Pondering wrote: Strategic voting has to be done riding by riding or it isn't strategic.
I don't disagree with the principle, but I question the terminology. Doesn't a riding-by-riding approach make it "tactical voting"?
Full disclosure: I tried it once, back during the Chretien years. In my riding at the time, the only chance to unseat the Liberal incumbent meant voting Tory. So I did.
I felt so dirty afterwards. But it worked.
Uh oh,http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/
In the last week of the campaign, Layton advocated strategic voting, urging traditional Liberals to lend the ndp their vote while the Liberals went into the “repair shop” for refitting.
Oh no not strategic voting!
No, Jack was advocating that people vote for the party that he led. That's what party leaders do.
This double standard where the NDP is "unprincipled" for trying to win an election and not rolling over for the needs of another party and offering up its voters for free is really tiresome.
NAILED IT ARI! Not that people who should pay attention to your comment, will notice.
If I were in a union I would say that any union leader which suggested the Liberals was a crook. Seeing as how many ex-Liberals are involved in legalized fraud and environmental degredation as well as shipping jobs off shore, it is completely unfathomable that anyone in organized labour would support the Liberals. Maybe these pro-Liberal union leaders know something we don't.
If I were in a union I would say that any union leader which suggested the Liberals was a crook. Seeing as how many ex-Liberals are involved in legalized fraud and environmental degredation as well as shipping jobs off shore, it is completely unfathomable that anyone in organized labour would support the Liberals. Maybe these pro-Liberal union leaders know something we don't.
Take a deep breath. No one is "supporting the Liberals". Putting Unifor resources to re-elect all the incumbent NDP MPs is not "supporting the Liberals". Failing to drool mindlessly over every single NDP candidate does not mean "supporting the Liberals".
And yes - maybe these union leaders know something you don't know. Maybe they deal every single day with employers and governments who don't share workers' view of the universe. Maybe they make distinctions for tactical purposes. Maybe they make alliances to destroy the worst of the bad.
Hundreds of thousands of Québec voters who normally vote for the Bloc decided suddenly to vote for the NDP - for one reason only - because they hate Harper and everything he stands for, and they woke up and realized that the Bloc couldn't defeat him. Unfortunately, the rest of the country didn't follow suit. If the NDP doesn't smarten up and create a STOP HARPER campaign, those voters will abandon the NDP in droves.
Or, you could conclude that the leaders of one of the most militant unions in Canada have been bought by Liberal dollars. If that makes it easier to "fathom", go for it.
OK, Unionist. You make a good point. But it sure is lousy that Union Leaders feel they have to advocate their members vote a certain way out of fear.
Fear? It's about uniting to defeat a dangerous enemy. How is that fear? It's a powerful mobilizing force, not just for workers, but all sections of the society who are targeted by Harperism and who are already in action to defeat it. Where unions are not yet up to the job is in allying with all those other sections. But there's no "fear" about it. It's exciting and it awakens the yearning for a better world.
Thing is, the Liberals consistently show there is no change from the Conservatives. If there is no solidarity on the Left, the scumbags win again. The current arguments that the Liberals would somehow be better than the Conservatives are a fraud. They will do nothing for the unions or other working people in this country.
It's like John Tory saying Stop Ford. Like he will be better? And who is supporting Tory? Liberals.
Trudeau? Zap! You're frozen!
Fear? It's about uniting to defeat a dangerous enemy. How is that fear? It's a powerful mobilizing force, not just for workers, but all sections of the society who are targeted by Harperism and who are already in action to defeat it. Where unions are not yet up to the job is in allying with all those other sections. But there's no "fear" about it. It's exciting and it awakens the yearning for a better world.
Nope, I just cannot agree with you on this. This is really vote Trudeau...because......HARPER!
Uh oh,http://thewalrus.ca/2006-05-politics/
In the last week of the campaign, Layton advocated strategic voting, urging traditional Liberals to lend the ndp their vote while the Liberals went into the “repair shop” for refitting.
Oh no not strategic voting!
No, Jack was advocating that people vote for the party that he led. That's what party leaders do.
This double standard where the NDP is "unprincipled" for trying to win an election and not rolling over for the needs of another party and offering up its voters for free is really tiresome.
