It all comes down to that age-old question: Does the end justify the means?
Right now, many Canadians are torn between their strong desire to nullify Stephen Harper's corrupt, anti-democratic rule -- and their own party loyalty.
But, with polls predicting at least another Harper minority -- given our distorting first-past-the-post system -- more and more are turning to the concept of strategic voting.
For this reason, there has been a proliferation of online groups designed to assist those who want to put their "X" beside the local opposition candidate best positioned to defeat the Harper representative. Check them out -- Catch 22, Project Democracy, Know Harper, Swing 33, and Avaaz of petition fame.
The problem these groups are trying to tackle is the refusal of our more progressive politicians to hold back on their usual partisan horserace, even in the face of the Harper threat. As in the past, our three (four in Quebec) relatively progressive parties could easily split the non-Harper electorate -- and allow a Conservative to win by even a handful of votes.
Two weeks before election day, in an article entitled: "Layton takes aim at Ignatieff -- but Grit Leader won't return fire," Globe and Mail writer Bill Curry summed up this frightening scenario: "A stronger showing for the NDP could mean an easier path to power for Conservative candidates in some ridings as the centre-left vote splits between the Liberals, NDP and Greens."
Precisely. Of course, there are those who oppose strategic voting because it focuses on winning, rather than issues, but, for a growing number, the biggest issue is a Harper victory -- and the destructive, far-right policies he would eagerly introduce.
Advertising
And, do we really like being governed by a party which can muster a mere 38 per cent of votes, representing about 25 per cent of Canadians?
Strategic voting is, in fact, the only way to ensure that the majority is heard.
This non-partisan (other than being ABC) approach to voting is only relevant in certain ridings. Voters in solid Liberal or NDP ridings can relax, knowing that the tactical, anti-Harper challenge lies in the many swing ridings across the country.
The Catch 22 Campaign, of which I'm a member, has identified almost 60 such ridings where strategic or smart voting is relevant. Some of these have been designated "offensive" campaigns -- where the Conservative MP won by less than 20 per cent in 2008.
Others are "defensive" -- ridings held by a Liberal or NDP member, but targetted by the Conservatives.
In the realm of "offensive" ridings, take London West where Conservative Ed Holder won with 39.1 per cent of the vote in 2008. The Liberals got 35.4 per cent; the NDP 14.6, and the Greens 9.8.
It is clear that, if the NDP and the Greens had held their noses and voted for the Liberal, Sue Barnes, the only real contender, London West would have had a different MP, cutting into Harper's numbers.
Instead, a majority of the voters in London West didn't want Ed Holder as their representative -- but they got him.
Same goes for Egmont, PEI. Conservative Gail Shea won by less than 100 votes -- a margin of .30 per cent. Very close! If some of the NDP and Green supporters had adopted the idea of strategic voting, Liberal Keith Milligan would have headed to Ottawa.
Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar in Saskatchewan would have had NDPer Nettie Wiebe packing her bags for the capital, if a few Liberals and Greens had given her the 300 votes she needed to beat Conservative Kelly Block.
In fact, that's how NDP candidate Linda Duncan in the "defensive" riding of Edmonton-Strathcona made it to Ottawa -- as the only non-Conservative MP in Alberta.
During the last election, several Liberals realized Duncan was the only one who stood a chance of beating Conservative Rahim Jaffer -- of Helena Guergis fame. Those "Liberals for Linda" helped her win by a margin of .98 per cent. We all know what happened to Jaffer.
So, what if Liberals, NDPers, and Greens weighed their options in a less party-oriented fashion and voted en masse for the most promising anti-Harper progressive?
Given the 2008 results and present riding numbers, we would probably have a Liberal minority government supported by the NDP and possibly a Green or two. Imagine! And, once citizens themselves had demonstrated their willingness to give the three progressive parties a chance to govern, the new MPs would have to follow suit -- and co-operate.
To this end, Catch 22 has developed a strong "on-the-ground" presence with dozens of in-riding campaigners planning to distribute about 100.000 pieces of literature and posters in several target ridings, as well as flyers, newspaper ads, and robo-calling to selected homes.
In my riding of Kingston and the Islands in Ontario, Liberal MP and House Speaker Peter Milliken retired, leaving the Conservatives keen to take advantage of the gap left behind.
Respected author and activist Jamie Swift recently sent out an email to 100 friends: "... I feel I have to vote for (Liberal) Ted Hsu in what is, realistically, a two-person race locally ... I'd vote NDP in a heartbeat in any two (or three) horse race where the social democrats had a chance. If you agree with this line of thinking, please spread the word to people who would normally vote NDP or Green. The Harperites are presenting a credible threat in Kingston ..."
