Why you might consider voting NDP "strategically" in a losing local campaign

90 posts / 0 new
Last post
Sean in Ottawa
Why you might consider voting NDP "strategically" in a losing local campaign

Those considering voting strategically please consider the following.

This applies to anyone interested in a more left government.

First, the anti Harper vote is strong. It is unlikely that the Harper government can come back with a governing strength unless the Liberals tank. If the Liberals tank, the NDP is in play for government and is a legitimate option to defeat Harper. But that is unlikely to happen.

If the NDP is so far down that you think it might not be worth voting for, the Liberals will be strong enough to keep Harper out of office. And there is more to consider than who governs.

I am not going to say the Liberals cannot be better than the Conservatives or that they cannot do some "progressive" policies (for want of a better word). I am not saying the NDP cannot disapoint either. These are not the cases I am making. Consider what happened in 1993 and think about why.

That year we threw out the PCs and replaced them with a parliament that had a strong Liberal majority that faced a Reform opposition (the BQ running only in Quebec did not count as a threat to government). The NDP lost party status and its popular vote fell to the single digits.

What followed was a right of centre Liberal government that came in on a wave of soon-to-be-broken promises. The Liberals for the next decade governed with the Reform and then the Conservatives as their main threat to government. The NDP remained a weak force in parliament for a decade. We lived through the most right wing Liberal government in memory. The NDP recovery was slow.

By 2005, the NDP not only had the balance of power (before losing it late that year), it represented a threat to the Liberals. Martin, a right of centre Liberal, brought in progressive policies his more left Liberal predecessor saw no need to consider. It was not just because the NDP made them, but because the Liberals once again saw the NDP as a threat.

Now consider 2015. We see Trudeau has proposed a number of progressive policies. Trudeau did so because he was running against the NDP. The NDP has blown the campaign to win, but it still has a major role for those who do not want to see "Harper" policies.

If the NDP fades further and becomes less of a future threat, the Liberals will govern in fear of the Conservatives and a look at the 1995 budget should tell you what that looks like. But if the NDP remains a threat, the Liberals will think twice. Even if we are resigned to get a Liberal government, what kind of government we get will be determined by how strong the NDP is in this election. Seats matter, but so do votes.

By this, do not worry about FPTP -- it will not matter as much as you think. The popular vote will matter. If the NDP popular vote craters, the Liberals will shift sharply to the right and the benefit of dumping Harper will be gone -- the policies will not change much. If it holds up -- even if the seat count is disappointing -- the Liberals will govern, aware that the NDP remains a threat and is one election away from competing for government again.

A vote for the NDP will not be a wasted vote in any riding if you consider that a government operates based on who it fears.

It also will matter if you want the NDP to be a force in the next election rather than sit out the next decade.

I think the NDP itself is at fault for much of what has gone wrong in this campaign but people will have to account for that. But if you want to avoid Harper policies -- be they brought in by Harper or by Trudeau in fear of a Conservative opposition -- then you should seriously consider having your vote count for the NDP.

Another factor to consider is the NDP platform. While the NDP campaign is worthy of rejection, the platform contains elements that it would be dangerous to see defeated in a devastating way. Some NDP reasonable support is required in defence of some of those policies as the next government will consider a defeat for the NDP to be a desire by the population not to attempt such policies.

Most seats will not be close -- I get that there may be a few, very few, cases to make to vote for a Liberal to keep out a Conservative. There may be less than ten seats where this is really practical. But for everyone else, recognize how millions of NDP votes will be regarded by a government who knows it will have to fight a new election in four years if it has a majority, or possibly much less time in case of a minority.

The one thing you can count on is the dynamic a large NDP caucus has on the Liberals. It pushes them to the left. A small NDP caucus pushes the Liberals to the right. No matter how angry you may be with the NDP in this campaign, do not forget that fact.

There is a value in voting NDP, even in the most hopeless of ridings.

If there are few other reasons to vote NDP now -- these may still remain very compelling.

 

6079_Smith_W

If I was in a riding where the NDP have no chance of doing anything other than splitting the vote, I would probably, for the first time in my life, vote Liberal.

In most of the ridings here it is the Liberals and Greens who might split it, letting the Harperite candidates win. Can't expect them to hold their noses and do so if we aren't willing to do the same.

Besides, we have a number of people who are already holding their noses to vote NDP even without another option.

KarlL

But Sean, the NDP would be stronger still if enough Liberals voted NDP in ridings in which only the NDP can beat the Conservatives, as you'd have far more seats. 

Rather than presuming that some future Liberal government will be influenced by how many votes the NDP gets in ridings it couldn't win,  I would think it wiser to help ensure that the Conservatives don't win an outright majority by NDPers voting Liberal in ridings in which only the Liberals can beat the Conservatives.  

But hey, that's just me.

And again, I am only saying this in respect of those who rank stopping the Conservatives from getting a majority ahead of other considerations.

 

 

 

 

JKR

Voter volitilty is so great nowadays that the results of this election will probably have little bearing on the next. If the NDP runs a good campaign in the next election they will likely be in good shape. If not then they will be in trouble. Now with the NDP seeming to be in third place, I am just hoping for a minority situation with the NDP holding the balance of power. In a minority situation the NDP could help pass some legislation that will enhance the party's reputation and more importantly help many Canadians in their day to day lives. Just moving the retirement age back to 65 would be of great benefit for Canadians. The last thing I would like to see now is another phony FPTP Conservative or Liberal majority government.