No, it wasn't unprincipled, it is what political parties do and that is what the NDP is, a political party that like the others puts winning first.
How is it different when the NDP says to vote strategically from when the Liberals say it? Both are trying to take votes from the other parties which is the main place votes come from. Layton's strategy worked. Liberal voters "lent" their votes to the NDP while the Liberals went to the repair shop for a refitting and out popped a new Trudeau ready to take back the votes that were loaned to the NDP and the Reformcons.
Jack Layton formed a coalition in 2008 which would have made Stéphane Dion Prime Minister and the Liberals the governing minority party. In 2005, he negotiated with Paul Martin to add $4.6 billion to the Liberal budget for spending on NDP issues - and he then propped up the minority Liberal government.
Jack Layton understood exactly how rotten the Liberal party is, how it represents the wealthy class, etc. But he also understood where tactical alliances were possible to destroy the greater enemy. So did Nathan Cullen. Michael Ignatieff didn't. Tom Mulcair doesn't seem to either. I'd ask you to think a bit more about this. Without repeating what I already know about Justin Trudeau.
I ask you to think a bit more about this.
I am assuming that post was meant for me. With greatest respect Unionist, please do not talk to me like that.
I ask you to think a bit more about this.
I am assuming that post was meant for me. With greatest respect Unionist, please do not talk to me like that.
Actually, Arthur, I meant it in response to montrealer58. There are way too many personal squabbles going on in these threads. People should just express and argue their viewpoints, and stop feeling insulted, degraded, humiliated. Life is too short.
I ask you to think a bit more about this.
I am assuming that post was meant for me. With greatest respect Unionist, please do not talk to me like that.
Actually, Arthur, I meant it in response to montrealer58. There are way too many personal squabbles going on in these threads. People should just express and argue their viewpoints, and stop feeling insulted, degraded, humiliated. Life is too short.
Well, OK, then I gladly apolgoize. As to disputes and squabbles, while I agree, I just cant bring myself to stop it just yet.
Pondering wrote: Strategic voting has to be done riding by riding or it isn't strategic.I don't disagree with the principle, but I question the terminology. Doesn't a riding-by-riding approach make it "tactical voting"?
Full disclosure: I tried it once, back during the Chretien years. In my riding at the time, the only chance to unseat the Liberal incumbent meant voting Tory. So I did.
I felt so dirty afterwards. But it worked.
I'm not sure about the terminology, but it would be dumb to do it on a national basis. Someone else commented that in a riding where the NDP was the main competition someone voted Liberal to "keep Harper out" which gave Harper the win. That's not very strategic.
Generally speaking I vote for the leader of the party not the local candidate but that can make a difference is the candidate is special. For example I would have voted for Linda McQuaig over Freeland because as an individual candidate McQuaig is the kind of exceptional person that just has to be rewarded for running.
My daughter voted in the Ontario election and after checking out the two candidates the NDP candidate was so far above the Liberal in quality that she had to vote NDP. Unfortunately the Liberal won anyway.
Quebec Solidaire is a separatist party and I am solidly federalist with a desire for increased centralization, but I still vote QS because they are 100% a social justice party. If they actually won I probably would support separation because then Quebec would be wildly more progressive than Canada.
Everyone has their own mix of motivations for voting one way or another.
Union leaders are elected to defend the interests of their membership and of their union in the best way they can. They turn against governments and move votes. This not only changes elections it alters what a party may consider proposing. The ability to use the combined force of working people to punish anti-worker policies is extremely important. Union leaders are obliged to use both political support and punishment to advance their members' interests.
I am disturbed by those who would call union leaders crooks or disloyal for doing exactly what they are paid to do. They are being honest and loyal to their members as you would expect them to be. You should consider what realistic and immediate options are provided by the political parties, the NDP, in particular rather than simply expect loyalty from people who have to be accountable to their members and for whom a mistake can result in disaster for thousands of people.
I agree strategic voting has been manipulated particularly by the Liberals to get extra votes but each party is expected to advocate on behalf of themselves and take the greatest advantage possible through argument. Strategic vote advocacy is not vote stealing no matter how much you may feel betrayed. Perhaps it is time to say that the Liberal party has been better at using the strategic voting card. Maybe the NDP will have to get better at it.
