As the Canadian Federal election looms ever closer, it is evident that a large part of the population is planning on voting strategically; that is, voting for a candidate they think is more likely to win, rather than a candidate that most closely resembles their own worldview.
Compared to polls from 2021, the most recent polls predict a significant increase in the amount of seats held by the Conservative and Liberal parties, as compared to the Green Party, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois.
According to data from Ipsos strategic voting is an ever increasing presence in Canadian politics. Thirty-three per cent of respondents to Ipsos’ poll that plan to vote Liberal say they are doing so to ensure another party does not win. This statistic is up 13 per cent from the 2019 election, where only 20 per cent of respondents stated their vote was strategic.
This upcoming election is vastly different from prior ones for a few key reasons. Following comments made by Donald Trump on a variety of international and Canada-specific issues, a large part of the conversation surrounding this election has shifted away from domestic issues, and towards facing an increasing threat from the US.
This is not to say that the US’ is the only underlying cause for an increase in strategic voting. The mechanism by which politicians are elected in Canada often favours the larger parties. Rather than using a proportional representation system, Canadian elections are calculated using the first-past-the-post system. In practice, this means that votes cast for parties that do not end up winning the riding are largely irrelevant on a federal scale.
Under first-past-the-post, it is possible that a party that gets a minority of the vote gains a majority of seats in the parliament. Although aggregate polling from 338Canada projects a national vote of eight per cent for the NDP, for example, the same polls project that the New Democrats will actually gain eight seats in the house, or two per cent of the overall available seats. In this way, parties that are considered mainstream have a higher likelihood of forming a majority government with a minority of the vote.
This is evident in previous Canadian elections as well. In 2021, the Liberal Party claimed 47.3 per cent of the seats in parliament with 32.6 per cent of the vote. It’s a similar story in 2019, with the Liberal Party claiming 46.4 per cent of the seats with 33.1 per cent of the vote.
Under this system, parties are discouraged from cooperating with one another, instead positioned in a competitive stance against each other according to FairVote. This is especially true in ridings that are considered swing seats; that is to say ridings with a close margin between parties. Any vote cast in favour of one party is a vote that could have gone to another. This emphasizes the need to vote strategically, as even a small difference in turnout could have significant impacts on the representation of a party within the house.
The negative effects of strategic voting disproportionately affect parties on the left of politics. Unlike the Conservatives, a party with a wide diversity of opinions within it, the left has been largely unable to unite in the same way.
“Strategic voting is in some ways a desperation strategy voters can use, particularly the progressive voters, simply because on the centre left, the vote is split among three parties, whereas on the right it’s all concentrated into one,” said Sonal Champsee of Cooperate for Canada, an organization that focuses on advocating for cooperation between parties in Canada.
“As it happens, the people in the centre left love their diversity, the politicians love their diversity” said Barbara Schumacher, a founding member of Cooperate for Canada.
The problem continues even in seats considered safe by parties. Ridings that consistently swing in one direction are likely to be overlooked by parties, with focus drawn instead on the seats that are contested.
As the impacts of strategic voting become more prominent with every election, politicians for parties more impacted by strategic voting are having to adapt their strategies.
“We’re doing an old-school ground game, where we’re really trying to build hand-to-hand, heart-to-heart relationships with our community,” said Avi Lewis, the NDP candidate for the Vancouver Centre.
It is important to note that according to current polls, the NDP is projected to win eight seats, less than the 12 needed for Official Party Status. Across all of the NDP candidates rabble interviewed, an opinion remained constant: the need to recentre the discussion back towards focusing on Canadian issues.
“We’re trying to communicate the message that we have to be very careful as we defend our country that we don’t sacrifice the things that matter,” said Joel Harden, candidate for the Ottawa Centre in an interview. “To me, the NDP is one of those things we cannot sacrifice. It’s critical. We help fight for dental care, we help fight for pharmacare, CERB, environmental protections. We are a voice that is critical on Parliament Hill that we cannot lose.”
A similar thread is present in interviews with Green Party candidates.
“Our democratic system should be separate from international politics generally, but that doesn’t mean that international politics don’t have a bearing on our Canadian systems,” said Leigh Paulseth, candidate for the Ajax Centre.
As mentioned by candidates from both parties, the solution to fixing the problem of unfair representation lies within electoral reform.
“I’m supportive of even just having a conversation around electoral reform and listening to the recommendations of experts, whatever those might be,” said Mike Morrice, Green Party candidate for the Kitchener Centre.
Morrice has attempted to pass M-76, a parliamentary motion to conduct a citizens assembly on the topic of electoral reform, however the motion did not pass.
Considering these trends, it is important now more than ever for voters to be conscious of the importance of their vote, and the impact it may have on Canadian politics in the years to come. Candidates like Paulseth put emphasis on the importance of the individual vote as opposed to the rest of the country.
“I think strategic voting is a creature of the first-past-the-post system. It’s because we don’t allow our votes to count as much as they should,” said Paulseth.
Support rabble today!
We’re so glad you stopped by! Thanks for consuming rabble content this year.
rabble.ca is 100% reader and donor funded, so as an avid reader of our content, we hope you will consider gifting rabble with a donation during our summer fundraiser today.
Whether it be a one-time donation or a small monthly contribution, your support is critical to keep rabble writers producing the work you’ve come to rely on as a part of a healthy media diet.
Become a rabble rouser — donate to rabble.ca today.
Nick Seebruch, editor