Some argue that the Liberals are as bad as the Harper Conservatives. In rebuttal, I point out that Ignatieff has no chance of winning a majority and, given the history of progressive and productive Liberal minority governments (Pearson, Trudeau), it's worth the risk.
On the other hand, we've seen Harper in a minority situation, killing forward-thinking bills with his new Senate majority. With a majority, he would rule in the same negative, destructive way Mike Harris did in Ontario -- deeply wounding our society.
With this in mind, we can't afford to leave the results of the next, crucial election up to political parties, whose primary goal is to win. If we want to defeat Harper and create a more progressive Canada, we have to go beyond partisan interests -- and vote strategically.
Kathleen O'Hara is a member of the Catch 22 Campaign, which supports strategic voting.
This is bull. If all Liberals voted NDP than we would have an NDP majority. So do it.
Get a backbone Kathleen O'Hara!
Do your research & take a stand for something you believe in.
Strategic voting does not exist. Your vote will be wasted. Why would you want to do that?
You get ONE vote. Why not use it for what you believe in? That is where your vote will make the biggest difference.
Lily_otv
The problem with all of these ridiculous strategic voting sites is that they try to predict what is going to happen in the future based on what has happened in the past. This may be fine if everything is in stasis, but it's not. When there are huge, unprecedented shifts in support, problems arise when people try to predict what their neighbours are going to this time.
In 1993, there was a slew of PC and NDP INCUMBENTS who came third in their ridings - the same thing could very well happen this election to the Liberals and Bloc Québécois. Even if it looks like a 2-party race on the ground, this still may not be the case - the sign war provides a very poor indication of what is really going on at the best of times, and this is even more so the case in a shifting environment.
Wouldn't we all feel stupid if we strategically vote Liberal, only to wake up on May 2nd to find that we cast a ballot for the candidate in third place? NOW THAT THE NDP IS IN SECOND PLACE NATIONALLY, IT IS NOT THE LEAST BIT PRUDENT FOR ANYBODY TO BE CASTING A VOTE IN ANY OTHER WAY.
Here's the Toronto Star's take on "strategic" voting:
David Olive on Strategic Voting
Problem is, most people don't use "strategic voting" strategically. Previous election results, national polls, many of the most popular strategic voting websites do not necessarily provide an accurate picture of what's happening at the riding level, and thus can actually backfire on strategic voters.
Great post in Pundit's Guide asking a really important question. If strategic voting were so damaging to Conservatives, why aren't they up in arms about it? I mean, the real threat to Harper is a coalition and we've seen how he's reacted to that, so why do the Conservatives seem implicitly to like strategic voting. At the same time, I also find it telling that Liberals are much more reluctant and less vociferous in their promotion of "strategic voting" now that to truly vote strategically would mean many Liberals (e.g. in Quebec) casting votes for their NDP candidates. Which should give us pause to think about who traditionally benefits and who really loses from "strategic voting".
"Strategic voting" is inherently undemocratic. From Pundit's Guide: "a vote "against" someone or something is a vote in favour of nothing. It gives no mandate to elected officials, creates all the wrong incentives for the politicians who are elected that way, and guarantees that Parliament will descend even further into the partisan barking we see there now."
However, if someone is compelled as a last resort to vote "strategically" in ridings where there is a possibility of preventing a Conservative candidate from winning, plug your nose, vote carefully, wisely, and heed the advice ABC websites with a grain of salt. You want to get as much info as possible as to which candidate truly has the greater chance at defeating the Conservative.
What a load of horse manure. This election is changing the dynamic like never before. Voting strategically is the absolute best way to ensure a Harper majority. Casting your vote for a sagging Liberal campaign is going to have one effect and one effect only. Giving Stephen Harper another MP in Ottawa. I am so frikkin sick and tired of this defeatist bs.
I am voting NDP in my riding, because the NDP candidate has the best and strongest shot of beating the Conservatives. Pure and simple. The last election had a completely different dynamic. So trying to figure out this election based on it, is like trying to figure out whether a new pair of shoes will fit right based on who last tried them on. It is just plain stupid.
And by the way, ProjectDemocracy is not non-partisan, it is a Liberal front organization, just like its predecessor in the last election voteforenvironment. So at the very least do a little bit of research before you spread this stuff.