So instead of beating up on labour the NDP should have its own strategy around countering strategic voting -- and not one of name-calling union leaders or ignoring the problem and wishing it would go away.
The NDP's support of proportional representation has often been tepid if mentionned at all. That is a problem. The NDP does not challenge those who advocate for PR to ask for basic standards and political accountibility. It does not distinguish between no hope ridings and ones where mistakes could cost the NDP seats. It does not reply with a list of seats Liberals should vote NDP in. It has not provided much by way of campaign messages to counter strategic voting in the ridings it could be a mistake. It has never suggested questions people might want to ask their candidates about democratic renewal.
The NDP has not said that it will move to reform voting in the first 100 days of a victory and demand that the Liberals do the same. It has not said that people should vote for the NDP which will do this in order to fix the voting system once and for all. The NDP has not pressured its NDP provincial cousins to bring in PR provincially. The NDP has never stated that support in a minority situation can only come in exchange for democratic reform. [Or at least the NDP has never said these things loudly and consistently with proportionate attention. -- I am sure you can find buried off-hand quotes but that is not what I am talking about.] The NDP should campaign solidly in a contrext where strategic voting happens. Some of the things Layton did were smart in this regard. More can be done.
I think the NDP response to strategic voting has often been poor and insulting to labour and voters. NDP supporters have been even worse. That is why I advocate a better response. I believe the NDP can gain the advantage out of the discussion and it does not have to run from the field. I think the NDP could build a case for democratic renewal so powerful that labour will stump for it. But with what has been out there-- there should be no surprise as to why the argument has gone the way it has.
Personally I hate strategic voting and do not advocate it. However, I do not have thousands of working people looking to me to make sure that a party that would strip them of their rights and eventually their jobs does not get elected. If you held that responsibility for thousands of families of working people maybe you would be less inclined to insult them and more inclined to ask the NDP if it really has done the best it could on this issue.
This needs to change or the NDP will lose the argument again next year, will blame everyone else and not make any progress.
1. Troll the principle, not the person. I don't think it is good to mention other chatters by name in fury. If someone says something, just object to the thing.
2. We never know how the election is going to turn out. People are going to vote for all the parties in some degree or other.
3. The best progressive legislation was passed when the NDP had power over the Liberals.
4. In a progressive environment, "strategic voting" means that in many seats people must vote for the Liberals, which is not a real progressive vote.
5. The limit of Justin Trudeau's "progressiveness" is to allow a woman reproductive freedom. This is standard for all progressives. He also wants to legalize marijuana, which may or may not be "progressive". The naive are being made to believe that Justin, by throwing a couple of bones which any corporate executive would agree with, has said nothing about income inequality, aboriginal suffering and land destruction which Canadian natural resources companies promote all around the world. Remember, the Canadian natural resources industry is run by Liberals, or they have to go through Toronto Liberals to get financing.
6. "Strategic Voting" means vote Liberal. Every time the "Strategic Voting" scam has been used, the NDP has been screwed.
7. Union leaders who say to vote for the party of THE bosses are betraying their membership. By not telling them to vote NDP, they are not allowing a situation where the Liberals would be held down to a minority, and they are definitely preventing the ascension of an NDP government.
8. If the Unions and the rest of the Left in general are single-pointed in their support for the NDP and in their distrust for Trudeau, other voters will join the fray.
9. Therefore it is not constructive to suggest "Strategic Voting". It is not in any way constructive to suggest voting for the Liberals. Union members are free to vote for who they want to, obviously, but I think their leaders should consider the cause of the working people both in and out of their union. When the unions get into bed with the bosses, the non-unionized workers feel especially stranded. Indeed, they will punish the unions and the Left by voting Conservative.
10. Every Liberal I have spoken to has been virulently anti-Union, and anti-Socialist.
So montrealer58, what should we (the trade unions) do with the fact that every single NDP government in Canada - without exception - has torn up freely-negotiated collective agreements and/or legislated legally striking workers back to work and/or imposed wage controls by legislative fiat?
