been able to explain to me who advocates SV why voting Liberal for me will make any difference over having a Tory government. Libs ALWAYS run left and then govern right. As Tommy Douglas said more then half a century ago, its about replacing one set of cats with another. He was a visionary then, and his vision still holds today. Just admit you want us to vote Liberal and drop this nonsense about "stopping Harper". It isn't about stopping Harper, its ONLY about having Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister. Period.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

SV is only about voting Liberal. See Wage Zombie's post above. That is the ONLY reason this keeps coming back over an over; especially now as people see the NDP as a real alternative. The old line parites want to keep up the red door/blue door meme. Its entirely about power and prestige and privilege. 

The NDP’s problems are piling up across Canada: Chantal Hébert

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/29/the_ndps_problems_are_pili...

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

SV is only about voting Liberal. See Wage Zombie's post above. That is the ONLY reason this keeps coming back over an over; especially now as people see the NDP as a real alternative. The old line parites want to keep up the red door/blue door meme. Its entirely about power and prestige and privilege. 

The NDP’s problems are piling up across Canada: Chantal Hébert

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/10/29/the_ndps_problems_are_pili...

Yeah, yeah; Debater already posted this in two threads. You ARE a Liberal Terrytowel; NO ONE believes you aren't.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yeah, yeah; Debater already posted this in two threads. You ARE a Liberal Terrytowel; NO ONE believes you aren't.

I said I'm parking my vote with the Greens this election, like I did in 2011

Are you saying I'm lying?

If so find where I said I voted Liberal in the 2011 Fed election.

I'll save you time, I never said that. I've ALWAYS said I voted Green federally and will continue to do so.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Yeah, yeah; Debater already posted this in two threads. You ARE a Liberal Terrytowel; NO ONE believes you aren't.

I said I'm parking my vote with the Greens this election, like I did in 2011

Are you saying I'm lying?

If so find where I said I voted Liberal in the 2011 Fed election.

I'll save you time, I never said that. I've ALWAYS said I voted Green federally and will continue to do so.

I don't believe you.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I don't believe you.

So you are saying I'm a liar?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Bottom line is Canada cannot afford 4 more years of Conservative tyranny.

I agree with ABC.

terrytowel

alan smithee wrote:

Bottom line is Canada cannot afford 4 more years of Conservative tyranny.

I agree with ABC.

ABC = Strategic voting

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I don't believe you.

So you are saying I'm a liar?

I am saying you are being untruthful.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

ABC=SV=Vote Liberal.

A_J

The problem with a lot of these conversations about strategic voting is that people start to blame it for everything. People didn't vote the way you wanted? Strategic voting! Your candidate lost? Strategic voting!

Case in point:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

In the name of strategic voting, people in Regina Qu'apelle voted for the third-place Liberal even though their incumbent MP was an NDP MP, and wound up electing a Conservative. In the name of strategic voting, voters in Trinity-Spadina voted Liberal to stop a PC candidate who couldn't even make back the deposit. In the name of strategic voting, people in Oshawa voted for the third-place Liberals to stop the Conservatives from winning. In the name of strategic voting, voters in Huron-Bruce voted Liberal and Conservative to stop the other party, and paved the way for that riding to become a Conservative stronghold. In the name of strategic voting, people in Bramalea-Gore-Malton voted for the third-place Liberals to block a Conservative.

The worst is this notion that there is a correct, or natural, way for voters to vote - and strategic voting steers them away from this. So Stockholm believes that the NDP are entitled to Trinity-Spadina, voters there are supposed to vote NDP and the only reason Adam Vaughan won was ... strategic voting and nothing else.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Notice any trends here? Notice which party tries to play on this, which party always benefits in the end, and which party always ends up being squeezed?

I can think of about 50+ seats in Quebec where strategic voting to stop the Conservatives squeezed out (mainly) the BQ to the benefit of a (former) "third-place party".

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

A_J wrote:

The problem with a lot of these conversations about strategic voting is that people start to blame it for everything. People didn't vote the way you wanted? Strategic voting! Your candidate lost? Strategic voting!

Case in point:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

In the name of strategic voting, people in Regina Qu'apelle voted for the third-place Liberal even though their incumbent MP was an NDP MP, and wound up electing a Conservative. In the name of strategic voting, voters in Trinity-Spadina voted Liberal to stop a PC candidate who couldn't even make back the deposit. In the name of strategic voting, people in Oshawa voted for the third-place Liberals to stop the Conservatives from winning. In the name of strategic voting, voters in Huron-Bruce voted Liberal and Conservative to stop the other party, and paved the way for that riding to become a Conservative stronghold. In the name of strategic voting, people in Bramalea-Gore-Malton voted for the third-place Liberals to block a Conservative.

The worst is this notion that there is a correct, or natural, way for voters to vote - and strategic voting steers them away from this. So Stockholm believes that the NDP are entitled to Trinity-Spadina, voters there are supposed to vote NDP and the only reason Adam Vaughan won was ... strategic voting and nothing else.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Notice any trends here? Notice which party tries to play on this, which party always benefits in the end, and which party always ends up being squeezed?

I can think of about 50+ seats in Quebec where strategic voting to stop the Conservatives squeezed out (mainly) the BQ to the benefit of a (former) "third-place party".

It wasn't strategic voting in Quebec; they voted to get rid of the Libs and the Bloc because they'd had enough. Your frame is nonsense.

Oh, and by the way, I don't blame strategic voting for losses on the part of the NDP. The NDP losses reflect the party's failure to give people the reason to vote for them.

But can we be honest about SV/ABC? Its ENTIRELY about electing Liberals. NOTHING, else. Just be honest about it.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

I don't believe you.

So you are saying I'm a liar?

I am saying you are being untruthful.