Sean in Ottawa

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If I was in a riding where the NDP have no chance of doing anything other than splitting the vote, I would probably, for the first time in my life, vote Liberal.

In most of the ridings here it is the Liberals and Greens who might split it, letting the Harperite candidates win. Can't expect them to hold their noses and do so if we aren't willing to do the same.

Besides, we have a number of people who are already holding their noses to vote NDP even without another option.

Please note I said that there are cases where there is a strategic vote where you could make a difference to who wins.

But where that is not the case if you have a Liberal who is well back and cannot be helped there is good reason to vote NDP as I explained.

Let's not forget how many times the Liberals asked New Democrats to support them only to jetison their promises. Let people vote strategically where the winner is in doubt. But where it is not a vote for the Liebral is a vote for a right wing Liberal government and a vote for the New Democrat is a message to Liberals not to turn their backs on all the nice progressive things they said in this campaign.

There is no need to vote Liberal where they are already going to win or they cannot win and this is what I am talking about.

If the Liberal party is well on track based on the final polls, and you want to be strategic, think about the message a heavily damaged NDP would send and consider the strategy of that as well.

Look to 1993-1995 if you need a reminder.

Sean in Ottawa

KarlL wrote:

But Sean, the NDP would be stronger still if enough Liberals voted NDP in ridings in which only the NDP can beat the Conservatives, as you'd have far more seats. 

Rather than presuming that some future Liberal government will be influenced by how many votes the NDP gets in ridings it couldn't win,  I would think it wiser to help ensure that the Conservatives don't win an outright majority by NDPers voting Liberal in ridings in which only the Liberals can beat the Conservatives.  

But hey, that's just me.

And again, I am only saying this in respect of those who rank stopping the Conservatives from getting a majority ahead of other considerations.

There ought to be more considerations than replacing Harper with Trudeau. If you want to replace his policies with something different then the Liberals will only be pushed if they see a strong NDP vote.

I don't think Liberals will care about NDP votes where they won't make a difference.

I have stated in the handful of really close races people may vote strategically for the Liberal. But where the Liberal will win for sure or cannot win, a vote for the NDP to count to remind the next government that there is support for left of centre policies is a legitimate strategy.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

Voter volitilty is so great nowadays that the results of this election will probably have little bearing on the next. If the NDP runs a good campaign in the next election they will likely be in good shape. If not then they will be in trouble. Now with the NDP seeming to be in third place, I am just hoping for a minority situation with the NDP holding the balance of power. In a minority situation the NDP could help pass some legislation that will enhance the party's reputation and more importantly help many Canadians in their day to day lives. Just moving the retirement age back to 65 would be of great benefit for Canadians. The last thing I would like to see now is another phony FPTP Conservative or Liberal majority government.

I absolutely disagree with this.

It is very difficult to come from a poor third to win. Even getting candidates and getting people to see you as an option is hard.

But that is not the only reason I raised: if a Liberal government thinks the next threat will come from the right they will govern accordingly. Your vote for the NDP popular vote helps to remind them that the NDP remains an option for the future and will hold the Liberals to account for broken promises.

Voting for the third party is the best way to assure a minority government anyway.

My point is even if the NDP provided a poor campaign on the left, keeping it a strong option in the House and in the popular vote will change the strategies and policies of the bigger parties. This can prevent a Liberal government from leaning too far to the right. It is also the base on which the party tries again next time.

My message is that I understand the strategic voting for Liebrals to get rid of Harper -- but do it carefully where that vote might actually make a difference. Otherwise there is a benefit to recording a popular vote for the NDP or electing an NDP opposition MP. It is not just about which of the two old cats govern us. It is also if one of them fears us enough that we have influence.

If you really seek to replace Harper then this is a valid point becuase this can have an impact even if the candidate does not win. It is not just a bunch of shiny red Liberals that will change the policies of Harper. Those Liebrals need to fear the next orange wave or they will govern just like Harper. If that does not bother you, why consider a vote strategically for Liberals anyway?

Debater

Sean, there are some ridings where NDPers might want to vote Liberal to remove some of the odious Conservative assholes.

Here's an example:  CPC MP Brad Butt, Mississauga-Streetsville:

Conservative candidate muses about deporting Mulcair under C-24

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/10/06/conservative-candidate-muses-about-deport...

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

JKR wrote:

Voter volitilty is so great nowadays that the results of this election will probably have little bearing on the next. If the NDP runs a good campaign in the next election they will likely be in good shape. If not then they will be in trouble. Now with the NDP seeming to be in third place, I am just hoping for a minority situation with the NDP holding the balance of power. In a minority situation the NDP could help pass some legislation that will enhance the party's reputation and more importantly help many Canadians in their day to day lives. Just moving the retirement age back to 65 would be of great benefit for Canadians. The last thing I would like to see now is another phony FPTP Conservative or Liberal majority government.

I absolutely disagree with this.

It is very difficult to come from a poor third to win. Even getting candidates and getting people to see you as an option is hard.

