Strategic Voting by Trudeau in the 2015 Federal Election

Geoff wrote:

During an Ontario election campaign during the McGuinty era, I called in to a Hamilton Liberal campaign office, asking if the Liberals thought strategic voting was a good idea (McGuinty had come out asking voters not to "split" the anti-Conservative vote). The campaign worker on the phone said, "Oh yes. That's our policy".

When I asked if McGuinty was going to tell Liberals to support David Christopherson in order not to split the vote, there was dead silence on the other end of the phone, followed by, "No, that's not what we're advocating". I said, "I thought so". I've always remembered that conversation.

Don't worry about the parties .. they all sacrifice country for party.

Individual voters should pay attention, count lawn signs, talk to their neighhbours and carefully consult the more credible local polls....

and vote efficiently on Oct. 19 for the local candidate that they think has the best chance of beating the local CON. All else is madness.

If Trudeau's momentum ramps up, and we end up with a Liberal majority, strategic voters will have driven a stake through the heart of electoral reform for at least another four years. Leadnow and others will justifiably be blamed for undermining the movement for PR.

Geoff wrote:

If Trudeau's momentum ramps up, and we end up with a Liberal majority, strategic voters will have driven a stake through the heart of electoral reform for at least another four years. Leadnow and others will justifiably be blamed for undermining the movement for PR.

A Liberal plurality of say 165 would be the best bet for everyone.  It would keep the dippers fingers off the trigger (give the Gov't long enough to tackle voting reform) but keep some control on the Libs to follow through.

A Harper "win" is more plausible than a Lib majority.  By far.  It is the fate we must avoid...

Nicky,

I think both parties might be trigger happy* in your scenario.  Back in August I was hoping we'd get a strong NDP plurality ... for the same reason.

We need at least two years, four would be better, to begin to right this ship before we roll the dice again.

(*it won't be comfortable for either party in some odd accord-just-short-of-a-coalition).

jjuares wrote:

<SNIP>

 It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals <SNIP>.

Holy cow.  

And 'you people' wonder why folks don't trust you.  Layton begat the Harper Government.  Thanks loads.

That said .. Vote ABC - and choose carefully.

OK the Layton dig was an attempt to give historical context.  I get that you have a different tribal narrative, so sorry I raised it cause it gave you a dead cat defence. 

Have you no shame? 

"It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals "

Sean, we've discussed endlessly the balance of seats in the House at that time. No doubt, the math supports your conclusion. The NDP on their own could not have determined the outcome.

But historians may also be interested in the Judy Wasylycia-Leis / Paul Summerville phony scandal accusation which literally turned the electoral tide on a dime. That was also the campaign where Layton suddenly shifted gears and publicly supported the Clarity Act, and where the NDP suddenly became crime-fighters after the Boxing Day shooting in Toronto. And where, after the child care agreements with the provinces got halted by the defeat of the government (a mere decade after the Liberals' solemn pledge), Layton decided not to oppose Harper's treacherous $100 per month subsidy (because, Canadians are too stupid to understand if you try to take free money from their pockets to create an actual, like, social service).

Yes, you got it - the NDP moved to the right in order to win votes - and spent all their time attacking the Liberals, for the Liberals' many real crimes, and a few imagined ones as well.

So perhaps there are some lessons that could have been learned. Next time, maybe.

Speaking of the Clarity Act - would have been nice if the 2015 election platform included a promise to repeal it or replace it or anything. Nope. Too risky, right?

jjuares wrote:

<SNIP> See this is why I don't like the Liberals here. You omitted the last part of my sentence not even using the correct punctuation ( ...) to signify that you had omitted a phrase and a carefully chosen ones that that.<SNIP>

Nice try.  When I quote selectively (for a purpose) I indicate that... my quick reply to Sean left off my orig quote:

Northern PoV wrote:

jjuares wrote:

 

<SNIP>

 It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals <SNIP>.

 

 

Holy cow.  

And 'you people' wonder why folks don't trust you.  Layton begat the Harper Government.  Thanks loads.

That said .. Vote ABC - and choose carefully.

