The need to vote strategically

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Young

To help defeat a Conservative incumbent in 2011, goto www.gordonearlendp.ca

Only a 932-vote difference to overcome.

Help make history by electing the first NDP Member of Parliament for South Shore-St. Margaret's!

 

 

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

People considering a "strategic vote" should recognize that their vote by itself will rarely make any difference in the outcome of that riding, and even if it did make a difference in the outcome of riding make any signifcant difference. in the general election. Specifically, it is highly unlikely that you riding will be won by one single vote and that vote was yours -you preferred candidate A but voted for B to stop C from winning-final outcome B 22,001, C 22,000,  A 0.  - final seat count  B 155 C 153 A 0. "Strategic voting "is primarily a fight of competing parties and interests to shift a significant number of vote from many different ridings in a way to make gains for those parties and interests. As such, it falls in the political tool chest somewhere around   communication/framing targeting strategies. Keep in mind competing e parties and interests  have competing "strategic voting" calls.

For example, in  most riding campaigns in Hamilton I have worked in for the last ten years, I have urged those considering voting Conservative to vote NDP as we have the best chance of beating the Liberal candidate and urged those considering voting Liberal to vote NDP as we have the best chance of beating the Conservative candidate.   I expect the Liberals to tell New Democrat leaners they have the best chance of beating the Conservatives and to tell Conservatives they have the best chance of beating New Democrats and Conservatives,... well you get the picture.

 

 

 

 

 

contrarianna

peterjcassidy wrote:
People considering a "strategic vote" should recognize that their vote by itself will rarely make any difference in the outcome of that riding, and even if it did make a difference in the outcome of riding make any signifcant difference. in the general election.

Meaningless.
Obviously any single vote for ANY candidate, for ANY reason, would not "make any difference in the outcome of that riding"--unless the winner won by one vote.

But voting for a candidate most likely to help prevent a Harper majority would more likely succeed, than voting for someone who is more likely to be 3rd or 4rth--this necessitates  that the voter pay attention and be able to find out on their own who that candidate is for their riding.

peterjcassidy wrote:

For example, in  most riding campaigns in Hamilton I have worked in for the last ten years, I have urged those considering voting Conservative to vote NDP as we have the best chance of beating the Liberal candidate and urged those considering voting Liberal to vote NDP as we have the best chance of beating the Conservative candidate.   I expect the Liberals to tell New Democrat leaners they have the best chance of beating the Conservatives and to tell Conservatives they have the best chance of beating New Democrats and Conservatives,... well you get the picture.

I certainly do.
But that is not an argument against voting AGAINST a Harper majority, it is a warning to all against snake-oil partisan vendors who will say anything to push their favorite party--oblivious or indifferent to destruction of a recognizable Canada.

KenS

What some see as a warning, others see as snake oil.

And think only partisans sell the stuff.

Unionist

trippie wrote:

voting is not about making sure someone doesn't win, it's about electing someone to represent you.

Thanks for the gratuitous definition of how I'm allowed to use, or not use, my vote. Can you refer me to the Canada Elections Act clause that says that?

Your dictum is premised on the assumption that some person, or some party, is actually running who can "represent" me.

When (for example) all four parties in House vote in favour of bombing Libya, what should I do in Outremont?

I decided long ago that the best pragmatic approach is to try and stop the perennial Liberal victory. And so, within limits of my conscience, I vote NDP or Bloc to accomplish that. Last two times out, I guessed right - the previous times, conditions weren't ripe to defeat the Liberal, but the Bloc had the best hope.

Sometimes I cast my vote with more or less enthusiasm - as I did for Amir Khadir (when he ran for the BQ a decade ago), and François Rebello (a student leader and ally of the workers as well). Other times, I hold my nose tight (voting for Bloc warhorse Jacques Léonard in 2006, although he came within 1000 votes or so of unseating the Liberal).

