babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
Mine was the same as yours, except I swapped Ashton and Nash.
It looks like Nathan is a popular 2nd choice for Tom supporters, and I had done the same.
OK, I've finally made my decsion.
It wasn't easy.
After months of agonizing, talking, and reading endless babble threads I've picked a candidate.
I will be voting for...
Today I voted for.... will let you know on Election Day!
People should keep in mind that if they want to decrease the chances of their least favorite candidate or candidates winning, they should rank ALL 7 candidates.
When using a preferential ballot, one should keep two things in mind:
1 - the chances of a candidate winning increase the closer they are to the top of your ballot.
AND
2 - the chances of a candidate not winning increase the closer they are to the bottom of your ballot.
After I ranked my three, I had no desire to rank the others at all.
Agreed. Especially if one's top three picks are very likely on the final ballot, beyond that it seems a stretch to try to decide. Originally I was just going to do two (Mulcair, Cullen), but my third pick (Nash) is a strong compromise option against the rest, which I decided to add at the last moment. My two prevailing assumptions are that it will be a Mulcair/Nash showdown, and that it won't take too many rounds to decide.
Topp's record as part of Roy Romanow's government speaks louder to me than any opinion piece he has written. Actions speak louder than words.
How does ranking all the candidates decrease chances of the least favourite candidate winning? What if outside of the candidates you have elected you find the others equally distasteful?
My ballot is looking like this at this point:
1 - Saganesh
2 - Singh
3 - Ashton
4 - Mulcair
5 - Cullen
6 - Topp
7 - Nash
8 - Dewar
Revised list:
1- Topp
2- Mulcair
3 - Nash
4 - Cullen
5 - Ashton
6 - Dewar
I'll probably cast my e-ballot on the weekend, but Nash and Cullen might switch places by then. I dunno
As of now (if I ever receive my ballot in the mail), it's changed slightly:
1. Nash
2. Ashton
3. Cullen
4. Mulcair
Topps most recent record as Jack Layton's left hand since 2006 speaks much much louder to me than a job he did when he was younger. You know, I am fasinated by people when they lift political and contextual reality out of the times - so I go back to that time when the Romanov govt got elected and dealing with the massive debt of the cons and the times or context. I think we ignore history at our peril.
It's that kind of thinking and mentality that creates the "never again an NDP govt in Ontario" because of Rae Days and govt", of course the 1st got to get out of debt and deficit was the Romanov govt which is often used in NDP circles to show we are financially responsible and good money managers. Obviously the public thought they were too, because they elected that govt 4 times in a row - but let's ignore that historical contextual reality and order to suit our present political needs.
So more recent actions, where we went from the 3rd place party to official opposition speaks louder than words and I know who was the key confident and strategist - that's what speaks to me louder than words.
;;
basically, you can position least bad options ahead of the truly disastrous (like dewar), by adding your vote to his opponents. basically, a bunch of votes drop off, the relative weights of the existing ones increase proportionately.
which is also another reason why voting for no hope candidates beyond the first ballot is risky. if enough people do it past the first round, mulcair could be unexpectedly ousted in the early stages. this happened, most famously, in the french presidential election of 2002.
loooooooooooooooooong