Poll - 2/3 of Canadians Considering Strategic Voting

Pondering wrote:

The pollster suggests a stunning 62 per cent of respondents say they would consider voting strategically just to prevent a party they disagree with from forming government.

I'm stunned it isn't higher and pollsters should know that and be taking it into account. It's been many years since voters voted for a party or PM. That includes the NDP. When voters don't support any party strategic voting is obvious.

Maybe it’s not so surprising when you consider that roughly only 62 percent of eligible voters vote in federal elections.

So...Liberal voters are FINALLY going to agree to vote NDP in ridings where the Liberal candidate has no chance of stopping the Conservative candidate?

Mighty Middle wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

So...Liberal voters are FINALLY going to agree to vote NDP in ridings where the Liberal candidate has no chance of stopping the Conservative candidate?

On Vancouver Island they are going to vote Green to stop the Conservatives, and avoid vote splitting.

That is not strategic voting. On VI most seats are races between the NDP and the Conservatives. The Liberals are hardly a factor so if progressive voters switch from incumbent NDP MP's to Green wannabes the most likely outcome will be a Conservative victory. The last election the Conservatives lost all their seats because their vote abandoned it and voted Liberal instead.  Even Nanaimo is vulnerable to a Conservative victory if the Greens and NDP split the vote and the Liberals poll their normal 10% range in the central Island.

JKR wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

So...Liberal voters are FINALLY going to agree to vote NDP in ridings where the Liberal candidate has no chance of stopping the Conservative candidate?

How many ridings does the NDP candidate have a better chance of winning than the Liberal candidate versus how many ridings does the Liberal candidate have a better chance of winning than the NDP candidate?

A vote for a Liberal is not a vote for anything progressive.

Pondering wrote:

Finally? People have been voting strategically ever since I started voting. It's pretty obvious. The idea will occur naturally to anyone who votes. Certainly anyone who is aware of the numbers in their riding. Others will think they are voting strategically but don't realize that the only thing that matters is their own riding.

Actually no, they don't. People hear "strategic voting" and it generally plays itself out by people voting Liberal. That was one of the factors behind NDP seats like Halifax and Winnipeg Centre falling to the Liberals in the last election, even though the Conservatives were never in contention. It also led to people voting Liberal in Andrew Scheer's riding, even though at the time it had an NDP MP.

I can name 3 ridings where the idea behind strategic voting ended up helping the Conservatives:

Oshawa 2004: The NDP were polling very well in the riding, moving up from the bottom of the pack to being in contention. In the dying days of that campaign, there was pressure on everyone to vote strategically to stop the Conservatives. This led to local voters voting for the third-place Liberal canadiate, with the Conservatives taking the seat

Huron-Bruce 2006: This was a Liberal-held seat that was a 3-way race going into the campaign. It stayed an even race until the very end, when strategic voting was the buzzword. People voted strategically to stop the Conservatives or the Liberals, and the NDP was squeezed into third place. Even though the Liberals went on to hold that seat, it flipped to the Conservatives in 2008 and remains a Conservative seat to this day.

Bramalea-Gore-Maltin 2011: The NDP had no prior history here. Jagmeet Singh ran a very good campaign. As always, there was this pressure to "vote strategically," and Singh brought the NDP from almost nowhere to just shy of the first place Conservative. I'm convinced that the number of people who strategically voted for the Liberals exceeded Singh's margin of defeat, and that if everyone had voted how they wanted, Singh would have been elected then.

For all the lip service about "who is best to defeat the Conservatives," in practice it always ends up with people voting Liberal. Even in the last Ontario election, people "strategically" voted for the Liberals as they were crashing and burning and ended up with PC MPPs.

I think strategic voting or tactical voting is a natural outcome of FPTP that produces just one winning candidate usually with much less than the majority of the votes.

Mighty Middle wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

 The last election the Conservatives lost all their seats because their vote abandoned it and voted Liberal instead.  Even Nanaimo is vulnerable to a Conservative victory if the Greens and NDP split the vote and the Liberals poll their normal 10% range in the central Island.