Doesn't stop me from voting NDP - because a vote is not a marriage or a religious conversion. It's a small gesture, like many others in life, aimed at achieving a particular result.
As an individual, I make my voting decisions on a case-by-case basis, including very often the quality of the candidate. And in my union, I stand up to oppose unthinking loyalty to any one political party - although here in Québec, there's no organizational attachment between unions and parties to the extent there is in the ROC, so that's not an argument that needs to be fought too often. I can tell you more about how it works here if you're interested.
The NDP needs to decide if they actually want to win the election.
If they do, then they need to say yes to the Northern Gateway oil pipeline, yes to Site C, yes to the East-West pipeline, yes to the LNG plants and pipelines, yes to Keystone, yes to the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, yes to infrastructure, and yes to taxing the shit out of the profitable corporations.
I'm not hearing the NDP say that, and as a result they could well be crushed in the next election.
The NDP needs to decide if they actually want to win the election.
If they do, then they need to say yes to the Northern Gateway oil pipeline, yes to Site C, yes to the East-West pipeline, yes to the LNG plants and pipelines, yes to Keystone, yes to the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, yes to infrastructure, and yes to taxing the shit out of the profitable corporations.
I'm not hearing the NDP say that, and as a result they could well be crushed in the next election.
With a platform like that, the Greens might finally get the breakthrough they have coveted for more than a generation.
Sid Ryan is also joining the fight, remember?
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/stopped-hudak-harper-nex...
I suppose it depends on whether you want to win the election, or sit on the sidelines and watch power being wielded by others, as that is what happens when you cater to special interest groups, instead of supporting the working people that actually build this country.
The NDP needs to decide if they actually want to win the election.
If they do, then they need to say yes to the Northern Gateway oil pipeline, yes to Site C, yes to the East-West pipeline, yes to the LNG plants and pipelines, yes to Keystone, yes to the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, yes to infrastructure, and yes to taxing the shit out of the profitable corporations.
I'm not hearing the NDP say that, and as a result they could well be crushed in the next election.
With a platform like that, the Greens might finally get the breakthrough they have coveted for more than a generation.
So "you are what you eat" is now to be turned into "you are what you beat"
Sean there is no way to justify telling people to vote liberal in windsor it make zero sense. Esp when the membership largely votes orange. But yet buzz did just that. Strategic it wasn't, not even close. And of all the times and places to do so, windsor when layton was in town was about as stupid of a time as could happen. Not to mention the hatchet job Terry Milewski did on layton while down here. Haven't like his journalism or him as a person since I met him at the NDP rally. Total jerk. He wasn't happy about having to follow the forth party leader.
There was a time when Liberals used to win the Windsor ridings federally. And of course, under Herb Gray, one of them was Liberal for 40 years.
And at the provincial level the Liberals held the Windsor ridings until just recently.
The point is that on a more general level, particularly in most ridings in the 905, the Maritimes, etc. voting Liberal is usually the best way to beat the Conservative.
5. The limit of Justin Trudeau's "progressiveness" is to allow a woman reproductive freedom. This is standard for all progressives. He also wants to legalize marijuana, which may or may not be "progressive". The naive are being made to believe that Justin, by throwing a couple of bones which any corporate executive would agree with, has said nothing about income inequality, aboriginal suffering and land destruction which Canadian natural resources companies promote all around the world. Remember, the Canadian natural resources industry is run by Liberals, or they have to go through Toronto Liberals to get financing.
I'm sick of seeing this old canard dragged out all the time. There are major differences between Trudeau & Harper and between Liberals & Conservatives. When NDPers say they are the same, they not only turn Liberals even more against the NDP, they state something which is totally false.
The Liberals & Harper Conservatives come from totally different historical origins. The Liberals go back to Confederation. The Harper Conservatives grew out of the Reform/Alliance party in Alberta and the National Citizen's Coalition & other right-wing lobby groups. It is totally false to compare the Liberals with the new Conservative Party that formed in 2003. Even many red tories from the old PC party like Joe Clark & Brian Mulroney (as well as Scott Brison who became a Liberal) have issues with how far-right this new party is.