The Liberal intelligensia clearly doesn't have the same kind of courage as the rabble they presume to speak for. I'm voting NDP and no matter where you live so should you.
By the way the article should be retitled to reflect reality. Strategic voting will get you Harper- because it is all about propping up a sagging Liberal campaign instead of looking at what is actually happening in this election and that it is NDP candidate in many ridings that are now the competative alternative to the Conservatives.
But stupid is as stupid does I guess.
These posts simply underline why the right is dominating our political landscape. Almost all of these commenters do not even understand the concept yet feel entitled to rant against other progressives who are trying to find a solution to address the very real possibility of a Harper majority.
Strategic voting means that you vote for whichever party has the best chance of beating the Cons. Yes "stupid is" - that means votes for the NDP too. Sure stick to your "ideals" folks and see how long you keep getting your UI cheques while the evangelical right strips this country of everything it stands for.
My ideal is to protect my country, its citizens, and the planet. I am very much voting for SOMETHING, NDP/LIberal/Green as the case may be...
Thanks to Kathleen and all the others putting time and effort towards this cause. Now let's show solidarity for other progressive voices, and not succumb to childish and ill-informed infighting and name calling.
Question, if strategic voting is about solidarity with progressive voices, then why the non-partisanship? It seems to me only one of the major parties can even remotely lay claim to being "progressive".
I'm loathe ever to agree with Kinsella but I do agree with his assessment of where the Liberals have gone wrong (i.e. in moving too far to the right under Ignatieff- which also explains why they are campaigning so hard to the left). According to Kinsella:"under Ignatieff and his senior staff, the Libs moved too far to the right on important issues (eg. Afghanistan, oil sands, health care, etc.).... Whenever we let Rosedale Liberals take over – under Turner, Martin and now Ignatieff – we lose folks to the NDP. Liberals never win when they go too far right."
The LPC is not in any way progressive. It harbours MPs who are against abortion, it champions dirty oil, it rejects electoral reform, it unqualifiedly backs the actions of the Israeli state, and its leader supports the US invasion of Iraq, US imperialism/exceptionalism.
So while I could possibly see advocating for a Liberal candidate when it was abundantly clear that he/she posed a serious threat to a Conservative candidate poised to take a given riding, I don't get, as a "progressive", the vote your preference idea in ridings not threatened by Conservatives. Strategic voting websites should be advocating in Liberal/NDP races or in BQ/NDP races that the progressive electorate at least consider choosing the NDP candidate as the only reasonable progressive choice. I don't deny that the GPC has some progressive policy, but we're talking strategic voting, and realistically preempting Harper full grip on power.
So if the polls show the Liberals have no chance of winning anywhere will Kathleen O'hara vote NDP? I bet she votes Tory. This story is appalling.
Liberals are the problem not the solution. Maybe someone could tell me why they vote Liberal anyway?
Vote your concience and let the chips fall where they may.
Until proportional voting is introduced vote swapping is the closest thing we have. Swap stategically!
There are three possibilities.
1. Kathleen O'Hara is completely clueless about politics.
2. Kathleen O'Hara is completely clueless about basic arithmetic.
3. Kathleen O'Hara is a typical Liberal operative, who would rather see Conservatives win in CPC-NDP marginals.
Whichever the case, no thinking progressive should pay her any mind, and the only use for this article is as a stimulant to plant grwoth if spread Liberally in the garden.
http://accidentaldeliberations.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-retention.html
From Sid
"These posts simply underline why the right is dominating our political landscape. Almost all of these commenters do not even understand the concept yet feel entitled to rant against other progressives who are trying to find a solution to address the very real possibility of a Harper majority.
Strategic voting means that you vote for whichever party has the best chance of beating the Cons. Yes "stupid is" - that means votes for the NDP too. Sure stick to your "ideals" folks and see how long you keep getting your UI cheques while the evangelical right strips this country of everything it stands for.
My ideal is to protect my country, its citizens, and the planet. I am very much voting for SOMETHING, NDP/LIberal/Green as the case may be...
Thanks to Kathleen and all the others putting time and effort towards this cause. Now let's show solidarity for other progressive voices, and not succumb to childish and ill-informed infighting and name calling. "
It is most certainly not childish name calling. These people are dangerous. Being well-meaning does not absolve them of helping to create the very situation they say they are trying to stop. We have had strategic voting calls in every election since the rise of Reform. And do you know were that got us. Right wing policies enacted by right wing governments. In the last election strategic voting calls to vote Liberal - and let's not pretend that isn't what is going on - actually elected a bunch of Conservatives in ridings where the NDP could have won. We might very well have not had a Harper government if it was not for this nonsense. It is simply put dangerous and counterproductive. I will not apologize for calling it what it is.