But that is not the only reason I raised: if a Liberal government thinks the next threat will come from the right they will govern accordingly. Your vote for the NDP popular vote helps to remind them that the NDP remains an option for the future and will hold the Liberals to account for broken promises.

Voting for the third party is the best way to assure a minority government anyway.

My point is even if the NDP provided a poor campaign on the left, keeping it a strong option in the House and in the popular vote will change the strategies and policies of the bigger parties. This can prevent a Liberal government from leaning too far to the right. It is also the base on which the party tries again next time.

My message is that I understand the strategic voting for Liebrals to get rid of Harper -- but do it carefully where that vote might actually make a difference. Otherwise there is a benefit to recording a popular vote for the NDP or electing an NDP opposition MP. It is not just about which of the two old cats govern us. It is also if one of them fears us enough that we have influence.

If you really seek to replace Harper then this is a valid point becuase this can have an impact even if the candidate does not win. It is not just a bunch of shiny red Liberals that will change the policies of Harper. Those Liebrals need to fear the next orange wave or they will govern just like Harper. If that does not bother you, why consider a vote strategically for Liberals anyway?

I agree that it would be catastrophic if the NDP came in a weak third. That's why I think it is important that as many voters as possible vote NDP in the 300 ridings or so that are not two-way battles between the Conservatives and Liberals. In the 40 ridings where only the Conservatives or Liberals can win, I hope voters vote in such a way as to maximize the chances of there being a minority situation after October 19th. I should add that if the Liberals were far ahead in the polls. I would hope that more Conservative-Liberal races would go toward the Conservatives. But currently that is not the situation. Also, as you mentioned, if the NDP does have a weak showing, the chances of a majority will go up.

JKR

Strategic voting would be a thing of the past if we had electoral reform.

6079_Smith_W

I wasn't sure that was what you were saying, Sean. The title says voting NDP in a losing local campaign.

Though I think we are talking more than 10. As I said, three of the ridings here in Saskatoon alone may be determined by people who decide to vote strategically or not.

 

welder welder's picture

I live in a very safe Conservative riding...Niagara West Glanbrook (or whatever it's been renamed)..Dean Allison is my MP and Tim Hudak is still my MPP...

I'll vote NDP because,it won't matter anyway...The Christian Heritage Party will get at least 500 votes down here...lol

KarlL

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

KarlL wrote:

But Sean, the NDP would be stronger still if enough Liberals voted NDP in ridings in which only the NDP can beat the Conservatives, as you'd have far more seats. 

Rather than presuming that some future Liberal government will be influenced by how many votes the NDP gets in ridings it couldn't win,  I would think it wiser to help ensure that the Conservatives don't win an outright majority by NDPers voting Liberal in ridings in which only the Liberals can beat the Conservatives.  

But hey, that's just me.

And again, I am only saying this in respect of those who rank stopping the Conservatives from getting a majority ahead of other considerations.

There ought to be more considerations than replacing Harper with Trudeau. If you want to replace his policies with something different then the Liberals will only be pushed if they see a strong NDP vote.

I don't think Liberals will care about NDP votes where they won't make a difference.

I have stated in the handful of really close races people may vote strategically for the Liberal. But where the Liberal will win for sure or cannot win, a vote for the NDP to count to remind the next government that there is support for left of centre policies is a legitimate strategy.

Sorry Sean, I had misread your first post.  Not only do I not take issue with it, I support your thrust that strategic voting makes sense only in winnable ridings for your second choice where your first choice cannot win..

I am also concerned about an uninformed strategic vote.  The Lorne Nystrom example that someone cited the other day is a real fear for me, as it elects more CONs.  

KarlL

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I wasn't sure that was what you were saying, Sean. The title says voting NDP in a losing local campaign.

Though I think we are talking more than 10. As I said, three of the ridings here in Saskatoon alone may be determined by people who decide to vote strategically or not.

 

All of which would benefit the NDP in SK.  

I think there are 28 tight ones nationally if I recall from the other day.  3 of those are three-way fights.  The other 25 were split 13 in favour of the Liberals and 12 in favour of the NDP.

terrytowel

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

First, the anti Harper vote is strong.

Not anymore. With the TPP & the Niqab the Cons have vaulted into first place in Quebec tying Muclair with 28% support. And this was a province that wanted change the most. The narrative has now changed to the Niqab and the TPP. both which Harper played well into his corner. It's over!

takeitslowly

I already dealt with many liberal trolls today on ndp pages. Heres why i am votinig ndp.

The liberals  supported the Harper conservatives on Anti-Terror Bill C-51,  Bill S-7, CETA, Chinese FIPA, mandatory minimum sentence , corporate giveaways ,weakening environmental protection of our lakes and axing vote subsidy . Liberals voted with the conservative 69 times to limits Canadian civil liberties from 2001 to 2015 . Source : International Civil liberties monitoring group . Icimg.ca

And Justin Trudeau Libs were + are prepared to blindly endorse TPP just like they d...id with FIPPA 31 year pact with China.
I wont listen to the liberals , right nowe our job as the ndpers is to make sure we fight the liberals comment by comment on social media. lets brainstorm!

takeitslowly

sean in ottawa, thank you, i will be sharing what you posted on ndp pages and on facebook.

brookmere

If the only two viable candidates in your riding are a Conservative who is a complete asshole and someone else whom you can at least respect as a human being, who ya gonna vote for?

takeitslowly

sean in ottawa, can you tell me about the ndp vote being more efficient and do you think thats true?  i am ignoring everyone else because of too many liberals here all of a sudden coming out of woodwork. if you can write about that, i will share it on facebook and social media. . you are a better writer.

brookmere

Quote:
In the 40 ridings where only the Conservatives or Liberals can win

Surely there are more than that. There are clearly that many in Ontario alone.