So you are saying that the Cons and Libs split the vote in Vancouver Island, which led to the NDP sweeping most of the seats in Vancouver Island?

Here is a link to the results from the last few elections. Go ahead actually look at the data and then get back to me to discuss what it means.

On Vancouver Island we have free enterprise voters not Conservative or Liberal partisan voters. Provincially they mostly all vote for the BC Liberals/Socreds and federally they have been voting primarily Conservative except when they all voted Reform. Harper pissed enough of them off that they voted Liberal because that is the other free enterprise party.

The Liberals are not a progressive party they are a party of the economic elite. Some of our corrupt neo-con austerity BC Liberals are federal Liberals and the rest are federal Conservatives but they share the same ideology. Some of them would consider voting Green but never NDP.

Regional profile

Like most of British Columbia outside of Greater Vancouver, Vancouver Island tends to be a battleground between the Conservatives and the New Democratic Party (NDP). This is as true now, as has been in the past, except between 1988 and 2004. In 1988, the NDP swept the island in a wave of popular support that saw the party win the most seats in its history. This was wiped out in 1993 however, when many NDP voters switched to the Reform Party which won every seat except Victoria, which was picked up by the Liberals for the first time since 1968. This arrangement continued until the resurgence of the NDP in 2004, which led to it picking up Nanaimo—Cowichan, while the Liberals benefited by the seat switching of Keith Martin in Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, whose personal popularity allowed him to be re-elected as a Liberal.

Since winning their first seat in the region in seventeen years in 2004, the NDP won two more seats here in 2006 picking up Victoria from the Liberals and Vancouver Island North from the Tories. The Tories won Vancouver Island North back in 2008. In 2011, the NDP picked up Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca from the Liberals while Green Party leader Elizabeth May defeated Tory cabinet member Gary Lunn in Saanich—Gulf Islands to win her party's first elected parliamentary seat in history. The Liberals failed to cross the 15 percent mark in any Vancouver Island-based riding. The island swung hard to the NDP in 2015; May was the only non-NDP MP elected here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election_results_on_Vanco...

Aristotleded24 wrote:

... there is an anti-Liberal vote that may switch between the Conservatives and the NDP?

I may be wrong but it seems to me that opinion polls have shown that there are relatively few voters who switch between the Conservatives and NDP. I think opinion polls have shown that Conservative voters generally have no second choice when compared to voters who support the other parties.

Misfit wrote:

Ari,

Krop made sense. You did not. The Liberals are not a left wing party. They are right wing. The Greens are not left wing either. In fact, although the NDP is supposed to be left, I think they are centre.

Krop backed up his argument with facts and percentages. I agree with Krop.

I think you may have missed the sarcastic closing to his post, I almost did and was wondering about his perspective until then.

laine lowe wrote:

It seems to me that Conservative and right leaning Liberals are the most likely to throw their vote to the Greens when they are frustrated with their respective parties. I have yet to ever meet or hear of any voter that switches from Conservative to NDP or vice versa.

Except in places on VI in the '90's when the NDP backed the wrong horse in the referendum and the Reform sounded like positive change. They attracted both Conservative and NDP voters but that was then not now. I agree that NDP'ers don't switch to the Cons, unless tricked by populism.

Allen, yes cannibus was something long overdue. But that wraps up pretty  much everything progressive the Liberal party is progressive on, not even housing as you so claim. You don’t vote Liberal for  affordable housing. You are a die hard Liberal and you squeal with glee everything Liberal every election. Only a hard core die hard Liberal would believe that the Liberal party does much of anything progressive. They are nothing more than less worse than the Conservatives.