My votes are far more principled - in my humble opinion - than those who vote for any particular party regardless of the individual, the political context, the chances of winning, or - most importantly - the stands they are taking on the crucial issues of the day. I have no problem when someone votes NDP or Bloc or Green after taking all those into account. I have a huge problem with those who vote robotically, and spew venom at those who don't.

 

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

"But voting for a candidate most likely to help prevent a Harper majority would more likely succeed, than voting for someone who is more likely to be 3rd or 4rth--this necessitates  that the voter pay attention and be able to find out on their own who that candidate is for their riding."

Care to apply a mathmatical or "rational" calculation of the odds in any riding of your choosing that a voter who prefers candidate A to candidate B likely will succeed in preventing a Harper majority by voting for B?  E.g if at least 500 people in Lastchance riding inclined to vote Liberal vote NDP then the odds are one in three the New Democrat  will win and there will not be a Harper majority, but if everybody inclined to vote Liberal votes Liberal  the odds are only one in 100  the Liberal will win and there will certainly  be a Harper majority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

contrarianna

peterjcassidy wrote:

"But voting for a candidate most likely to help prevent a Harper majority would more likely succeed, than voting for someone who is more likely to be 3rd or 4rth--this necessitates  that the voter pay attention and be able to find out on their own who that candidate is for their riding."

Care to apply a mathmatical or "rational" calculation of the odds in any riding of your choosing that a voter who prefers candidate A to candidate B likely will succeed in preventing a Harper majority by voting for B? ...

Of course not. Just as you would not:
"Care to apply a mathmatical or "rational" calculation of the odds in any riding of your choosing that a voter who prefers candidate A to candidate B likely will succeed in" [getting candidate A elected].

Yet, I will add one thing to my statement that I refrained from initially:

"But voting for a candidate most likely to help prevent a Harper majority would more likely succeed, than voting for someone who is more likely to be 3rd or 4rth--this necessitates  that the voter pay attention and be able to find out on their own who that candidate is for their riding."Duh.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Quite apart from the fact that "strategic" voting has never defeated a single Conservative candidate (with the possible exception of Rahim Jaffer who was already ripe for the plucking), there is the major problem that no one has ever invested the energy to do the granular analysis necessary to make real "strategic" voting recommendations based on individual riding dynamics.

Thus, we see Liberal literature in Palliser (where even a star Liberal candidate comes a distant third) or Trinity-Spadina (where HarperCons are in regular danger of finishing behind the Greens) telling New Democrats that only the way to stop Harper is to vote Liberal.

The truth is that, whatever the motivations of its naive adherents, the real intent of those promoting this fraud is not to defeat Conservatives, but to defeat New Democrats.

(Leaving aside the facts that the Libeals don't actually have a single substantive disagreement with the HarperCons on any major policy, from corporate tax cuts to military adventurism.)

Snert Snert's picture

So I should, or could, consider voting for the Liberal, if s/he has a chance of ensuring that the Conservative doesn't win.

If this is true then PLEASE could this be the end of intellectually lazy halfwits grumping that the two parties are the same?  Evidently they're not, and evidently we all know they're not. 

6079_Smith_W

Malcolm, the fact that there are some people who don't understand the mechanics, and that some partys want to exploit it, doesn't change the fact that there are a great many people who DO understand it. 

Strategic voting is unlikely to be outlawed anytime soon, so the question of whether it should exist or not is moot.

The bottom line is that no one else controls my vote but me, and if I understand how it works and do decide to use it it is a perfectly valid option.

And I don't know how you can claim that it has never determined the outcome of an election. I would guess that that there is a lot of strategic voting in squeaker ridings.  You can't know the mind of everyone who votes.

And I think I already mentioned our provincial Liberal parties. I don't think their perennial lack of support is due entirely to bad policy, but rather (at least in part)  to the fact that in tight elections many people decide to go with the horse they know has a chance of winning.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

You misunderstand me, Smith_W - I think that "strategic" voting has affected the outcome in several constituencies - where the shift of "strategic" voters from the NDP to the Liberals has delivered a tightly contested race to the Conservatives.

