A federal polling place in the 2015 election.
A federal polling place in the 2015 election. Credit: ishmael n. daro / Wikimedia Commons Credit: ishmael n. daro / Wikimedia Commons

Full disclosure. I am one of a growing number of people who support the strategic voting “monster” that Karl Nerenberg wrote about recently in his article: “Voting strategically often means voting against your own interest.” More accurately, my group Cooperate for Canada (C4C) promotes electoral cooperation among the centre/left parties – to stop the dangerously expanding far-right.

Strategic voting relies on individual voters choosing which candidate in their riding could most likely beat the party they oppose – in today’s case, the Pierre Poilievre and Doug Ford conservatives. Electoral cooperation advocates that, in ridings where the Conservatives won with less than half the votes, the centre/left parties put their partisan differences aside temporarily to prevent the far-right from retaining or gaining power.

In Ontario, for example, there are 35 ridings where the Ford Conservatives won in the last provincial election with only 36-45 per cent of the vote. Conservative losses through centre/left cooperation in 22 of those ridings would end its majority. The corrupt and destructive Ford Nation would be weakened.

C4C members “deeply fear” – as Nerenberg put it – a Poilievre victory, just as the French centre/left was afraid that the far-right led by Marine Le Pen might win in the National Assembly elections last year in France. Fortunately, in a matter of days, the French centre/left parties had the dedication and organizing skills to put aside their ideological differences and create unity candidates across the country. They stopped dividing up the anti-Le Pen vote – and stopped her.

Cooperate for Canada is calling on the Liberals, NDP, Greens, and Bloc in Quebec to end vote-splitting in about 70 of Canada’s now 343 ridings. Not all of them, as Nerenberg claims.  Again, these are ridings where, given our winner-take-all, first-past-the-post system, the Conservatives will very likely win with a minority of votes, if their opposition is divided into three or four parties.

It’s simple math. Rather than strategic voting or electoral cooperation being a Liberal front, as Nerenberg suggests, our data show that, if they cooperate, all the progressive parties would protect their close seats and even gain a number of new seats. Instead of the Conservatives winning a riding in spite of the fact that most voters preferred progressive candidates, a “unity” candidate would win.

Nerenberg is correct that polling isn’t an exact science. C4C does make use of  polling data for general trends, but more importantly it examines the actual vote counts in specific ridings over recent elections and the various candidates. We also listen to people on the ground locally. Together, these factors usually create an accurate picture.

Take, for example, last year’s by-election in Toronto-St. Paul’s. It had been a Liberal stronghold for many years. It’s true, as the media endlessly reported, that the Liberals were weakened – by the far-right’s vicious attacks on Trudeau. But they also had to compete with the less popular NDP and Green parties, as well as the new phenomenon known as the Longest Ballot Committee. (This group runs several individual candidates to protest our present system). 

In other words, opposition to the Conservatives was dangerously fragmented. The Liberals lost by 600 votes. The people of the riding are now represented by a Poilievre Conservative. It didn’t have to be that way.

Because we are in the midst of an Ontario election campaign, let’s see how the NDP could benefit from cooperation. In 2022, Niagara Centre NDP candidate Jeff Burch won with 39.7 per cent of the vote. The Conservatives were closely behind him at 37.6 per cent. The good news is that the Liberals received 13.3 per cent and the Greens 4.5 per cent. In other words, progressives together won 57.5 per cent – well above the Conservatives. After all the damage Doug Ford has inflicted on Ontario, is it worth gambling on another narrow NDP win? Or, would it be better to have the Liberals and Greens back off and give Jeff a much stronger chance to retain his seat?

We saw how dangerous electoral gambling can be in the recent BC election. The right-wing BC United joined with the Conservatives, hoping that together they could win. On the progressive side, the NDP and Greens refused to do the same. The race was so close that the election results took about a week to be announced, with manual recounts required in two key ridings. Is centre/left partisanship worth the risk of a Conservative victory and four years of destructive far-right policies?

Nerenberg is right when he points out how voters can feel defeated by the media constantly shouting that polls predict an overwhelming majority for a certain party. With electoral cooperation, we use that same polling data to empower voters, rather than burden them, by guiding them toward one strong, progressive candidate who can win. 

It’s true that, with cooperation, there is less debate over the various differences among the centre/left parties, but we are facing a powerful enemy right now. With Trump’s win in the US and his super-rich, aggressive sidekick Elon Musk praising Poilievre, this isn’t the time to emphasize those differences. It’s time to unite against a common enemy!

In spite of Nerenberg’s warnings about the threat strategic voting or electoral cooperation might pose to our multi-party system, we believe cooperation will enhance that system rather than destroy it. Imagine the next four years under a Poilievre government. The centre/left parties and all progressives will be desperately working to preserve our livable climate, our social programs, our human rights, the CBC, and more.

Now, imagine if we brought these parties and voters together to defeat the Conservatives. This progressive coalition could then move forward to build our country, not waste its energy and know-how fighting to save it. 

The Liberals, NDP, Greens, and Bloc could bring forth their ideas and policies, as parties do in many countries with proportional representation. They could debate, negotiate, and improve our lives.

We got a taste of that productivity with the Liberal/NDP Supply and Confidence Agreement which gave us, as Nerenberg correctly pointed out, increased access to pharmacare, dental care, anti-scab legislation, and more.  As the NDP sinks in the polls, it appears that Canadians resent the fact that Jagmeet Singh ripped up this positive deal.  Could it be that, like Nerenberg, they appreciate the fact that the NDP is needed to prod the more centrist Liberals, rather than kneecap them to the benefit of the Conservatives?  

I realize I’m sounding idealistic and many might think Cooperate for Canada is naive. Sadly, our centre/left political parties are stuck in their partisan ruts. They seem to feel it’s more important to boldly defend their turf, even if this risks defeat, than to compromise and, more probably, win. Also, many progressives shake their heads and declare that centre/left cooperation simply can’t be done. Is that how we stand up to a common enemy? 

Equally dangerous is the fact that many non-profit groups insist that they are “non-partisan.” Do they not remember how former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper attacked them, sending Revenue Canada auditors after them in an attempt to diminish their effectiveness and take away their charitable status? This is not a time to be “partisan” or “non-partisan.” Look south and accept the fact that extreme new threats require bold new strategies.

As we face a determined, well-funded, climate-crisis-denying, government-attacking far-right, we can’t simply pretend that business as usual will work. It’s time for more visionary and, yes, more cooperative attitudes. Ordinary citizens seem to understand this more readily than politicians and political staff. That’s why C4C chapters have formed in many communities, ready to persuade their local riding associations and others to act together. If only more progressives – especially those leaders with a strong voice – would support this timely and very necessary approach.

Kathleen O'Hara

Kathleen O’Hara is retired, so she has more time for political and climate activism. During her career, she worked for CBC radio and TV, print media, and non-profits. She has also worked for both NDP...