[/quote]

Playing with fire (Unionist makes a good case above) got us Harper.  And you are already plotting to kill the guy who (might) vanquish Harper.

You have NO shame.

Northern PoV wrote:

jjuares wrote:

<SNIP> See this is why I don't like the Liberals here. You omitted the last part of my sentence not even using the correct punctuation ( ...) to signify that you had omitted a phrase and a carefully chosen ones that that.<SNIP>

Nice try.  When I quote selectively (for a purpose) I indicate that... my quick reply to Sean left off my orig quote:

Northern PoV wrote:

jjuares wrote:

 

<SNIP>

 It will also be difficult for the NDP and the Cons to work together to defeat the Liberals <SNIP>.

 

 

Holy cow.  

And 'you people' wonder why folks don't trust you.  Layton begat the Harper Government.  Thanks loads.

That said .. Vote ABC - and choose carefully.

Playing with fire (Unionist makes a good case above) got us Harper.  And you are already plotting to kill the guy who (might) vanquish Harper.

You have NO shame.

[/quote]
Now when I talk to you about ethics I am probably speaking to you in a language foreign to you, but here goes. Just because you write " snip" doesn't give you the moral right to omitt phrases which change the meaning of what someone writes. I purposefully added added that phrase as both a historical reference and as a specific case of when these two parties could bring down a corrupt government. Oh the irony is rich here. I am talking to a Liberal of his own ethical transgression and how these transgressions in general may lead to a Liberal downfall and he/she either doesn't get it or refuses to acknowledge it. If the Liberal government demonstrates the same standards as you they might as well order the moving vans to ship Justin's furniture out of 24 Sussex at the same time he moves in.

Northern PoV wrote:

OK, so this is what I snipped

" until we have some ethical transgressions."

So "until" you stop framing the dialogue with bits of hyperbolic presumption, I will keep snipping and commenting on the fact that:

You have NO shame.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Sean, we've discussed endlessly the balance of seats in the House at that time. No doubt, the math supports your conclusion. The NDP on their own could not have determined the outcome.

But historians may also be interested in the Judy Wasylycia-Leis / Paul Summerville phony scandal accusation which literally turned the electoral tide on a dime. That was also the campaign where Layton suddenly shifted gears and publicly supported the Clarity Act, and where the NDP suddenly became crime-fighters after the Boxing Day shooting in Toronto. And where, after the child care agreements with the provinces got halted by the defeat of the government (a mere decade after the Liberals' solemn pledge), Layton decided not to oppose Harper's treacherous $100 per month subsidy (because, Canadians are too stupid to understand if you try to take free money from their pockets to create an actual, like, social service).

Yes, you got it - the NDP moved to the right in order to win votes - and spent all their time attacking the Liberals, for the Liberals' many real crimes, and a few imagined ones as well.

Ugh, I commented [url=http://archive.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=25&t=0015... the time[/url] that I felt the NDP campagin in the 2005-2006 electionw as pretty ineffective, and I agreed that the positions Jack took were all over the map and very poorly thought out, but the rest is Liberal revisionism. There was something to indicate that things were not right with the trade the the Liberals did. What was Wasylycia-Leis supposed to do, not say anything? It wasn't just that one scandal that brought down the Liberal government, that was merely the straw that broke the camel's back as Canadians were disgusted with the antics of said government. I'm sure if it wasn't for that, then something else that was negative about the Liberals would have surfaced. Their arrogance and poor campaign brought them down by themselves, it wasn't the NDP's fault that the Liberals lost, and they absolutely would have lost that campaign regardless of what the NDP had done. As for the NDP not attacking Conservatives? On balance, the NDP actually won ridings that went Conservatives in 2004 without losing a single seat, while the Liberals and the Bloc on balance lost more seats to the Conservatives than they gained.

Northern PoV wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

In terms of election reform one idea being floated around is ranked balloting. Where it is not winner takes all. But the person must win a majority of first and second choices on the ballot.

In that sense wouldn't that shut out the Conservatives in 2/3 of the country? And avoid splits?

First, second, third choices and beyond. 

But die hard *PR folks don't like ranked ballots. Go figure.  