Misfit wrote:

Allen, yes cannibus was something long overdue. But that wraps up pretty  much everything progressive the Liberal party is progressive on, not even housing as you so claim. You don’t vote Liberal for  affordable housing. You are a die hard Liberal and you squeal with glee everything Liberal every election. Only a hard core die hard Liberal would believe that the Liberal party does much of anything progressive. They are nothing more than less worse than the Conservatives.

lol. yep

I get how many people think on the "L" in Liberal standing for largesse. It's a valid perception. Probably one that has made it impossilbe for provincial Liberal parties to get much traction in the Prairie provinces.

As for what this current Federal Liberal party has achieved, in addition to what was mentioned above (and by all means not perfect outcomes), legalizing assisted death was another much needed achievement. Again, could it have been better - for sure. And from where I sit, working with a few First Nation clients, the Liberals have done far more in their first term for various Indigenous/Aboriginal issues than Harper did in his decade long rule. For sure, the promises were grander than the delivery but an inquiry for Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women happened, some major land claim negotiations happened, funding for infrastructure and many other projects for on-reserve FN communities happened, etc.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Misfit wrote:

Ari,

Krop made sense. You did not. The Liberals are not a left wing party. They are right wing. The Greens are not left wing either. In fact, although the NDP is supposed to be left, I think they are centre.

Krop backed up his argument with facts and percentages. I agree with Krop.

I think you may have missed the sarcastic closing to his post, I almost did and was wondering about his perspective until then.

I could tell that Ari was being sarcastic by the third sentence. Part of this has to do with what I know about Ari's politics based on his posting history.

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Please try to be a little more specific than the West. In fact on VI, the furthest West, the NDP won 5 out of 6 seats and EMay won the other. The number of NDP MP's in BC has been steadily increasing. Now if you want to talk about how the NDP was decimated on the Prairies and has never recovered because the party has been totally focused on Central Canada for twenty years, that is a different conversation.

I worked on all the elections from 1994 until the last one and every campaign the central office would send us boxes of literature and pictures of Jack that sat in a back corner while we elected MP's based on who they were not who was party leader.

Yes, the NDP did well in BC in 2015 -- it was the one highlight of the night for NDP fortunes after what happened in the Atlantic, Quebec & Ontario.

But in 2019, polls show the NDP at risk of losing support in BC to the Greens, and maybe the Libs & Cons in some places.  Some BC polls have the NDP in 4th right now.

You also can't blame the NDP HQ for focusing on Central Canada for the past 2 decades.  How can a Federal party form government in Canada if it doesn't have seats in Ontario & Quebec?

Debater wrote:

You also can't blame the NDP HQ for focusing on Central Canada for the past 2 decades.  How can a Federal party form government in Canada if it doesn't have seats in Ontario & Quebec?

The NDP in Ontario and Quebec should focus on Ontario and Quebec and win seats there by electing MP's who are running on the issues from the party platform that are meaningful to their voters. That means a campaign that is suited for Timmins in Northern Ontario not tailored to try to win the Beaches let alone North Battleford. It means a party trying to elect MP's with a purpose not a bunch of lap dogs to an omnipotent leader. That is how the BC NDP federal wing has always worked and it is the model that needs to be replicated. I truly think that will win us more progressive MP's in parliament who will have more power to enact their constituents wishes.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Debater wrote:

You also can't blame the NDP HQ for focusing on Central Canada for the past 2 decades.  How can a Federal party form government in Canada if it doesn't have seats in Ontario & Quebec?

That came at the expense of their traditional stronghold in Western Canada. With the exception of 2011, the NDP has struggled to win large numbers of seats ever since. Moreover, the NDP strategy of attempting to win over Central Canada, where everyone will vote Liberal because they are scared witless of the Conservatives, and treating the whole country as if it was a monolith has not worked for them. Never mind figuring out the nuances of different regions outside of Ontario, the NDP can't even figure out the different nuances within. It's also a fallacy that you need to win Quebec. Stephen Harper actually lost seats in Quebec at the same time he won his majority.

