Strategic voting: it's just plain nonsense
Tue, 2005-12-13 13:11
#1
Strategic voting: it's just plain nonsense
Tue, 2005-12-13 13:11
#2
[url=http://rabble.ca/news_full_story.shtml?sh_itm=e3c55bf62185c919fdca1b9b37... Greg Dwulit[/url]
This article proposes to talk about Buzz Hargrove's proposal, then completely ignores the case of the ridings where the NDP has no chance, and focuses on ridings where Buzz has said that CAW members should vote for the NDP anyway.
If the writer wanted to say that people who don't look at the specifics of their riding before voting strategically can do more harm than good, fine. But that's not what he did, and his article ends up being "just plain nonsense". I personally disagree with strategic voting, but this article makes an intellectually dishonest argument about it.
Tue, 2005-12-13 13:25
#3
[ 08 June 2007: Message edited by: pink ]
Tue, 2005-12-13 13:32
#4
I also found the article dishonest.
He mentions ridings where NDP candidates were defeated but he assumes that this was due to NDPers voting Lberal. But he offers no proof that it was NDPers strategically voting who achieved this result. Example - I have family members who live in the riding where Olivia Chow was for the NDP. She lost because of all the new condo developments near the waterfront where the Liberals dominated, and because she couldn't carry the Chinese community.
As well, strategic voting can be differwent things to different people. Many Quebec federalists intend to strategially vote for the Bloc to punish the Liberals because of Gomery. Has nothing to do with separatism. It is a smart strategic move to kneecap, punish, bludgeon the Liberals, without any connection to the next provincial elections or referendum (Quebecers can walk and chew gum at the same time). I know many people - and I may do this myself - who intend to strategially vote Green for 2 reasons 1) we want more people talking environmentalism, no matter who they are, and we do not care about all the ciriticism of whether the Greens are too right wing or too left wing or too this or that - we couldnt give a fuck, voting strategically as a protest has nothing to do with that and 2) money - the more votes they get, the more cash they get from the government in anticipation for when there will be proportional representation in some form when they will get into parliament.
So the attacks on strategic voting bother me because they are often premised on the notion that voters are stupid. They also usually come from partisan supporters whose favoured party is not rising in the polls. Instead of asking what the problem is with their party, they attack the voters for having minds of their own and being disobedient. The Liberals ae doing this in Quebec with regard to federalists voting Bloc and the NDP does it with ex-NDPers who no longer want to vote NDP for strategic reasons.
If some people are not voting Liberal or NDP, maybe the problem is the Liberal Party, or the NDP. Address that, not strategic voting.
[ 13 December 2005: Message edited by: Critical Mass2 ]
Tue, 2005-12-13 13:49
#5
quote:
I know many people - and I may do this myself - who intend to strategially vote Green...
I have voted Green myself in the past, but this time I'm strategically voting NDP. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I recall Olivia Chow losing by a smaller number of votes than the Green party got. I don't live in that riding, but the NDP candidate has a fighting chance in my riding, and Jack has mentioned bringing in proportionate representation. So if we get a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power (or an NDP minority with the Bloc holding the balance of power [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] ) then maybe Jack will push forward proportionate representation, in which case all this holding our noses while we vote will become a thing of the past, IMHO.
Tue, 2005-12-13 13:53
#6
Yeah, I live in Trinity-Spadina and worked on Olivia's campaign in a small way. I find it hard to believe that NDP supporters voted Liberal. I think it's more likely that vaguely leftish people voted Green. I am personally responsible for stopping two votes. I told my two no-so-political friends to have a look at the Green website first. They were aghast at how conservative it was. They just assumed that Green was good.
edited for tpyo
[ 13 December 2005: Message edited by: fern hill ]
Tue, 2005-12-13 13:57
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
[b][Olivia Chow] lost because of all the new condo developments near the waterfront where the Liberals dominated, and because she couldn't carry the Chinese community.[/b]
Wasn't the part about the Chinese vote debunked in another thread, with reference to the specific polls in Chinatown? I recall that Chow won those polls, but not by as wide a margin as she might have hoped.
[ 13 December 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]
Tue, 2005-12-13 14:15
#8
Yes, Olivia got 50% or better of the vote in what is usually considered Chinatown and Ianno got 50% of the vote in the condo buildings. Trouble is there are only about 10 chinatown polls and there are 50 condo buildings.
Tue, 2005-12-13 14:53
#9
The classic line I got while phoning Trinity-Spadina NDP supporters to go out and vote on election day was "oh, I'm really sorry, I know I said I'd vote NDP but I'm worried about the Tories so I voted Liberal. But I really hope Olivia wins!"
Sigh.