I've had enough of it. These sights are NEVER have well thought out analysis of the current situations in ridings. They actually help to elect Conservatives by driving votes to candidates who might have been able to win the LAST election, but have nothing to contribute in the CURRENT election.
Any site of any kind that is basing their conclusions on previous elections, with different candidates in a totally new and almost unprecidented situation can not possibly get it right. They are dangerous if you are a progressive that actually wants to stop Stephen Harper.
However, if you are a Liberal who wants to help save the Liberal party at all costs, they are a wonderful tool. ProjectDemocracy, run by the same people as VoteEnvironment in the last election is a partisan front organization for the Liberals. You can look up their calls and their backgrounds. Any pretence that they are just well-meaning progressives should and deserves to be met with derision.
rabble promoting this anti-democratic, anti-progressive position will help to re-elect Harper, puts a lie to all it says it has stood for in the last 10 years.So, why did Michael Ignatieff begin his campaign in Outremont? Why did he send Bob Rae to Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar and Vancouver Island North to urge people to vote Liberal? Because he doesn't care about defeating Harper; he'd rather defeat New Democrats.
Kathleen, you'll make no headway with several posters on this website who refuse to admit that winning politics in many European countries -- with higher standards of living than ours, please note -- is all about cooperation, compromise, and, strategy.
As for the poster who wrote that strategic voting is inherently "non-democratic." Nonsense. Not optimal, to be sure, but far more democratic than first-past-the-post will ever be, and in lieu of a coalition and until such time as PR is enacted, voters have every perfect democratic right to vote in whatever way they choose to make the best of a truly lousy situation.
Furthermore, why do so many of you assume that those of us who have come to support strategic voting are Liberals????? Almost everyone I know who's thinking about voting strategically is a supporter of the NDP! I guess it depends on what region of the country you live in, and that's where the big divide on this issue comes into play. I suggest you speak for your own region, and not for everyone else's.
If all the Liberals voted NDP everywhere there would be 0 Conservatives in the House. And that is a fact. So why don't you all just face the facts and do it?
Intelligent progressives do not support "strategic" voting for several reasons. The two most important:
1. The Liberals ARE NOT A PROGRESSIVE POLITICAL PARTY and do not substantively disagree with any part of the Harper agenda.
2. Even if the Liberals WERE a progressive party (for which, see number 1), "strategic" voting does not work, has never worked and will never work because the Liberal operatives and deluded dilletantes who promote it don't do the kind of serious analysis that would be required (meaning that as often as not their "strategic" advice shifts votes from the second place party to the third place party ensuring the election of MORE CONSERVATIVES.)
@ outwest
Are you suggesting that people who normally would vote Liberal are now voting NDP, or are you suggesting people who normally would vote NDP are now voting Liberal?
If you are out west and you are doing the latter you are not voting strategically, you are voting to elect a Harper majority.
"Furthermore, why do so many of you assume that those of us who have come to support strategic voting are Liberals????? Almost everyone I know who's thinking about voting strategically is a supporter of the NDP! I guess it depends on what region of the country you live in, and that's where the big divide on this issue comes into play. I suggest you speak for your own region, and not for everyone else's."
OUtwest says it all - Those supporting & promoting strategic voting are Liberals, and who they are targeting are NDP supporters.
As Outwest suggested all those he/she has talked to are NDP supporters. LOL, the same old the same old - just keep the other corporate party alive for another day.
I'm disgusted that Rabble would promote this crap!
Now that the NDP is in second place, I wonder if this means that Ms. O'Hara will now be voting NDP instead of Liberal in order to stop the Conservatives? Somehow, I think not. More likely that this is another feeble attempt to try and shore up Liberal support at NDP expense. The 'strategic voting' she talks about sounds to me like a 'protection' racket; vote the way others tell you. It would be a shame to see this nice country of yours ruined because you didn't ...
Would this be legal if I was standing outside of a polling booth saying this??
If Harper gets his majority, then it doesn't matter how many more seats the NDP wins at the expense of the BQ and Liberals - none of the Opposition parties will have any impact on government decisions and legislation. So, concentrate on attacking Harper, not each other!
From 308.com:
These polls from Angus-Reid, EKOS, Forum, Ipsos-Reid, and Nanos add more fuel to the fire as to whether this will be a historic election for the NDP and a historic defeat for the Liberals. But while all of this goes on at the margins, the Conservatives remain on track to win another minority - or even a majority.