People are free to do what they want - and those who want to engage in this particular tactic certainly don't need my blessing - which is just as well as they aren't going to get it.  But the fact of the matter remains that, apart from a handful of political junkies, most would-be "strategic" voters are basing their decision on the national horse-race rhetoric of the corporate media.  (I recall the man in Yorkton-Melville who was determined to vote Liberal "to stop Free Trade" and no amount of cajoling that the Liberals would be lucky to break 15% of the vote would persuade him otherwise.  That guy is more typical of the average "strategic" voter than you are.)

Snert, there are doubtless differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives - just as there are differences between Coke and Pepsi.  But voting Liberal in expectation of anything even vaguely representing progressive policy is a fool's errand.  The corporate tax cuts Iggy pretends to oppose were introduced in the last Liberal budget and extended in the last but one Conservative budget with Liberal support.  The extension of the Afghan mission was approved with Liberal support 0 indeed, with the Liberals spearheading the effort.  Granted the Liberals' rhetoric doesn't mesh well with the Tory record - but the Liberal record sure does.

I really don't understand why supposedly intelligent progressives are falling for the old Liberal bait'n'switch yet again.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

(I will note that Unionist, to his credit, is not proposing to vote for a right wing party and then pretend that it was a progressive vote.  His tactical vote is at least consistently progressive.)

6079_Smith_W

Malcolm, I don't misunderstand you. I agree with you that there are certainly some people using it who don't understand it, as you say. 

I just disagree with you on the principle. As I said, it's not something I have to think about, but if I were in a riding where only candidate with a hope in hell was a Liberal, I could see myself casting a vote that way. Never had to do it before, But I don't see a problem with it.

And please don't insult my intelligence. I just disagree with you on this tactic; I'm not stupid.

 

thanks

There is no chance in my riding that the NDP will win.  The Liberals might defeat the Conservative. Ideally most of the Conservative voters would get so disgusted with Harper that they would vote for anyone else.

Maybe that's a decision to be made after effort to communicate the issues- a last resort.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
When (for example) all four parties in House vote in favour of bombing Libya, what should I do in Outremont?

And the NDP never actually voted for bombing Libya. Technically they voted for a no-fly zone, which the Sword Gang Inc promptly violated themselves by flying over(and bombing) in the designated "no-fly zone".  Our vicious toadies would have supported the pirate venture regardless at this opportune election time, like they did with Afghanistan and moral support for Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Canadian-made weapons to Yemen and Saudi Arabia etc.

Unionist wrote:
I decided long ago that the best pragmatic approach is to try and stop the perennial Liberal victory. And so, within limits of my conscience, I vote NDP or Bloc to accomplish that. Last two times out, I guessed right - the previous times, conditions weren't ripe to defeat the Liberal, but the Bloc had the best hope.

Good-good! And we will have a proper electoral system some time in the post-apolcalyptic future. Until then all we can do is vote for the party with the best record for opposing the stoogeaucracy in Ottawa. That'd be the NDP not the Bloc, and definitely not the official collaborationist party with reds in the upper chamber hob-nobbing with so many blues during port wine and cigars breaks post meridian hours of the work day, or whenever it is they show up for work.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Smith_W, I did say that you were not typical of the "strategic" voter.

I'll go so far as to say that I can understand the appeal of a tactical vote cast by a well-informed voter who has taken individual riding dynamics into consideration.

What I can't understand is the determination to waste such a tactical vote on the "HaperCons with better press" Liberals.

6079_Smith_W

@ Malcolm

Fair enough. 

And it is certainly a compromise, and a better of two evils. I completely agree with you there. And I agree with you that it should not be somehting that most voters should think about. As I said (I think in this thread) there aren't that many two-way tight races, so for most of us it is irrelevant.

and @ LTE (cross-posted with you)

I think that should address your comment as well.

Life, the unive...

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Malcolm, I don't misunderstand you. I agree with you that there are certainly some people using it who don't understand it, as you say. 