Tue, 2005-12-13 15:09
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Tehanu:
[b]"I'm worried about the Tories so I voted Liberal. But I really hope Olivia wins!"[/b]
Which was common across Toronto, from people who bought Martin's last-minute line that maybe Harper should get first crack at forming a government if the Conservatives got more seats, which of course he didn't mean, any more than David Peterson let Frank Miller have first crack in 1985 although the Conservatives had the greater number of seats.
quote:
Originally posted by pink:
[b]In my riding, Edmonton Strathcona, the NDP came third in 2004. If I listen to Buzz, I should vote Liberal.[/b]
Why are you knocking Strathcona? The 2004 results were:
Conservative 39.4
Liberal 29.0
New Democrat 23.8
Green 6.5
Marijuana 1.1
Marxist-Leninist 0.2
No tactical voting advocate, not even Hargrove, would say New Democrats should vote Liberal in such a riding. For from unwinnable. Not a close race between the Liberal and Conservative.
The enemy isn't the CAW, the enemy is ignorance and defeatism.
Tue, 2005-12-13 15:15
#11
scott
quote:
Originally posted by Sineed:
[b]I have voted Green myself in the past, but this time I'm strategically voting NDP. [...] Jack has mentioned bringing in proportionate representation.[/b]
Yes, he did mention it.
Voting strategically blunts the need for pro-rep in the eyes of the larger parties. Look at the vast arctic wasteland of zero that is the BC NDP policy on pro-rep. When you are second in the polls FPTP starts to look pretty good. Losing a few to the Greens might be a needed wake-up call.
quote:
[b] if we get a Liberal minority with the NDP holding the balance of power (or an NDP minority with the Bloc holding the balance of power [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] ) then maybe Jack will push forward proportionate representation, in which case all this holding our noses while we vote will become a thing of the past, IMHO.[/b]
Well, he had that chance last time but didn't follow through. Too bad because it would be worth a few seats this time around, I think.
Tue, 2005-12-13 15:24
#12
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by scott:
[b]Well, he had that chance last time but didn't follow through. Too bad because it would be worth a few seats this time around, I think.[/b]
Who [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/1620]didn't follow through[/url]?
Tue, 2005-12-13 17:28
#13
scott
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]Who [url=http://www.ndp.ca/page/1620]didn't follow through[/url]?[/b]
Layton made the budget amendments the condition for support. I think that these budget amendments will be forgotten soon. It seems that electoral reform was less emphasised. If we are to have a series of minority governments ER needs to be #1 on the agenda in order for the NDP to be able to consolidate its gains in popular support.
I can understand the NDP’s lack of support in BC but federally where they are the third party I am surprised there isn’t more focus on it.
Tue, 2005-12-13 17:42
#14
They didn't make it a condition because it's a total non-starter with the Liberals. They wanted to have something concrete to give to the public.
If it was a choice between instituting ER and losing government, the Liberals would probably still lose government, because one loss is better than being forever shut out of the power they have become so accustomed to. ER will never happen under the Liberals, period.
Wed, 2005-12-14 00:29
#15
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
[b]ER will never happen under the Liberals, period.[/b]
Electoral reform is happening in Quebec under the provincial Liberals, because they need it. The PQ can win elections with fewer votes than the Liberals because the Liberals have big majorities of wasted voted piled up in the west island. The PQ did so in 1998, and could do so again.
The same phenomenon accounts for the Bloc winning 54 seats last time when their share of the popular vote deserved 37 seats. The Quebec federal Liberals need PR. So do the Alberta and Saskatchewan Liberals. So do the Quebec Conservatives. The BC federal Liberals would have benefitted too, and they remember how the BC provincial Liberals lost an election while winning the popular vote.
As for the Ontario Liberals, they are quite closely connected to their provincial cousins who well remember Mike Harris winning two majority governments with less than half the votes. That's why the Ontario Liberals are proceeding with electoral reform.
So this is something the federal Liberals will do if pushed. They claim to be proceeding, but at a glacial pace. In the next Parliament, getting on with the job should be a top priority for the NDP and for electoral reformers in all parties.
Wed, 2005-12-14 00:53
#16
I meant the federal Liberals.
Well, I hope I'm wrong, but there is little chance of the Liberal party achieving anything like the undiluted power they have enjoyed for the majority of Canada's history under a PR system. I can't imagine them not fighting it every step of the way. If we keep getting minorities, however, they might not have a choice. There's always hope. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2005-12-14 01:08
#17
quote:
Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
[b]there is little chance of the Liberal party achieving anything like the undiluted power they have enjoyed for the majority of Canada's history under a PR system.[/b]
The federal Liberals got a true majority in 1940 and 1949. In Wales, Labour got a true majority in their last election. There's nothing to stop 50% of the voters from electing a one-party government under PR if they wish.