The problem with the "just vote conscience" approach is that you are engaging with a system that is fundamentally unfair. The fact is that a first-past-the-post system s**ts on ideological purity. The reality of our horse race system is that if you don't vote for the winner, then you might as well not vote at all -- your vote counts for absolutely nothing. So until we can get a more democratic system in place, it is simply foolish to give no concern to voting strategy. Yes, the dynamics are different this time around and the NDP are surging, so an appropriate degree of caution is warranted when looking at the results from last time. But in cases where you have a close race between Lib and Con and the NDP candidate realistically has no chance, I submit it would be foolish and, given the damage a Harper majority would render, utterly irresponsible to mindlessly "vote your conscience."
I've had serious discussions with a relative in Brantford about the strategic vote to keep Harper out. She didn't think she could hold her nose and vote for the Liberal instead of the NDP candidate although her greatest fear is a Conservative majority. We agreed that she should vote NDP whatever the strategists suggested. At the time the Liberal was the one to vote for to keep Harper's Cons from winning. In the meantime, union has come out in support of the NDP candidate and there's growing support for the NDP generally, but Catch22 still advises voting for the Liberal candidate. If you read their current thoughts they say they haven't got enough evidence to change anything.
Bad idea. Very bad idea. Especially in these wild and promising circumstances. Kathleen Ohara should be ashamed. And probably will be.
All Liberals no matter where you are in Canada should vote NDP because then we could take down more Torys than ever.
Hi, I noticed that you posted Henry Mintzberg's idea on your blog. We have formed a "Canadian Voters' Hyperstrategic Coalition" in order to coordinate efforts and kick out Harper from both a majority and even an advanced minority position. What Henry and Catch22 recommend amounts to HYPERSTRATEGIC voting. This will ensure that the real spectrum of political opinion is reflected in Parliament ...which should marginalize Harper. Send us an email if you want to be kept informed (CanadianVotersHyperstrategicCoalition@hotmail.com) and/ or if you want to participate and crystallize Henry Mintzberg's idea. I have formulated the idea differently in order to give it a better chance of "going viral" We need to keep trying until it does. The desire for that is obviously floating in the air; we only need to find the right way to "crystallize it". Alfredo (from Montreal)
Strategic voting advocates handed ridings like, Essex, South Shore-St. Margarets and Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar to the Conservatives in 2008. If they keep it up, they'll allow the Conservatives to keep not only those seats but ridings like Edmonton East, Brant, Huron-Bruce and Vancouver Island North, where strong local NDP candidates make the NDP the best option to defeat Conservatives.
I've had serious discussions with a relative in Brantford about the strategic vote to keep Harper out. She didn't think she could hold her nose and vote for the Liberal instead of the NDP candidate although her greatest fear is a Conservative majority. We agreed that she should vote NDP whatever the strategists suggested. At the time the Liberal was the one to vote for to keep Harper's Cons from winning. In the meantime, union has come out in support of the NDP candidate and there's growing support for the NDP generally, but Catch22 still advises voting for the Liberal candidate. If you read their current thoughts they say they haven't got enough evidence to change anything.
Bad idea. Very bad idea. Especially in these wild and promising circumstances. Kathleen Ohara should be ashamed. And probably will be.
What I hate the most about the idea of strategic voting is that it is based on doing something that goes against what you believe in your soul is right, out of fear.
I DO NOTHING out of fear. That is really all I have to say about this.
Sorry, Kathleen O'Hara, no room for rationality on this subject on this board.
The hive-mind is activated and you WILL be stung; called a "Liberal operative" stupid, shameless and any other manner of insults.
I suspect some posters here would prefer a Harper majority and all that entails than have their Beloved Party lose a single vote: atavistic hockey-team tribalism demands total loyalty to MyParty.
Never mind that Jack "lend us your vote" Layton played his "vote stategic" card again in this election:
"The way to stop Stephen Harper from getting a majority is to take Conservative seats one by one, and defeat the MPs who are there. That's how you stop Mr. Harper from getting a majority," Layton said in Regina.
"Here in Saskatchewan, just like in British Columbia, just like in Alberta where we've been to launch this early part of the campaign, the only way to do that is to vote for your New Democrat candidate."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20110328/ndp-electio...
All the non-Harper leaders have dishonestly played a false "Strategic Voting" card in this election--all of them pushing a false, simplistic, self-serving distortion of it.