I just disagree with you on the principle. As I said, it's not something I have to think about, but if I were in a riding where only candidate with a hope in hell was a Liberal, I could see myself casting a vote that way. Never had to do it before, But I don't see a problem with it.

And please don't insult my intelligence. I just disagree with you on this tactic; I'm not stupid.

 

The problem becomes how do you determine this.  

 From the last election?   That only tells you how the last vote went, not how the one to come is going to go.   There are a handful of ridings where this is actually useful.  In many other ridings better candidates come forward, a 'contender' party might nominate a dud  and so on. 

From polls?  That is useless in most ridings as local and regional dynamics are not what inform those numbers.

From chicken entrails?  It is about as scientifically valid then any other model I have seen promoted over the years.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Chicken entrails would often be more reliable.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

I can imagine circumstances in which I could be persuaded to vote for several other parties (absent a candidate of my own party, of course).

I cannot imagine a circumstance in which I could be persuaded to vote Liberal.  The Tories give me right wing government.  The Liberals give me right wing government with a bunch of empty rhetoric.  It's not like one is a meaningful alternative to the other.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

I say it again, I don't care about Harper, I am voting NDP. Period!

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

contrarianna wrote:

peterjcassidy wrote:

"But voting for a candidate most likely to help prevent a Harper majority would more likely succeed, than voting for someone who is more likely to be 3rd or 4rth--this necessitates  that the voter pay attention and be able to find out on their own who that candidate is for their riding."

Care to apply a mathmatical or "rational" calculation of the odds in any riding of your choosing that a voter who prefers candidate A to candidate B likely will succeed in preventing a Harper majority by voting for B? ...

Of course not. Just as you would not:
"Care to apply a mathmatical or "rational" calculation of the odds in any riding of your choosing that a voter who prefers candidate A to candidate B likely will succeed in" [getting candidate A elected].

Yet, I will add one thing to my statement that I refrained from initially:

"But voting for a candidate most likely to help prevent a Harper majority would more likely succeed, than voting for someone who is more likely to be 3rd or 4rth--this necessitates  that the voter pay attention and be able to find out on their own who that candidate is for their riding."Duh.

Your argument is essentially the candidate you think most likely to win is the candidate you think most likely to win. You think voting for the non- Harper candidate B you think most likely to win the riding is more likely to lead to that candidate B winning that riding than voting for the  candidate A you don't think will win the riding is likely to lead to that candidate A winning the riding. DUH back Wink

What is iacking is any analysis of the odds or, to use a strategic framework. risk-return.

The risk-return spectrum is the relationship between the amount of return gained on an investment and the amount of risk undertaken in that investment.[citation needed] The more return sought, the more risk that must be undertaken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk-return_spectrum

 

E. g. If I consider Candidate A winning the riding is worth 100 "utiles" to me, Candidate B winning is worth 5 utiles and Candidate C winning is worthless to me,   I shoud clearly vote for A, unless the odds are overwhelming against A winning and much favour  B winning. ( only one chance in ten of A winning? and one chance in three of B winning?  I should vote for A to net 100 utiles over 10 elections,  while voting for B will net me  maybe 15 utiles over 10 elections). While the preferred candidate A has lower   chance of winning than the second choice B, the return justifies the risk. 

Tne Stop Harper campaign uses an extremely narrow  risk return analysis, starting  with the proposition it doesn't matter what party or candidate wins the riding, A or B or  D or whoever, , the only possible net benefit return you can get from the election  is a non-Harper MP.  Non-Harper MP good. Harper MP bad. Wehn asked to give some analysis of the odds in a particular riding that shifting voted from preferred Candidate A to  someones strategic choice B  would get the only beneifgt offered, a non-Harper MP,  the usual answer is somehting like- gosh  last election candidate B's party was only x behind the Conservatives so gosh golly I think B got a real good chance., yep sure, sure Tongue out

Some humour but this is an important debate.