Well, there's one factor you're overlooking there.  The Conservatives were able to win a Majority in 2011 with only winning 5 seats in Quebec only because of the very unusual circumstances of that election.  That was the only election in history where the Liberals crashed below 20% of the vote and dropped to 3rd.  So the Cons gained large numbers of seats, particularly in Ontario.

But most of the time the Cons will need to win a decent number of seats in Quebec in order to win a Majority, and they are smart enough to know that.  That's why they are focusing on trying to increase their Quebec seat count this year.

Misfit wrote:

F

Left Turn wrote:

Too many people -- including virtually all of the msm -- use "Western Canada" as a synonym for the praries, or worse, as a synonym for Alberta. BC is the Westermost province in Canada, and yet is often not included in popular conceptions of "Western Canada". It bugs the heck out of me.

Well that’s because there is nothing to see out in B.C., the mountains block the view.

Spoken like a true flat lander. I'll bet you slow down for corners and mat it on the straight stretches.

People vote strategically because there isn't anyone they really support nevermind a party they can be passionate about. Democracy within a party might help but I don't think it's the solution. We need an Alexandra Ortasia-Cortez or at least an Elizabeth Warren or something in between. Both these women are specific about what's wrong and what needs to be done about it. They speak the language of the people without talking down. They are blunt. Unfortunately it takes charisma too. Finding all of that in one person is challenging. 

QS might be onto something with co-spokespeople but  I don't think Canada is ready for that federally. I think we would be ready for a team. I would like it if the NDP had a leader as it does now but that the leader would reveal his cabinet before the election. We could then question the finance minister etc. and evaluate them. People would love it and the media would love it. It would send the message that the cabinet would work together and maybe actually meet and speak with the PM. 

I knew backbenchers were nobodies but I had no idea that key ministers didn't speak to the PM at least weekly. No one talks to the leader except select staff. The media gets canned lines no matter what question they ask. You almost don't need a real person. The people actually running government are staff not elected officials. 

If the individual wasn't elected then of course they would have to name someone else but at least the public would have a better idea of what our government would look like and ministers would have clout instead of living under the current apparent dictatorship by staff. Trudeau is not designing policy or making the big decisions but neither are his ministers. 

It wouldn't need to be a legal requirement. If a party voluntarily identified its top ministerial picks I think they would be rewarded by the public. It would shift focus off of the leader but the leader would benefit from the reputations of the selected ministers. When you thought about who to vote for the expertise of all the top picks would make the team appear stronger. The public would know that this is something they could hold the government to in terms of opinion. Switching ministers about would require a good explanation. That would give ministers more clout. 

If the NDP said up front who the top 3-5 ministers would be in the most significant positions it would take focus off of Singh. The media and pundits would be talking nonstop about the wisdom of doing such a thing and all of the ramifications. They would have to question ministers directly on the economy, foreign affairs, etc. If we knew that Guy Caron would be minister of finance or of trade that would tell us more than any platform. It would make it much easier to present and defend policy approachs and get away from the focus on leadership and platform "promises".  

Pondering like many Canadians your mindset is American. You don't think of electing MP's instead it is about electing leaders. I cannot voter either for or against any of the party leaders and that is the case for most people. I can only look at the candidates in my riding and choose the one that is best and if they are good then work to get them elected.  The NDP already has a shadow cabinet so its not like e don't know who the key players will be. The NDP as a team, region by region, needs to emphasized.

Debater wrote:

I think there may actually be a rule (or a very strong convention) against naming cabinet ministers while an election is in progress.

By definition there are always way more competent government MP's than Cabinet posts so no leader would do that because who gets the plum posts after an election is a power game where one needs to look closely not just at the individual MP's but also their gender and their province of origin and possibly ethnicity as well. Besides people like to think that the MP they elect has a chance to make Cabinet and if the Cabinet was already determined there would be no hope to spring eternal.

I don't think a shadow cabinet has ever translated into a governing cabinet. The reason for that is cynical, but simple: It's a lot easier to avoid a minister directly contradicting something he said when he was critic for the same post if he's in charge of a different ministry.