Likewise, the responses to this article are to (strategically) attack the same oversimplified self-serving versions promulgated by the cynical leaders.
The kick here is that 'strategic' voting, as advertised by the Liberals, is a bad idea from the get go. It assumes that everyone feels the exact same way as they do, and threatens dire consquence for failure to obey. We are individual voters, not pawns in some larger game of political lego blocks. Voting with your conscience, no matter where it leads, is the only answer worthy of this great country. If you are willing to toss your conscience into the trash to support some other political game, what have you become then? Just another hack, willing to sell his/her soul for a chance at power. I will not go that route. My conscience is what will guide me. Not what someone else tells me to do. Or is voting where your conscience tells you not to, a new definition of 'progressive' that I haven't heard about?
The comments on this article are ridiculous. Only a fraction of the comments appear to understand that this is a riding by riding strategy to prevent a Harper majority. NDP loyalists think this amounts to a Liberal plot usurp their vote, which, as stated in the article, it is not. It is non partisan, which means that Liberals will vote for NDP candidates in as many of the 60 swing ridings as NDP supporters will vote for Liberals. I have had conversations with Greens who will support the NDP as well in some places this time around, or, they will vote swap with people in SGI to get Elizabeth May into the house. It works well for all if done by all.
The petty rightiousness displayed here by persons claimning the "progressive" high ground astounds me. All I see is a failure to listen or understand information as it is being presented, and the only thing I can attribute that to is the warped lense of NDP partisanship.
Where are these millions of starving Canadian people? Forgive me if I haven't seen any yet.
Project Democracy is recommending a strategic vote for NDP in Vancouver Island North. This is how strategic voting should work if the strategy is to defeat Harper. Except in a few unusual circumstances vote for whoever was in 2nd place behind Cons last time or support whoever won ahead of the Con.
If the strategy is something else a different vote may be more appropriate. e.g. If you want to cripple Libs to make future elections a race between NDP and Cons, then vote NDP or even Cons if they are the only real chance of defeating Libs in your riding. I don't recommend this one though. The pain of a 5 year Harper majority would be too much to bear.
Some estimates put strategic voting as high as 20%. Although FPTP completely hides the true extent. As an exercise all those critical of strategic voting as a Liberal scam should use that 20% on the last election results and see what happens to the seat count when we assume all those strategic votes return to the NDP. Its not pretty. The reality is that strategic votes go both ways depending on riding circumstances. It is quite possible that strategic voting helped prevent a Conservative majority last time. Although so long as we have FPTP we can never know for sure.
Yes that's all very nice. In some ridings, even the usually inept "strategic" voting crowd will manage not to screw it up. Like a stopped clock, they can be right twice a day.
But where the rubber hits the road, "strategic" voting has NEVER been effective in a Canadian election. NEVER. NOT EVEN ONCE.
The ONLY thing "strategic" voting has EVER accomplished is to deliver seats to the Conservatives.
There are a number of reasons for this - most particularly that the "strategic" voting dilletantes are lousy communicators. Yes, their pretty website may say "vote NDP in Plunkett Centre," but the vast majority of people they reach with their simplistic messaging never get to the website. They get swept up in oversimplification and insist that they have to vote Liberal in Plunkett Centre because "we must stop Harper."
But even at the riding by riding recommendation level, the dilletantes get it wrong as often as not anyway, basing their analysis on a simplistic assessment of the previous election. Thus a "Liberal" recommendation in Densthene - Missinippi - Churchill River, a constituency where personal connections matter more that partisan affiliation and where the NDP candidate is one of the most successful First Nations politicians from northern Saskatchewan.
The dilletantes also fail to see how their strategy" has consistently played out. Ever since this stupidity started in the 1990s, the consistent result has been that NDP vote drops (by wide margins where the NDP is a distant third, by narrower margins where the NDP is competitive) while the Liberal numbers rarely move. In other words, the dilletantes are effective at shifting NDP votes to the Liberals (even where it makes no sense and they perhaps don;t intend to) yet consistently fail to shift Liberal votes to the NDP.
This is most likely the result of incompetence, though one is moved to wonder.
Finally, Liberal - NDP "strategic" voting is stupid because the Liberals ARE NOT A PROGRESSIVE PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!! The Liberals do not actually disagree with the Conservatives on a single substantive issue - if one bothers to look at the Liberal RECORD instead of just the Liberal rhetoric.