 

 

 

 

knownothing knownothing's picture

Bring on the Harper majority Im still voting NDP. Don't be deceived into thinking the Liberals are an option. They are as bad as the Tories except they pretend to be leftists.

6079_Smith_W

@ Malcolm

No argument from me there. I would however add the caveat that the Liberals have sometimes  done the right thing on issues that Harper would never have. The have often done it under the influence of others, or when they saw the writing on the wall, but some reforms they brought in all on their own.

So yes, if the stakes were high enough I'd have no problem gritting my teeth and voting for them, considering the possible alternative. 

wage zombie

Here's that latest "strategic" site: http://www.swing33.ca/ .  The different with this one is, it's not strategic voting, it is strategic donating.  33 close ridings are profiled, with links to the donation pages of the candidate "most likely" to defeat the conservatives.

The breakdown by party of these 33 ridings are: 19 Liberal, 11 NDP, 2 Bloc, 1 Independent (James For in Edmonton-Sherwood Park).  They do list Saanich Gulf Islands in the Liberal column.

I don't know how well the ridings are being profiled, but I wouldn't call this approach wrong headed.  It encourages people to donate to parties that they'd like to support, which is good.

Here's the recent writeup in the Tyee: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/04/04/Swing33/

ETA: I think they picked 33 because that was the number of ridings with margins of victory less than 5%.

contrarianna

wage zombie wrote:

...They do list Saanich Gulf Islands in the Liberal column....

 They only list it because they came close in 2008--its actually the 2008 column (Penn might have won except for election fraud),

They are  correctly NOT supporting the Liberals there  for this election who will run 3rd or 4rth along with the NDP.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Unionist wrote:
When (for example) all four parties in House vote in favour of bombing Libya, what should I do in Outremont?

And the NDP never actually voted for bombing Libya. Technically they voted for a no-fly zone, which the Sword Gang Inc promptly violated themselves by flying over(and bombing) in the designated "no-fly zone".

I know, Fidel, you're technically correct. But you were much more than technically correct when [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/nato-imperia... said this on March 11[/url]:

Fidel wrote:
Well this is one of those times that I do not agree with the NDP... I sent an email to them asking what in hell they were thinking.

I agree with you about Libya. I also wrote to them. I didn't get a reply. And I'll also be voting NDP on May 2.

I just think it's better if we do things with our eyes wide open (and, on occasion, our nostrils firmly held shut).

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

@unionist:

I am glad that you are going to vote NDP. Look, as ex military I can tell you I absolutely get opposition to Libyan involvement. Absolutely, we have no business at all going there; I have no idea how the NDP got it so wrong. But it doesn't change the fact the New Dems are really the only ones who can bring change.

The young men and women who are going in harms way I can gaurantee you that I know them. They are the same kids over which I had charge and care my entire career. I hate the idea of them going so needlessly and unthinkingly into combat. I mourn the choice to support the mission made by "our leaders". But we need to "keep the eye on the ball" nnow.

You are right to be opposed to the mission. We'll just have to keep working and try to convince Jack to go in the opposite direction.

We are sorry, but the spam filter on this site decided that your submission could be spam. Please fill in the CAPTCHA below to get your submission accepted.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I would however add the caveat that the Liberals have sometimes  done the right thing on issues that Harper would never have. The have often done it under the influence of others, or when they saw the writing on the wall, but some reforms they brought in all on their own.

 

While Harper himself clearly has some serious personality problems that prevent him from working effectively with anyone, ever, I think the point your drawing from history treats the Conservatives unfairly.  The Liberals happen to have had more occasions to make deals with the NDP in minority situations.  In the two Diefenbaker minorities, Social Credit had more seats than the CCF / NDP and constituted a more amenable ally, so that's where they shopped.  Clark was too silly to deal with anyone.

However, the NDP has been able to work effectively with Tory minorities in both Ontario and Nova Scotia - in the latter case, despite being te Official Opposition.  Of course, those Tory parties were not led by individuals with severe personality disorders.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
I agree with you about Libya. I also wrote to them. I didn't get a reply. And I'll also be voting NDP on May 2.