And Justin Trudeau is Pierre Trudeau's son. Have you forgotten that? He grew up in a totally different environment & ideology than Harper. Justin will always defend his father's Charter and his progressive vision, whereas Harper wants to tear it down. It's been well-documented by many authors that Harper hates Trudeau because of the way Pierre Trudeau changed the Conservative establishment in this country and brought in social and legal reforms that went against 1950's Conservative thinking.
To say that Justin Trudeau would do all the same things that Harper has done is totally, totally false. Sean in Canada is one of the only people here who I've seen that has had the grace to admit the two parties are not the same. I hope more people follow his lead.
The other problem is regional. Strategic voting is mainly an Ontario phenomenon, but you have the head of a national union making a pronouncement about strategic voting out of ignoriance, assuming that voting patterns in Ontario are representative of the whole country. In Western Canada, the challenge to the Conservatives from the left is most effective in the form of the NDP, but does that aspect ever get any attention?
Strategic voting applies more in Ontario, yes. But it actually applies in all provinces to some extent because it occurs wherever there is a close Liberal-Conservative race. And those can occur anywhere from Moncton to Vancouver Centre.
Btw, considering the decline of the NDP in Western Canada in recent elections, and the rising support for the Liberals under Justin Trudeau, can you still make the argument that the NDP is best-positioned to beat the Conservatives in the West under Mulcair?
Mulcair's NDP has performed poorly in all the Western by-elections since 2012. Meanwhile there has been a large increase in Liberal support in the West since Trudeau took over in 2013.
Strategic voting applies more in Ontario, yes. But it actually applies in all provinces to some extent because it occurs wherever there is a close Liberal-Conservative race. And those can occur anywhere from Moncton to Vancouver Centre.
Vancouver-Centre is in no way shape or form a Liberal-Conservtive race.
Strategic voting applies more in Ontario, yes. But it actually applies in all provinces to some extent because it occurs wherever there is a close Liberal-Conservative race. And those can occur anywhere from Moncton to Vancouver Centre.
Vancouver-Centre is in no way shape or form a Liberal-Conservtive race.
Really? It's not?
The NDP gets a good chunk of the vote there, true, but it used to be a PC riding before Hedy Fry won it in 1993. You remember Kim Campbell & Pat Carney held it in the 1980's?
And the Conservatives under Harper have finished 2nd there. The NDP finished 2nd in 2011 by about 5 votes over the Conservatives. But in 2008 it was Lorne Mayencourt, running for Harper, who finished 2nd to Hedy. So it usually has been a Liberal-CPC/PC race most of the time.
"Debater", yes, I can make the argument the NDP is the best startegic choice. The Liberals are neo-Cons. So its really Conservative (aka LPC), or NDP. You see the thing is "Debater", you aren't really a "Progressive", are you? That's why you keep telling us to vote LPC. You KNOW the LPC are Conservatives by another name, and you really don't want a "Progressive" party governing Canada, do you, "Debater"? 
ETA: Dias tweeted today the NDP are Progressive and the LPC, isn't. Even Dias KNOWS, the LPC, ISN'T a progressive party. Why don't you face up to it? It won't hurt you.
Really? It's not?The NDP gets a good chunk of the vote there, true, but it used to be a PC riding before Hedy Fry won it in 1993. You remember Kim Campbell & Pat Carney held it in the 1980's?
And the Conservatives under Harper have finished 2nd there. The NDP finished 2nd in 2011 by about 5 votes over the Conservatives. But in 2008 it was Lorne Mayencourt, running for Harper, who finished 2nd to Hedy. So it usually has been a Liberal-CPC/PC race most of the time.
No. Vancouver Centre is not a Con-Lib toss-up. With the fed Lib collapse here in BC to 13% in 2011 (worst in decades) and the NDP surge in 2011 to 33%, the NDP would actually likely have taken the seat in 2011 with a high profile candidate such as Van City mayor Gregor Robertson. The was the best chance that the NDP ever had IMHO.
BTW, the Cons are not viewed the same as the old PCs. Too right-wing for urban voters in BC. In that vein, the 26% VC Con vote in 2011 was their ceiling. The riding also continues to see an increase in pop. as a result of continual condo tower development in Yaletown - mostly red tory types.