 

KarlL

.

KarlL

brookmere wrote:

Quote:
In the 40 ridings where only the Conservatives or Liberals can win

Surely there are more than that. There are clearly that many in Ontario alone.

 

 

That isn't the standard.  The ridings at issue are not those that "only the Conservatives or Liberals can win".  The issue is 'the ridings that either the Liberals or Conservatives can win and the NDP can't.  They are also the ridings that either the NDP or Conservatives can win and the Liberals can't

KarlL

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

First, the anti Harper vote is strong.

Not anymore. With the TPP & the Niqab the Cons have vaulted into first place in Quebec tying Muclair with 28% support. And this was a province that wanted change the most. The narrative has now changed to the Niqab and the TPP. both which Harper played well into his corner. It's over!

Terrytowel, really, don't be such a baby.

With 12 days remaining as of tomorrow, there isn't a single recent poll that would predict a Harper majority and both opposition leaders (plus May and Duceppe) are committed to bringing down a Harper government at the first opportunity.  The party that you too seem to support is on a bit of a roll and you respond wih psychic friends and melodramatic statements.

 

 

KarlL

takeitslowly wrote:

sean in ottawa, can you tell me about the ndp vote being more efficient and do you think thats true?  i am ignoring everyone else because of too many liberals here all of a sudden coming out of woodwork. if you can write about that, i will share it on facebook and social media. . you are a better writer.

Well feel free to ignore me as a Liberal but I will tell you that at most plausible levels of support, the NDP vote is more efficient, hence the prospect of 80 or 90 seats in the low-to-mid 20% range of support.  That's because it is concentrated in the regions of QC, BC, SK and some fairly specific places in Ontario and to a lesser degree, MB and Atlantic canada.  If you sink like stone into the teens or recover you strength in QC, it might be different but right now, you have a highly efficient vote that would likely deliver a higher percentage of seats than your share of the vote.

Cody87

KarlL wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

First, the anti Harper vote is strong.

Not anymore. With the TPP & the Niqab the Cons have vaulted into first place in Quebec tying Muclair with 28% support. And this was a province that wanted change the most. The narrative has now changed to the Niqab and the TPP. both which Harper played well into his corner. It's over!

Terrytowel, really, don't be such a baby.

With 12 days remaining as of tomorrow, there isn't a single recent poll that would predict a Harper majority and both opposition leaders (plus May and Duceppe) are committed to bringing down a Harper government at the first opportunity.  The party that you too seem to support is on a bit of a roll and you respond wih psychic friends and melodramatic statements.

Well, I don't think anybody really believes the Mainstreet poll was accurate, but it is very close to Harper majority territory. That being said though, the conservatives are trending upwards just like the liberals, but as the conservative vote is more efficient, the conservatives are far more likely to get a majority than the liberals.

The good news is the most probable outcome, as you point out, is a LPC minority with the NDP alone holding the balance of power. The LPC platform has a lot of things any anti-Harper will love, there is lots of common ground, and the platform unequivocally states they will reform the voting system (and provides a timeline of 18 months). With the NDP holding the balance of power, they can hold the LPC to this most crucial of promises (and the one most likely to be broken if the LPC forms a majority).

takeitslowly

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/mulcair-i-would-never-be-able-to-support-this-deal

 

Another reason I am supporting Mulcair is because he always stood up for what is right and he stood against Harper and has strong convictions. I never have to guess what he means when he speaks on important issue affecting Canadians. His voting record in the past 8 years showed that he is a fighter and he is standing up for Canadian and the other parties stand up for Harper.

Mighty AC

NDP or Liberal majorities are impossible this time around. 

A CPC minority is currently likely with the possibility of a FPTP false majority simply because their base will vote, while the younger left may or may not show up.

As a progressive voter you have to decide if the rival progressive party is better or worse than electing more CPC MPs. If you would rather see a conservative elected, than holding your nose and voting NDP or Liberal, then simply vote with your heart.

However, if you feel that we are better served by a lefty coalition, then vote with your head and simply pick the strongest non-conservative in your riding. In 2011, strategically changing 6201 votes is all it would have taken to turn that CPC majority, that has been so very detrimental to our country, into a minority.

Remember that an orange and red coalition will likely give us PR and this problem of strategic voting will disappear.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mighty AC wrote:

Remember that an orange and red coalition will likely give us PR and this problem of strategic voting will disappear.

You don't know that; that's just your say so. There is no evidence that will happen. And, Trudeau and the Libs prefer ranked ballots, beause they know it works to their advantage.

Again, given Trudeau's lack of support for PR, your claim is simply your say so. That's all it is. Your say so.

 

takeitslowly

i wouldnt trust trudeau with his promises , never mi nd he didnt promise PR .

takeitslowly

some really great lines from mark, i might use it "

IE, "Canada, one of the richest nations on earth, yet these two [show Trudeau and Harper] feel we can't afford national child care! They give billions to corporations, then cry deficit when it comes to services!  Shame!  We can afford to take care of our kids!  Canada is ready for change!  NDP."