I just think it's better if we do things with our eyes wide open (and, on occasion, our nostrils firmly held shut)

 

I think NDPers realize that there is still time for someone, anyone, who might be half awake in the party to comment on the situation in Libya. The situation will likely still be there in Libya after the election in this colder war year of deception and lies in 2011. And you have to admit that this colder war, like the terrible cold war before 1991, is a tense situation for the world on a whole. Remember that the RCMP and CSIS only admitted in recent years to having maintained a "Profunc" list with several CCF-NDP politicians' names on it for many years. CSIS still refuses to release their file on Tommy.

Secrecy in government, like our triple-u senate,  has no place in a modern democracy.

Today the NDP is the party representing true free market economy with modern social democracy for good measure. Our's is the real party of free markets not those two pretender parties, those bought and paid-for parties monopolizing power in Ottawa for too long. 

And today's NDP is about social democracy and opposing US-led military incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq. And on occasion the NDP may have to say as little as possible about the Gladio Gang's special operations in countries like Libya. Because again as it was during the dirty, rotten cold war era, the NDP really does not have political allies in Ottawa. We are forced to play the game according to the old rules. For now.

A time will come when every Canadian is made equal to one vote, and then we will have our united front on the left standing on equal footing with the all-powerful unified right.   It will be a time when Canadians are not voting in fear of electing another Brian Mulroney or another Stephen Harper to what is really the top union job in the country. Harper is no leader and neither was Mulroney. They are both dividers and antagonists of democracy. One day Canadians will vote with their hearts and minds for the best party or alternative parties on the left and not be ruled by fear. Their votes will be counted regardless of where they live in this country and which party they vote for.

That day will come, and we lowly ones will have fear no more. Then we will fight the good fight with a new and powerful wind at our backs namely 21st century democracy.

I vote for the pro democracy party no matter what, I admit. Modern democracy is the precious holy grail which all of us on the left should be fighting for here in our own country. First things first.

6079_Smith_W

@ Malcolm

Sort of. I'm not actually referring to Tories per se, but to Harper, who is a completely different beast from Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark or John Diefenbaker. It's not really tory or reform any more, it is just him. And once he is gone it will not be the same party at all.

Coincidentally we were just jesterday having a discussion in another thread about how conservative governments (specifically Diefenbaker) have also done the right thing and not followed the lead of Americans on occasion.

contrarianna

Branding is Not Reality.

The continual reference to the Harper regime as "Tories" and "Conservatives" on Babble is accidentally, and sometimes deliberately, misleading.

Historical development and political continuity in Canada cannot be determined by the facile tracking of party name branding. The entire political spectrum in Canada has shifted radically to the right--with a large leap rightward with the normalization of the National Citizens Committee leadership as the Harper Government.

The Harper regimes acquisition of the "Conservative" branding has its equivalent in a scam enterprise which buys up the name of a failing established business in order to deceptively trade on the known and comfortable name.

It was a brilliant marketing move.  Harper is the best source on his relationship to the dead , very dead as a dead parrot Progressive Conservative Party:

Stephen Harper wrote:
But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.
...
They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.

At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/03/23/StephenHarpersEyes/index.html

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

The call for a strategic vote can shift votes , that is why campaigns use that tool at the riding level and through a central campaign.- to shift votes their way.   That is why  Ignatieff is saying : " There are only two choices in this election- Liberal or Conservative, there are only two names on the ballot, mine and  Stephen Harpers. You can not vote for the NDP or the Greens or the Bloc or any other party, you must vote for the Liberals or the Conservatives.". It's  a call for a "strategic vote"  We all know it is a standard Liberal lie but it  can be an effective one- especially if taken up by the media and  "strategic voting"  types saying in riding after riding that a vote for the Liberals is the only way to defeat Harper.  persuading people that  they should vote "strategically" and that  the 'strategic vote"  is to vote Liberal..