2015 will def see the Con vote decrease in VC along with the rest of the Van City ridings likely to the Libs benefit with that weird Trudeau phenomena. The Greens will also see an increase in their vote in VC in 2015, particularly in the West End. Basically VC has always been the fed Libs beachhead riding in BC. Even in 1979, when the fed Libs were toast, Art Phillips ran and kept the riding. While Hedy Fry is sure one strange candidate, look for her to retain VC in 2015 with an increased margin.
The only Lib-Con battles in Van City are newly reconfigured Vancouver-Quadra, Vancouver-Granville, and Vancouver South, which again, the Cons will receive a much lower vote share in 2015 than in 2011. As for the rest of the Van City ridings - the Cons are not contenders.
This is encouraging:
Despite what some LPC partisans here assert, its clear Dias, and the rest of the Union movment know better who the real "Progressives', are.
Btw, considering the decline of the NDP in Western Canada in recent elections, and the rising support for the Liberals under Justin Trudeau, can you still make the argument that the NDP is best-positioned to beat the Conservatives in the West under Mulcair?Mulcair's NDP has performed poorly in all the Western by-elections since 2012. Meanwhile there has been a large increase in Liberal support in the West since Trudeau took over in 2013.
Okay, I'll take this one on. With the possible exception of Brandon and Calgary, every other Western riding went Conservative by such a wide margin to make this not matter. During the by-election, the Liberals had the ability to throw as many resources as they could at those ridings. The 2 I'm thinking of in particular are Provencher and Fort McMurray. Yet if the Liberals could not win these Tory ridings under the best circumstances, what makes you think that the Liberals can win when they will have to focus their resources on much more winnable seats?
As to the Liberals or NDP? Let's look to Saskatchewan. There haven't been any by-elections there in this Parliament, but I strongly suspect that the best the Liberals could do here would be to barely pass the NDP for second place, thus allowing a Conservative to slide through. Wascana is more of a Ralph Goodale seat than a Liberal seat, so other than maybe splitting the vote and handing seats in Regina and Saskatoon to the NDP and seats in the north to the Conservatives, I don't see them having much impact. But, let's answer the question: which party is in better shape to take on the Conservatives in Western Canada, the Liberals, or the NDP? If you go by history, much of Western Canada is a Conservative-NDP battle, however the Liberals have had their moments, for example, 1993. They are also polling very well as you said (although I don't believe any poll that gives them a strong showing in Saskatchewan). The Liberals also had a mini-bounce in 2004, but again, that had more of an impact in tipping the 2 NDP seats over to the Conservatives, so even a Liberal surge in Western Canada may not have much impact.
So, will history or present trends win out? I guess we shall see.
I will be the first in the NDP here to admit that the Conservatives are different than the Liberals. I understand that Liberals are truly insulted at being called identical to this present branch plant of the US Tea Party. However, the ubiquitous calls by Liberals for New Democrats to vote for them are received in exactly the same vein. The Liberals often like to pretend that they have common cause with the NDP but our party is just as different from the Liberals as the Liberal party is from the Conservatives.
The calls for NDP voters to drop their preference to save the Liberals from defeat is taken as a call for NDP supporters to disregard the differences in program, objectives and principles the NDP represents. It is understood that a New Democrat would never assume another New Democrat is Conservative, but the worst thing you can call a New Democrat is a Liberal. It is a denial of the hope, energy, beliefs, sacrifice, work, ideals, dreams, aspirations that has driven people who represent what is usually the third party while the Liberal party sits in government squandering opportunities for social, environmental and civil justice progress. People vote NDP not becuase it loses most of the time, but becuase it is very, very different from the Liberal party. So when the Liberal party talks like the NDP and does not deliver and then asks the NDP to lend them a vote, New Democrats may respond with more venom for the Liberals than they display for the Conservative party that at least does not pretend to answer the aspirations of the NDP's supporters.
If you want an analogy you can expect a person to be more angry at the person that keeps asking them on a date and not showing up than the person that never asks them at all.
If you want an analogy you can expect a person to be more angry at the person that keeps asking them on a date and not showing up than the person that never asks them at all.
Nice.