Or, where it's italicized above, replace with other themes, like infrastructure and our cities.

For the environment, a slight modification:  "Canada, one of the richest nations on earth, yet these two [show Trudeau and Harper] feel we can't afford national Cap and Trade! They give billions to corporations, then cry like babies when it comes to making polluters pay!  Shame!  We can afford and must start to take care of our planet!  Canada is ready for change!  NDP."

Mighty AC

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Again, given Trudeau's lack of support for PR, your claim is simply your say so. That's all it is. Your say so.

No, it's very clearly spelled out in Liberal policy statements:

"AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT immediately after the next election, an all-Party process be instituted, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with recommendations for electoral reforms including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent Canadians more fairly and serve Canada better."

https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/31-priority-resolution-restoring-trust-canadas-democracy/

6079_Smith_W

terrytowel wrote:

Not anymore. With the TPP & the Niqab the Cons have vaulted into first place in Quebec tying Muclair with 28% support. And this was a province that wanted change the most. The narrative has now changed to the Niqab and the TPP. both which Harper played well into his corner. It's over!

Maybe tell the psychics not to cash their cheques yet. Nanos has the NDP with 30, the Liberals with 28  Bloc at 20,  Harper with 17, Greens at 3.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20151004%20Ballot%20TrackingE...

Mighty AC

takeitslowly wrote:
i wouldnt trust trudeau with his promises , never mi nd he didnt promise PR .

As I mentioned to Art, this information is easily accessible. The Liberals also mention it directly in the platform section of their website. This stuff isn't hard to find so there is no need for this kind of willful ignorance.

Here's the quote and the link:

Quote:

"We will make every vote count.

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform."

https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/?shownew=1 

Mighty AC

Come on Arthur...you're accusing me of making stuff up when it is part of the Liberal platform and very easy to find at that:

Here's a link to the platform page:
https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/electoral-reform/?shownew=1

Here's a link to the policy resolution:
https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/31-priority-resolution-restoring-trust-canadas-democracy/

 

Are your purposely being dishonest?

 

mark_alfred

Mighty AC wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Again, given Trudeau's lack of support for PR, your claim is simply your say so. That's all it is. Your say so.

No, it's very clearly spelled out in Liberal policy statements:

"AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT immediately after the next election, an all-Party process be instituted, involving expert assistance and citizen participation, to report to Parliament within 12 months with recommendations for electoral reforms including, without limitation, a preferential ballot and/or a form of proportional representation, to represent Canadians more fairly and serve Canada better."

https://www.liberal.ca/policy-resolutions/31-priority-resolution-restoring-trust-canadas-democracy/

But far less clear in their platform:

Liberal Platform wrote:
We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.

There's a whole range of possibilities covered under "wide variety of reforms".  Could be anything, such as reducing some of the overzealous rules of the Conservatives "Fair Elections Act".  Or something else.  It need not be PR.

This leaves me with no confidence that they'll enact proportional representation, or even ranked ballots.

Mighty AC

mark_alfred wrote:

There's a whole range of possibilities covered under "wide variety of reforms".  Could be anything, such as reducing some of the overzealous rules of the Conservatives "Fair Elections Act".  Or something else.  It need not be PR.

This leaves me with no confidence that they'll enact proportional representation, or even ranked ballots.

They are leaving the reccommend solution up to a committee with representatives from all parties and actual citizens. This is the correct way to go about it, but it means they cannot specifically state which electoral system will be installed.

You have left out part of the platform quote. Here is the whole thing:

We will make every vote count.

We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.

We will convene an all-party Parliamentary committee to review a wide variety of reforms, such as ranked ballots, proportional representation, mandatory voting, and online voting.

This committee will deliver its recommendations to Parliament. Within 18 months of forming government, we will introduce legislation to enact electoral reform.

It seems pretty clear that FPTP will be replaced. However, the citizens committee will decide what the best alternative should be.

mark_alfred

Ah.  Yes, true, I see the last under FPTP part now.  Still, I don't consider ranked ballots to be a worthwhile change.  The voting system should strive to have each person's first choice on a ballot mean something.  As a supporter of PR, I have no confidence whatsoever that the Liberals will back PR.  None.  Zero.  So definitely not worth my support.

And regarding "the best way to go about it", it's been studied to death.  No need to waste time, IMO.

Mighty AC

I also don't like the idea of ranked ballots but I do have confidence that Trudeau will strive to keep his promises, at least early on. If he has any sort of power, it will corrupt eventually. It always does.

As for the citizens/all party committee, I disagree. It certainly has been studied to death, but to be open, transparent and honest about such an important change it is crucial that a pannel of citizens actually choose the reform solution.

Sean in Ottawa

takeitslowly wrote:

sean in ottawa, can you tell me about the ndp vote being more efficient and do you think thats true?  i am ignoring everyone else because of too many liberals here all of a sudden coming out of woodwork. if you can write about that, i will share it on facebook and social media. . you are a better writer.

I do not think one party's vote is more efficient than another. In fact the concept does not really make that much sense to me.