As  Ontario 1999,  shows  that Liberal lie generally does not work in in its stated goal of stopping a Conservative victory, but it can certainly help the real goal, electing Liberals and  doing  damage to other parties and democracy. In Ontario 1999 election there was a  well organized, well resourced campaign to defeat the Conservatives through strategic voting. There were 60 ridings held by by the Conservatives that were identified as vulnerable and in about 30 of these the New Democrat was identified as the one most likely to beat the Conservative and in about 30 the Liberal was identified as the one most likely to beat the Conservatives. Resource were directed to the favoured candidates and repeated calls made to vote strategically to stop the Conservatives.  End result   a Conservative majority, Liberals went from 30 sets to 35, thanks to an 8% increase in vote and the NDP went from 17 seats to 9,  losing official party status in the legislature, thanks to an 8% loss in votes. Large numbers of people who  normally vote NDP voted Liberal to stop the Conservatives, even in ridings  the NDP held or were identified as the most likely to beat the Conservatives and most people who normally vote Liberal voted Liberal yet again, even in ridings the NDP held or were clearly the most likely to beat the Conservatives. Riding after riding the NDP dropped below the 15% needed to get their  ebate and these ridings became known as hopeless for an NDP victory. 2003  the Conservatives were replaced by a Liberal majority and again the NDP lost the official party status it had regained post 1999. We are still recovering from "strategic voting."

 

 

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_general_election,_1999

Fidel

Strategic voting undermines democracy. That's why they support it. It's phony baloney just like our obsolete electoral system.

bekayne

peterjcassidy wrote:

In Ontario 1999 election there was a  well organized, well resourced campaign to defeat the Conservatives through strategic voting. There were 60 ridings held by by the Conservatives that were identified as vulnerable and in about 30 of these the New Democrat was identified as the one most likely to beat the Conservative and in about 30 the Liberal was identified as the one most likely to beat the Conservatives. Resource were directed to the favoured candidates and repeated calls made to vote strategically to stop the Conservatives.  End result   a Conservative majority, Liberals went from 30 sets to 35, thanks to an 8% increase in vote and the NDP went from 17 seats to 9,  losing official party status in the legislature, thanks to an 8% loss in votes. Large numbers of people who  normally vote NDP voted Liberal to stop the Conservatives, even in ridings  the NDP held or were identified as the most likely to beat the Conservatives and most people who normally vote Liberal voted Liberal yet again, even in ridings the NDP held or were clearly the most likely to beat the Conservatives.

Could you name these ridings please?

contrarianna

peterjcassidy wrote:

For example, in  most riding campaigns in Hamilton I have worked in for the last ten years, I have urged those considering voting Conservative to vote NDP as we have the best chance of beating the Liberal candidate and urged those considering voting Liberal to vote NDP as we have the best chance of beating the Conservative candidate.   I expect the Liberals to tell New Democrat leaners they have the best chance of beating the Conservatives and to tell Conservatives they have the best chance of beating New Democrats and Conservatives,... well you get the picture.

The fact that scam artists from all parties push self-serving, debauched phoney versions of "strategic voting" and then--also self-serving--turn around and blizzard against it when they imagine THAT to be advantageous, is hardly a compelling argument for anything, except a shower.

And, if one should happen to see Harper as an exceptional threat and the best possible good is to block a Harlper majority, do not believe party partisans and do your own due dilligence on the best chance of beating a Harperite in your riding.

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

It has been argued that Edmonton Stratchona proves that strategic voting worked to elect New Democra Linda Duncan.