Furthermore, a large centre party can expect to be part of every government, with a choice of coalition partners to the left or the right, until the voters get fed up and start demanding more choice, at which point some bright Liberal will see his or her chance to respond to the public mood, and lead a break-away Liberal-Democrat Party, or something like that. But there's no reason for centrists to oppose PR, the British Liberal Democrats are its strongest boosters in the UK.
Wed, 2005-12-14 01:38
#18
Buck the Fuzz. If Canadian's don't know there is nil next to no daylight between the two old line parties by now, then we're in deep trouble. Give us more NDP'ers in Ottawa, because one of ours is worth 50 cowering liberal backbenchers any day of the week. Stupid Bozos that they are. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 14 December 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]
Wed, 2005-12-14 02:51
#19
quote:
Originally posted by Critical Mass2:
[b]I also found the article dishonest.He mentions ridings where NDP candidates were defeated but he assumes that this was due to NDPers voting Lberal. But he offers no proof that it was NDPers strategically voting who achieved this result. Example - I have family members who live in the riding where Olivia Chow was for the NDP. She lost because of all the new condo developments near the waterfront where the Liberals dominated, and because she couldn't carry the Chinese community.
[/b]
So, that's why Olivia Chow lost, ... the official version, eh?
Tell me, those Liberals in the new condo palaces, what obligations were they under in terms of voting strategically? Oh, pardon me, I see, none at all because they are rich Liberals. Thanks for clarifying that, I never would have guessed.
Wed, 2005-12-14 09:57
#20
Proves my point Master Debator - she did not lose because of strategic voting. First point.
Second point - most people who live in condos in her riding are not rich. They are often just ordinary middle class people who can't afford a house.
Strategic voting is a very useful tool citizens have. That's why parties, whose frequently dishonest tactics and spindoctoring make us citizens so cynical about politics, hate it. Ad if party hacks and spin doctors hate it, it must be good for me.
My wife and I plan on strategic voting - one of us may vote Green, the other may vote NDP. We haven't decided which one will vote which way. The Green vote will be for the reasons outlined earlier in a post on the thread. The NDP vote depending on how the local race goes, will happen if it looks like the Liberal or Tory is winning. Or maybe my wife will vote for the Tory because the local candidate is a very pro-gay Red Tory and he may stop the Liberal who needs to be severely punished over Gomery. Really depends on the local race. But strategic voting is what it will be.
Both my wife and I like our right to vote strategically and do not care for the arguments of political pundits or party apparatchiks telling us what to do.
Wed, 2005-12-14 12:30
#21
Electoral reform may actually help the federal liberals if it was not based on PR, and rather based on removing the first past the post system in favour of a ranking system with runoffs. There is growing public support for electoral reform across the country, just look how close BC came to instituting it, after the conservative liberal government established a citizen-based commission to look into the topic.
Electoral reform aside...the article by Dwulit is really one of those half-researched pieces passed off as a thorough investigation of strategic voting. One would need to do an analysis of specific ridings, inlcuding the percentage of undecided voters, trends of historical vote distribution, et cetera, before one could begin to make the assertion that strategic voting resulted in X party getting X number of seats. The article makes widespread conclusions about historical events without providing any evidence to support these claims.
My real concern: is this guy being paid by Rabble donations to perform such poor research, and then present it as fact?
Wed, 2005-12-14 12:33
#22
Strategic voting is not nonsense.
Nevermind all the good reasons for casting your vote different from how you 'normally' vote.
Maybe you vote one way when you think your country's existence is threatened, and another way when you think it is being milked dry.
Its our vote, we can cast it any way we like. It is even our right to deface or void our ballot or to even vote Rhino.
Besides, everytime the parties 'know' how a riding will vote, they ignore it.
Maybe we should all try to be more fickle, in order for our elected representatives to actually pay attention to the concerns of the citizens who vote for them.
Wed, 2005-12-14 13:09
#23
quote:
Maybe we should all try to be more fickle, in order for our elected representatives to actually pay attention to the concerns of the citizens who vote for them.
Could not have said it better myself. Strategic voting is a way of keepign them guessing. It is a form of resistance, a way of not being predictable, of defeating the manipulative calculatiosn of political parties, their behind the scenes strategists and spin doctors. My wife says it is a way of saying a big "fuck you" to the parties. You can't predict how we will vote. You therefore cannot take us for granted. You therefore have to pay attention and respect us, or we will punish you, Mr. and Mrs. Dishonest Scheming Politician from the Bloc, Liberal, Conservative, NDP party who is usually less believable than a used car salesman.