It is the distribution and level of support relative to the other parties that defines efficiency and each party will have certain levels of support that are efficient. No party can be efficient at all levels. If you have critical mass you get a lot of seats, fall under that you get votes but nothing to show for them.

Just think what efficient means-- not many wasted votes -- many seats won by a little. Well if you are in this position and lose a chunk of support then you will lose those many seats you won by a little at the higher number.

The NDP used to be a regional party with next to no support in much of the country. Now it is more national. this means that the level where the party is efficient will have to be higher than it was in the past as it is spread out more. I suspect that the NDP at 18% would be struggling to have party status whereas in the past this level of support could deliver as many as 40 seats.

The danger in Quebec is especially acute. At 43% the party got 59 seats. Now it is around 30%. We know what 23% looks like -- the BQ got 4 seats with that number. But for the NDP it is even worse than that. There is a real risk of the NDP running second to the Liberals in Montreal, second to the Conservatives in Quebec and second to the BQ in much of the rest of the province -- a huge number of votes and little to show for it. I do not think that 30% in Quebec would be an efficient level of support and below that it only gets scarier. A little higher and the NDP could retain most of its seats.

In other parts of the country there is reason to believe that the NDP is more concentrated -- it is likely that the party could lose support in some aras of the country and see little or even no loss in seats.

If you look at the NDP vote when it was a national 30% and see where it was efficient and where it was not, you will get an idea what a change in support could bring. Essentially where the party was efifcient last time a drop would lose a lot of seats whereas where the party was not efficient a drop would like make no difference as there were votes to spare in the winning ridings.

In the last election the party won 33% of the seats with 30% of the vote.Quite efficient. This means a national drop would be expected to be costly in seats.

Lets look at the regions using this principle:

BC -- The NDP won about the same number of seats as it had votes. Any drop is a problem.

AB -- The NDP vote was very inefficient. It is possible that a drop in provincial support might make no difference.

MB and SK -- The NDP vote was very inefficient and so a reduction in votes would not expect to result in much of a change if any. It is possible the party could get more seats with fewer votes if the distribution improved.

ON -- The NDP got just fewer seats than popular vote. Here again a small reduction in votes may or may not affect the seat count

QC -- The NDP got nearly 80% of the seats with under 60% of the vote. This is very efficient. This is where the party would stand to lose the most seats with a decline in vote.

Atlantic -- The NDP was not that efficient and so even a small reduction in votes might make little difference.

What this means is that a minor reduction in votes in Quebec would cost a lot of seats but might make little difference in the rest of the country.

If we consider the 23% in the recent poll and what that means -- The NDP is down in that poll by 12% in Quebec. This is roughly equivalent to 3% nationally. In other words all else being equal a 12% drop in Quebec would mean the NDP would have 27% nationally. To see the party at 23% means that the NDP in the rest of the country has declined about 5%. this is significant enough to see a loss of efficiency if that drop was reflected in Ontario and BC but less so in the other provinces (except Quebec).

The one thing that could be an advantage --  it is possible that the bulk of the loss of NDP support has occurred where there is no NDP MP. If this is the case we could see fewer losses than expected. But if the drop is more proportional the losses will be hard for the party to bear.

 

takeitslowly

thanks sean in ottawa.

takeitslowly

i dont know where these liberals come from, they should renamed babble to liberal.  Anyways, this is babble, not some regular facebook page, people here are actually informed. The Liberals voted against PR just recently. Trudeau is against PR, its just a charade , this whole act of "studying it". Ohmygod, we are not all born yesterday here, we actually follow politics closely. Feed your bullshit somewhere else. This annoying crap is the reason i am deeply afraid of the liberal gaining even more power. Its like hearing Hillary Clinton speaks about why she supported the vote in going to war in iraq, no more please. Dont talk to me.

Mighty AC

Here are 16 very winnable ridings if we vote strategically:

Mighty AC

takeitslowly wrote:

i dont know where these liberals come from, they should renamed babble to liberal.  Anyways, this is babble, not some regular facebook page, people here are actually informed. The Liberals voted against PR just recently. Trudeau is against PR, its just a charade , this whole act of "studying it".

We'll see... Hopefully, non-cons win enough seats to actually test your suspicions. I doubt JT and the LPC would have so clearly expressed their support for electoral reform and a citizens committee with timelines for implementation if it were just a charade.  However, I've been fighting for PR for a quite awhile now and have been fooled before. For instance, I thought we had a chance back when Layton promised to make his cooperation in a minority parliament contigent upon support for PR. Unfortunately, that was just a charade.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty AC wrote:

Here are 16 very winnable ridings if we vote strategically:

You have to do better than this here.

When you post a graph like that people will call you on it if you do not provide a source.

It is clear that the source is not the last election and it is in fact a poll. You can see this simply by looking up the redistributed results.

The Saint John, Bay of Quinte, the NDP were ahead in the last election. THe Northumberland riding LPC and NDP were less than 1% apart.

Clearly these are Liberal targets but to suggest the NDP should defer to the Liberal should require more than a poll of a few hundred people on a given day -- don't you think?

You call for Liberal votes in those ridings based on what -- one poll? And you do not even say the rationale.

I think when you present polls you should identify what they are and present them as such not post these in a way that suggested they were a real electoral result becuase that is the impression you leave when you throw numbers iwthout a polling source.