It is the currently preferred Lib option but they've promised a commission to study & recommend a voting alternatives.

Many think PR will fix everything.  To cure that notion, just look at NZ or even the G&M projections under PR for 2015: same 1,2,3 predictions just more seats for the Bloc & Greens - like that helps.  Corporate Media control trumps the voting system.

*PR has lost every referendum in Canada as it has been poorly concieved and even more poorly promoted.

Ranked ballots heavily favour the Liberals, because Liberals are the typical second choice of both moderate Conservatives and moderate NDP'ers, especially now that there is no PC party.

As for your apparent surprise about how frank the partisan NDP'ers are about how it's a shame they'll have to wait a while before teaming up with the CPC to take down the next LPC government...consider that the LPC is the threat to the NDP, not the CPC. The CPC could be reduced to 10% of the popular vote, and the NDP still wouldn't form government because most of those voters would go LPC before NDP. If the NDP is to ever form government, it will be at the expense of the LPC. So, for partisan NDP'ers, the LPC is the real enemy.

montrealer58 wrote:

So glad it's over.

It's over for now, until the Liberals inevitably stumble, the Conservatives find their feet post-Harper, and the next election all we are gonig to hear is "OH MY GOD WE CAN'T VOTE NDP BECAUSE THAT WILL SPLIT THE VOTE AND LET THE EVIL SCARY CONSERVATIVES BACK IN WE ALL HAVE TO VOTE LIBERAL OR THE SUN WILL BURN OUT, THE MOON WILL TURN RED, AND THE STARS WILL FALL DOWN FROM THE SKY AND SCORCH THE EARTH ON IMPACT!"

JKR wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

montrealer58 wrote:

So glad it's over.

It's over for now, until the Liberals inevitably stumble, the Conservatives find their feet post-Harper, and the next election all we are gonig to hear is "OH MY GOD WE CAN'T VOTE NDP BECAUSE THAT WILL SPLIT THE VOTE AND LET THE EVIL SCARY CONSERVATIVES BACK IN WE ALL HAVE TO VOTE LIBERAL OR THE SUN WILL BURN OUT, THE MOON WILL TURN RED, AND THE STARS WILL FALL DOWN FROM THE SKY AND SCORCH THE EARTH ON IMPACT!"

 

Hopefully by then we will not be using the single-member plurality electoral system and strategic voting will no longer be a part of our elections.

If you believe the Liberals or Conservatives will bring in electoral reform, I have some ocean front property in Saskatchewan that I can sell you.

Leadnow Backs NDP in Vancouver Granville, Sparking Controversy

Quote:

In its most controversial strategic voting endorsement, Leadnow is backing New Democrat Mira Oreck over Liberal Jody Wilson-Raybould in the new riding of Vancouver-Granville.

The Liberals are angry about the NDP endorsement given recent polls showing their candidate ahead of Oreck. But they say Leadnow's nod to the New Democrat isn't enough to defeat Wilson-Raybould who, they believe, has the momentum in the final days of the election.

Leadnow executive director Lyndsay Poaps said the process used in Vancouver Granville was "transparent" and was made -- not by Leadnow officials -- but by thousands of residents who had signed the group's Vote Together pledge.

Unionist wrote:

 [b]campaigning from the right, abandoning basic principles, imitating our enemies - and then LOSING[/b]) as a cautionary tale for the present and future.

This is a fair comment and very much part of the problem.

And the way Unionist framed it was "Campaigning" and this is accurate. The platform was a document left of the Liebrals to be sure. However, the campaigning rhetoric was not representative of the platform in tone, emphasis or priority.

I don't want to be nice about this -- screw around for a couple decades and then figure this out. the NDP has to wear this result today -- whatever it is. And no blaming other parties, the rules, finances, the media etc. You can't change those things and if you don't think you can win in that context -- get out of the way. Assume that we have in our hands what it takes to win and demand answers as to why we are not winning.

I personally think it is communications. The NDP often is technacally right put poorly written or presented and lacks the clarity and quality other parties are putting out. And then there is the fear factor as the NDP loses the guts to say somethign really different assuming that what works for the others must be a prescription for the NDP.