Liberals and Conservatives are equally committed to lowering corporate taxes. They are equally evasive about enhancing social spending. On the environment, health care, childcare and a swath of other issues, the Liberal record is not better than the Conservatives - and frequently worse. Neither party is interested in addressing the problems of the lonng gun registry, preferring to keep the issue (and their cooperating disagreement) alive as a wedge between rural and urban voters.
"Strategic" voting is a fool's strategy.
If Ms O'Hara wants to advocate mass stupidity, that is her right.
She should, however, expect to get called on it.
Yes, the specifics and local dynamics of any particular riding are critical, but at the same time the reality of a first-past-the-post system cannot be denied. Caution is warranted, but nonetheless if you're in a riding where the NDP candidate really is a total longshot then it probably makes sense to vote Liberal. But if it is at all close between Lib and NDP this time around -- even if the Lib finished ahead of the NDPer last time -- then vote NDP!
@Malcolm
You make a good many assertions with no offer of evidence at all. There are only a few ridings in play in this election and voting strategically IN THOSE RIDINGS ONLY can and will make the difference between a catastrophic Conservative majority and a continuation of a check on Stephen Harpers power. That you fail to see this and instead rail against Liberals as no better when they have no chance of forming a government simply demonstrates that you refuse understand our democratic system. If you live in a swing riding that could go Conservative, be you Liberal, NDP or Green, please vote carefully for campaign with the momentum to take the seat away from Harper. It is not impossible, even with the big challenge of getting the information right in any particular riding.
Yawn.
I will vote strategically. I will vote for the only party that actually opposes the right wing ideology of Stephen Harper.
So I won't be voting for the "let's pretend we're not right wing" Liberals. Neither will I be voting for the "Conservatives with composters" Greens.
The unfortunate thing is that "strategic" voting advocates don't understand much about politics or about public communications - that's in addition, of course, to their complete befuddlement over basic arithmetic.
Your "strategic" voting message isn't going to be limited to "THOSE RIDINGS ONLY." And it isn't going to be clearly understood even there. I've already spoken with anti-Harper voters who were convinced by you lot that they needed to vote Liberal "to stop Harper." Of course, they were all voters in Regina, none of whom lived in the only Regina seat where the Liberals are a serious alternative.
The best allies Stephen Harper has are the liars and fools who advocate "strategic" voting election after election after election - and consistently ensure the Conservatives win far more seats than they would have won otherwise.
Once again, a good many assertions without any evidence. The fact of the matter is that *some* NDP apparatchiks would rather live under the tyrannical boot of Stephen Harper than admit any shared purpose with other Canadians. Rather like the Reformatories if you ask me. I can also see that your personal understanding of public communications includes the old axiom of repeating a lie often enough and it will be believed. Disappointing. It has been repeatedly stated that there is no room for strategic voting outside of a situation in a riding that warrants it. This is made clear by anyone who supports the concept. In any given riding there is enough history and anecdotal evidence for voters to make a strategic decision as well as ongoing analysis of the strategic voting sites. The arguments there are vigorous and also critical of their reliance on polls.
Harper's goals in seeking a majority will immediately disenfranchise the centre-left, as well as the left of centre, and your approach is let the chips fall as they may. This is irresponsible in my view.
" – consistently ensure the Conservatives win far more seats than they would have won otherwise"
er, you don't honestly believe that do you? There are so few ridings where voting strategically can have an effect and so little evidence to prove that assertion in those few examples that the assertion stands out as wishful thinking on your part. Are you suggesting that without strategic voting there would be many more seats in the house for the NDP? For the Liberals?
Lame and lamer. I noted that one"strategic" site was sponsored by the Walrus magizine. One noted for dismissing the left while hyping fear abut the "far" right. (not including the liberals, of course, as Trudeau amd Pearson remain in charge apparently) Another posted piece dismising Layton's recent gains as making no difference. According to past (recent) results. Well, present polling shows different patterns arising therefore these extrapolations based on past results maybe off. A third one lists *entirely" Liberal seats as "vulnerable" back East, not One NDp one, and even suggests donating to the Liberals in Saanich-Gulf islands, where eMay is supposed to be leading now. Some strategic allies. Sorry guys, strategic voting only means something when ALL "partners" are willing to give something meaningful and honest and Comprehensive riding projections are made about likley results -for the election presently being run. I strongly suspect all of the sites suggested here are being managed or manipulated by Liberal operatives.
Lots of claims with no citations, Eric. For example give us the link to the site that is advocating donating to the Liberals in Saanich-Gulf Island. If true, they are (at best) totally incompetant. Link please.