Mighty AC

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You have to do better than this here.

When you post a graph like that people will call you on it if you do not provide a source.

It is clear that the source is not the last election and it is in fact a poll. You can see this simply by looking up the redistributed results.

The Saint John, Bay of Quinte, the NDP were ahead in the last election. THe Northumberland riding LPC and NDP were less than 1% apart.

Clearly these are Liberal targets but to suggest the NDP should defer to the Liberal should require more than a poll of a few hundred people on a given day -- don't you think?

You call for Liberal votes in those ridings based on what -- one poll? And you do not even say the rationale.

I think when you present polls you should identify what they are and present them as such not post these in a way that suggested they were a real electoral result becuase that is the impression you leave when you throw numbers iwthout a polling source.

I'm sure you are aware that much has changed since the last election. The chart was compiled using projections by Eric Grenier (threehundredeight.com) the same projections being used by the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html

The chart itself has been used in variety of places including here: https://medium.com/@kashani/there-is-actually-a-way-to-guarantee-harper-s-defeat-here-s-how-11ca79cec748

 

Neither the Liberals or NDP can control parliament alone...but it is still possible for the CPC to do so. Cooperation via strategic voting will elect more non-conservatives and give us our best chance ever at implementing PR. Progressives can work together to create positive change or stubbornly/ignorantly waste ballots and miss out on a golden opportunity.

Cody87

Mighty AC wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You have to do better than this here.

When you post a graph like that people will call you on it if you do not provide a source.

It is clear that the source is not the last election and it is in fact a poll. You can see this simply by looking up the redistributed results.

The Saint John, Bay of Quinte, the NDP were ahead in the last election. THe Northumberland riding LPC and NDP were less than 1% apart.

Clearly these are Liberal targets but to suggest the NDP should defer to the Liberal should require more than a poll of a few hundred people on a given day -- don't you think?

You call for Liberal votes in those ridings based on what -- one poll? And you do not even say the rationale.

I think when you present polls you should identify what they are and present them as such not post these in a way that suggested they were a real electoral result becuase that is the impression you leave when you throw numbers iwthout a polling source.

I'm sure you are aware that much has changed since the last election. The chart was compiled using projections by Eric Grenier (threehundredeight.com) the same projections being used by the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html

The chart itself has been used in variety of places including here: https://medium.com/@kashani/there-is-actually-a-way-to-guarantee-harper-s-defeat-here-s-how-11ca79cec748

 

Neither the Liberals or NDP can control parliament alone...but it is still possible for the CPC to do so. Cooperation via strategic voting will elect more non-conservatives and give us our best chance ever at implementing PR. Progressives can work together to create positive change or stubbornly/ignorantly waste ballots and miss out on a golden opportunity.

I'm on my phone on my lunch so sorry for quoting the whole thing. I wholly support strategic voting while we still have FPTP, but actually I would not trust 308's polls at a riding level for this purpose. 308 takes the regional poll results and presumes that the difference in support from the last election will be applied proportionately to all ridings, which is not the case. 308's models mostly miss the effects of star candidates (such as vaughan vs chow) and also doesn't account for local idiosyncrasies such as bruce hyer's riding, any riding where the local campaign is above or below average compared with last election, etc. 308 operates under the assumption that while some ridings will be missed due to these factors, it should on average balance out. Long story short, 308's riding projections should not be used to determine what ridings are candidates for strategic voting.

The only way you can know which way the wind is blowing in a given riding is to live there and see the local campaigns. Local polling can help, but always consider the source who released the poll for partisan bias.

KarlL

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Mighty AC wrote:

Here are 16 very winnable ridings if we vote strategically:

You have to do better than this here.

When you post a graph like that people will call you on it if you do not provide a source.

It is clear that the source is not the last election and it is in fact a poll. You can see this simply by looking up the redistributed results.

The Saint John, Bay of Quinte, the NDP were ahead in the last election. THe Northumberland riding LPC and NDP were less than 1% apart.

Clearly these are Liberal targets but to suggest the NDP should defer to the Liberal should require more than a poll of a few hundred people on a given day -- don't you think?

You call for Liberal votes in those ridings based on what -- one poll? And you do not even say the rationale.

I think when you present polls you should identify what they are and present them as such not post these in a way that suggested they were a real electoral result becuase that is the impression you leave when you throw numbers iwthout a polling source.

The additional problem that I have with the chart is that it only seems to consider ridings in which the Liberals and NDP are chasing down Conservatives who are in the lead.  We also need to be concerned about ridings in which either a NDP or Liberal candidate is ahead by a small margin with the Conservatives in second place.  The Conservatives have a pretty committed vote, I'm told, so we should be looking over our shoulders as well as just in front.

Mighty AC

Cody87 wrote:

I'm on my phone on my lunch so sorry for quoting the whole thing. I wholly support strategic voting while we still have FPTP, but actually I would not trust 308's polls at a riding level for this purpose. 308 takes the regional poll results and presumes that the difference in support from the last election will be applied proportionately to all ridings, which is not the case. 308's models mostly miss the effects of star candidates (such as vaughan vs chow) and also doesn't account for local idiosyncrasies such as bruce hyer's riding, any riding where the local campaign is above or below average compared with last election, etc. 