Not appreciated.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

But can we be honest about SV/ABC? Its ENTIRELY about electing Liberals. NOTHING, else. Just be honest about it.

If that is the case, then the NDP needs to come up with a better narrative than 'Don't vote out of fear'.

Evidenced by the last two elections, the 'Don't vote out of fear' card is NOT WORKING

They need to find a better strategy.

swallow swallow's picture

Streatgic voting is fine in principle. It's what often happens in Quebedc, as A_J pointed out. It could start, in 2015, with the strat voting groups all endorsing every NDP incumbent, and then maybe it will be truly strategic. If that's not the tack those groups take, then they will be advocating non-strategic voting. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

swallow wrote:

Streatgic voting is fine in principle. It's what often happens in Quebedc, as A_J pointed out. It could start, in 2015, with the strat voting groups all endorsing every NDP incumbent, and then maybe it will be truly strategic. If that's not the tack those groups take, then they will be advocating non-strategic voting. 

EXACTLY!

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Not appreciated? OK, I get you feel that way. I still don't believe you.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Double Post.

terrytowel

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Not appreciated? OK, I get you feel that way. I still don't believe you.

At least you acknowleged my feelings

Arthur Cramer wrote:
swallow wrote:

Streatgic voting is fine in principle. It's what often happens in Quebedc, as A_J pointed out. It could start, in 2015, with the strat voting groups all endorsing every NDP incumbent, and then maybe it will be truly strategic. If that's not the tack those groups take, then they will be advocating non-strategic voting. 

EXACTLY!

Arthur what about what Joyce Murray/Nathan Cullen/Elizabeth May advocated by having joint nomination meetings & having only one progressive candidate run against the Con candidate?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

terrytowel wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Not appreciated? OK, I get you feel that way. I still don't believe you.

At least you acknowleged my feelings

Arthur Cramer wrote:
swallow wrote:

Streatgic voting is fine in principle. It's what often happens in Quebedc, as A_J pointed out. It could start, in 2015, with the strat voting groups all endorsing every NDP incumbent, and then maybe it will be truly strategic. If that's not the tack those groups take, then they will be advocating non-strategic voting. 

EXACTLY!

Arthur what about what Joyce Murray/Nathan Cullen/Elizabeth May advocated by having joint nomination meetings & having only one progressive candidate run against the Con candidate?

I'm completely against it. If the Libs and Greens want to stay home so we can run a truly progressive candidate, I could live with that. No deal.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

ABC does not necessarily mean vote Liberal. It means vote for anyone but Conservative. Why not NDP?

scott16

alan smithee wrote:

ABC does not necessarily mean vote Liberal. It means vote for anyone but Conservative. Why not NDP?

It's because the Libs are the "Natural Governing Party" and are entitled to be in power.

BTW this is sarcasm

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

uote=Winston]

 (*especially* with the vapid nitwit celebrity they have at their helm).

 

Lol..that may very well be but I'll take a vapid nitwit any time of the day before I'd vote for the degenerate militaristic SoCon war crminal  currently seated as Emporer.

Winston

alan smithee wrote:

Winston wrote:

 (*especially* with the vapid nitwit celebrity they have at their helm).

Lol..that may very well be but I'll take a vapid nitwit any time of the day before I'd vote for the degenerate militaristic SoCon war crminal  currently seated as Emporer.

You are absolutely free to make that choice, however much I believe it to be a false choice. Personally, I'd rather have a PM with the intellectual capability to be calling the shots (however much I disagree with them) than a pampered twit with supposedly great "advisors". Not enough to vote for either of them, mind you, but then I'm sure many other voters may make the same assessment I did and choose to actually vote "strategically" for the Tories.

My point was simply that limiting voter's choices, either by limiting the ballot choices à la Cullen or by creating the PERCEPTION of a limited choice with "red door/blue door" nonsense, may have the perverse effect of raising the Tories' fortunes. Most voters are not the sophisticated strategists that Unifor and Babble posters might wish them to be.

Winston

alan smithee wrote:

ABC does not necessarily mean vote Liberal. It means vote for anyone but Conservative. Why not NDP?

This scheme would fail for the simple reason that average voters do not think like partisan "progressives". Quite simply, not every person who typically votes Liberal/NDP/Green has one of the other parties as a fallback choice.

As Terrytowel has pointed out in this thread AD NAUSEUM, there are lots of working class NDP voters that are more than ready to support Ford Nation from time to time. This trend is even more pronounced in Western Canada where, I would argue, one of the largest segments of voters go for populists and swing between the Conservatives and the NDP. 

I myself identify more with the populist social-democratic wing of the NDP (as opposed to the so-called wishy-washy, "progressive" wing of the Party). I would probably never vote Conservative, but I'd sooner do that than support the hyper-elitist Toronto-centric institution that is the Liberal Party (*especially* with the vapid nitwit celebrity they have at their helm). Truth be told, unless the "progressive" candidate in my riding was either a Green or a New Democrat (which is unlikely in Winnipeg South Centre), I would almost certainly not even bother to vote (except to spoil my ballot). 

Similarly, there are surely many typical Liberal and Green voters that would never vote for a New Democrat.

All this talk of strategic voting and uniting "progressives" is self-serving and intellectually lazy. The Tories keep winning for one reason alone: they repeatedly succeed in collecting the most votes. The only way to get rid of them is to convince people to stop voting Tory. Shuffling votes around between everyone else does nothing to reduce the Tory vote in the longer term. Creating a grand "progressive" coalition to go head-to-head with the Tories would serve to increase the core Tory vote, even if it succeeded in (temporarily) dethroning them. The net result would leave us with only two large parties (black cats and white cats), neither worth supporting, and the impoverishment of our parliamentary system.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

You are "cooking-with-gas" today Winston!

Pages