Strategic voting is all well and good, but it's just a band-aid solution. Whatever government gets elected on May 2nd, we need a serious national discussion about electoral reform.
A major issue is that many people are unaware of, or don't fully understand, the alternatives available. One site that's around to address that is Vote Lab, at http://votelab.ca. They're doing an online poll with ranked ballots, and will use the results to compare several different electoral systems we could be using in Canada.
If you're interested, check it out and cast your vote. The more, the merrier!
The Harper-Loving-Liberals who promote the lie of "strategic" voting are out in full force, I see.
(BTW, for someone as completely devoid of evidence as you clowns to get all in high dudgeon is beyond hypocritical.)
Anyway, here are some references for you - not that you'll pay any attention.
Pundits' Guide - Why the Conservatives Love the "Strategic" Voting Sites
Simple Massing Priest at Accidental Deliberations - On Retention
Of course, I don't expect you'll pay them any mind since your mind is already made up - facts be damned.
I hope Stephen Harper has the decency to send you a thank you note after you help him get re-elected.
Your spiritual leadership is much appreciated, gentle Reverend, rooting out "liars" and "Liberals" when even you probably know it isn't true. I think there may be an ecclesiastical employment vacancy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Matthewhopkins.png
The entire "strategic" voting meme is based on fabrication and foolishness.
BTW, no time to hunt witches. Too busy exposing Liberal operatives who pretend to be neutral analysts.
Perhaps you Harper-Helpers could use this to help you with your arguments.
Ah yes, “neutral analysts” like the two links you just posted:
yourself, and former NDP campaign manger, Alice Funke.
But I'm truly curious, Reverend, do you really believe you are “exposing Liberal Operatives” on this thread, or is it a case for you of “the ends justifying the means” in making those nasty claims?
This may be an unfair question, being Easter and all.
"Strategic" voting has never been anything but a scam to undercut the NDP and preserve the Liberal vote. The wierd thing about it is, though, that you Libs would prefer to see Conservatives win Con-NDP marginals.
You Liberals really do need to get out more. Canadians - including progressive Canadians - don't owe you squat.
You keep calling me a Liberal, Reverend, and you almost certainly know its a lie. Do do really have no religious qualms about such deceit?
Sorry. I thought that a person who advocates voting Liberal would be a Liberal.
Does it make me an NDPer that I strongly "advocate" voting NDP in those ridings where they have the best chance of winning?
The absence of logic in your in your insults is not likely a God-given deficiency.
Right. In the mean time, the average anti-Harper voter just hears the meta-narrative: "Vote Liberal!"
This is the problem you people don't get. You can put up the fancy websites all you want. Even if your riding by riding assessments are correct (which is a dubious supposition at best, particularly given the current electoral volatility), you don't have the capacity to communicate these things to the right people on the ground. All that will get heard is your simplistic metanarrative.
Along with your fellow travellers in the media, we're already hearing that NDP gains in BC mean more seats for the Conservatives despite the fact that the kind of NDP gain that would deliver Liberal seats to the Conservatives would deliver at least as many Conservative seats to the NDP and an almost certain net loss for the Cons.
But all that will get heard is your wrong-headed metanarrative: "Vote Liberal."
You are supporting a "strategy" that has consistently failed for the past 25 years. It hasn't failed because it needs a few tweaaks here and there. It's failed because it is a fundamentally flawed "strategy," based on a flawed understanding of voter behaviour, a flawed understanding of the Liberal Party (and the Greens for that matter) and a flawed assumption that past results are a reliable predictor of future results.
Tell you what. Let's us sit down after the election and assess 308 ridings for the effeciveness of "strategic" voting. I am absolutely confident that it will have, once again, proved itself a counterproductive failure.
Malcolm said "Let's us sit down after the election and assess 308 ridings for the effeciveness of "strategic" voting." I would love to do this, but how could you, when all we get are the results of peoples anonymous ballots. How would you propose to distinguish between a Liberal vote and a strategic Liberal vote? If you can't count the number of strategic votes how do you propose to assess the effectiveness? The way things look at the moment I say welcome back all those strategic voters from last election, the shift in support to the NDP makes the need for strategic voting much less. The idea of strategic voting is still valid and there may be a few examples where it could be worthwhile. eg Vancouver Island North where Liberals could vote for NDP to oust a Tory. Or North Vancouver where NDP could vote Liberal to oust a Tory. What could be wrong with this? NDP up 1 Lib up 1 Tory down 2. Or if you prefer NDP up 1 other parties down 1.