Good point...but we don't have great univeral local riding data.  This site uses a variety of different sources when available, but for some ridings the local polling is still lacking.  http://www.strategicvoting.ca/swingdistricts.php  You understand that the NDP is not going to form the government though, right? Tom will not be PM. There aren't enough ideosyncracies to make that happen...as nice as that would be.

Keep in mind that the people who are politically aware enough to understand our voting system and have a handle on the local situation are few and far between. Those aren't the people we need to be targeting. What we need are the people who do frequent political forums to spread the word about voting strategically this time. If enough of us do, we won't have to anymore.

In 2011, just 6,201 strategically changed votes could have prevented the CPC majority. 

 

josh

takeitslowly wrote:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/mulcair-i-would-never-be-able-to-support-this-deal

 

Another reason I am supporting Mulcair is because he always stood up for what is right and he stood against Harper and has strong convictions. I never have to guess what he means when he speaks on important issue affecting Canadians. His voting record in the past 8 years showed that he is a fighter and he is standing up for Canadian and the other parties stand up for Harper.

That's fine, but he and his campaign need to make this issue #1 if they want to start recovering the ground they have lost. Remember, only 1/3 of the vote could get you first place. You don't need 40-50%. There are enough "persuadable" voters who can be moved by this issue to make a difference.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty AC wrote:

takeitslowly wrote:

 However, I've been fighting for PR for a quite awhile now and have been fooled before. For instance, I thought we had a chance back when Layton promised to make his cooperation in a minority parliament contigent upon support for PR. Unfortunately, that was just a charade.

I think that is a horrible thing to say -- quite ignorant of what happened at that time.

The NDP did raise the issue in discussions with the Liebrals and it was a non-starter. Layton went on to extract Kelowna, daycare, money for municipalities and more in the budget -- all of which would have been impossible.

Here we have it:

On the one hand Liberals blame the NDP for their government falling when the NDP could do nothing to prevent that (it lost the balance of power in the second half of 2005 due to Liberals who defected to sit as independents). They blame the NDP for the loss of the very initiatives Layton secured in the budget of early 2005.

On the other hand Liberals say Layton was not serious about PR when, faced with their own party's absolute hostility to the concept, the NDP went on to secure significant positive initiatives in the budget of Spring 2005 that were so important the Liberals are still blaming the NDP for somehow not saving from the impact of the Liebral scandal.

It is absolutely ridiculous to say that it was a charade. Layton did indeed hold out PR as a condition of support. However, faced with an absolute refusal to go there from the Liberal party he got what he could on other fronts and that was very significant.

You gotta love selective history lessons from Liberals.

 

takeitslowly

thank you sean in ottawa, thanks agains.

Sio i gathered a list of why we should not strategically vote for liberals and I 'v ebeen posting it, with your helps, sean in ottawa, i hiope you dont mind, i have asked all the new democrats to spread and share this everywhere:

 

A vote for the liberal is a vote to continue the harpers agenda. The liberals supported the Harper conservatives on Anti-Terror Bill C-51, Zero tolerance for barbaric cultural act, Bill S-7, CETA, Chinese FIPA, mandatory minimum sentence , corporate giveaways coporate cuts , weaken the Navigable Waters Act and axing vote subsidy . Liberals voted with the conservative 69 times to limits Canadian civil liberties from 2001 to 2015 . Source : International Civil liberties monitoring group . And Justin Trudeau Libs were + are prepared to blindly endorse TPP just like they did with FIPPA 31 year.

Trudeau also "did not vote" , abstained on the Harpers Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act c-24.....Mulcair voted NO.

 

 i am voting ndp because there is a value in supporting the ndp to stop the harper policies. If the NDP fades further and becomes less of a future threat, the Liberals will govern in fear of the Conservatives mined by how strong the NDP is in this election. Seats matter, but so do votes. The popular vote will matter. If the NDP popular vote craters, the Liberals Another factor to consider is the NDP platform. It would be dangerous to see defeated in a devastating way. Some NDP reasonable support is required in defence of some of those policies as the next government will consider a defeat for the NDP to be a desire by the population not to attempt such policies.Most seats will not be close -- I get that there may be a few, very few, cases to make to vote for a Liberal to keep out a Conservative. There may be less than ten seats where this is really practical. But for everyone else, recognize how millions of NDP votes will be regarded by a government who knows it will have to fight a new election in four years if it has a majority, or possibly much less time in case of a minority.The one thing you can count on is the dynamic a large NDP caucus has on the Liberals. It pushes them to the left. A small NDP caucus pushes the Liberals to the right.There is a value in voting NDP, even in the most hopeless of ridings.If there are few other reasons to vote NDP now -- these may still remain very compelling."                                                                                                                                                                              Historically, minority govt works the best in serving the interests of ordinary citizens. The NDP doesnt need to win government to have play an inportant role in keeping the heat on the liberals , they just need a good number of seats and a respectable overall popular votes: we wouldnt even have medicare without a strong NDP pushing the liberals to give us universal health care : the NDP is has always played an important role in pushing the liberals to do the right and progressive things. The NDP needs a strong showing so they can have enough seats to make liberals listen. For example Wynne liberals has a majority in ontario and they are selling hydro one no matter how much ontarians oppose.                                                                                                                                                

Pages