 

 

      20006                2008 shift

 

Con     22,009        19,640     - 2,369

NDP    17,153         20,103     +2,950

Lib       9,391           4,279     -5,112

Green   3,139          -3,040       - 99

Others...1148            147         -1001

total vote 52, 770    47, 308    -5,462

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton%E2%80%94Strathcona

Assuming essentially the same pool of voters,  few of the 2006 voters dying or moving out of the riding, few  new voters moving into the riding or  voting for the first time,   the biggest shift seems to be  the drop out rate- about 5,000 who voted in 2006, 10%, did not vote in 2008. Given the numbers and the dynamics we can assume 2,000 of the voters who "dropped out' had voted Conservative 2006 and that almost all of the Conservative votes in 2008 came from those who voted Conservative in 2006.  We could assume that there were no new voters for the Greens and pretty well all the 3,000 or so who voted Green in 2006 still voted Green in 2008, despite Linda Duncan's environmental credits and that she was clearly the best choice to beat the Conservatives.Possibly all the 1,000 or so who voted for others in 2006 drooped out and did not vote in 2008. all Those propositions are a little shaky.

That leaves us assuming about 4,000 of those who voted Liberal  in 2006, still voted Liberal in 2008 3ooo to 4,000 or so of them dropped out, not voting ,Conservative or Green  and possibly, possibly about 1,000 to  2,000 of them (10% to 20% or so of the Liberal vote in 2006) went  NDP. Strategic voting combined with Conservative voters staying home may have helped the NDP win in Edmonton-Strathcona,  and I would certainly try for it in that riding and where appropriate.  but here is no overwhelming evidence strategic voting worked for the NDP in that riding.

Sean in Ottawa

bekayne wrote:

peterjcassidy wrote:

In Ontario 1999 election there was a  well organized, well resourced campaign to defeat the Conservatives through strategic voting. There were 60 ridings held by by the Conservatives that were identified as vulnerable and in about 30 of these the New Democrat was identified as the one most likely to beat the Conservative and in about 30 the Liberal was identified as the one most likely to beat the Conservatives. Resource were directed to the favoured candidates and repeated calls made to vote strategically to stop the Conservatives.  End result   a Conservative majority, Liberals went from 30 sets to 35, thanks to an 8% increase in vote and the NDP went from 17 seats to 9,  losing official party status in the legislature, thanks to an 8% loss in votes. Large numbers of people who  normally vote NDP voted Liberal to stop the Conservatives, even in ridings  the NDP held or were identified as the most likely to beat the Conservatives and most people who normally vote Liberal voted Liberal yet again, even in ridings the NDP held or were clearly the most likely to beat the Conservatives.

I don't have the ridings but I well remember this campaign -- I thought it was 35-25 not even between NDP and Liberal but I sure remember seeing the NDP vote go down in the ridings targeted.

In 2006 I had one person tell me they were going to strategically vote Liberal in Ottawa Centre when the NDP candidate was the stronger one.

I think a large number of voters just don't understand or care enoguh about the civics to actually vote effectively.

Could you name these ridings please?

bekayne

I found this article:

...which the spam filter won't accept. Anyway, google "strategic voting" +"Mike Harris" + Jacek

peterjcassidy peterjcassidy's picture

bekayne wrote:

I found this article:

...which the spam filter won't accept. Anyway, google "strategic voting" +"Mike Harris" + Jacek

The filter would not accept my link either but here is the title and  an extract that supports my interpretayion of what happened.

Can strategic voting beat Mike Harris?

....

Another way of looking at the impact of strategic voting is to examine the share of the vote won by the opposition candidate not endorsed by the OEN. In the 14 ridings where the network backed the Liberals, the NDP candidates received on average only 5.6 per cent of the vote in 1999, as opposed to 16.9 per cent in 1995. In the 12 ridings where the NDP was endorsed by the OEN, the Liberal vote remained fairly strong: 29.7 per cent in 1999 as opposed to 27.7 per cent in 1995. This suggests that it was mainly NDP supporters who embraced the strategic voting campaign; Liberal partisans appear to have been reluctant to swing their support to NDP candidates (although it will require survey data to uncover the actual behaviour of individual voters in the 1999 campaign).

 

Anonymouse

Strategic voting is when you vote for your favourite issues, favourite candidate, favourite leader and you win. Vote for less and the joke's on you.

contrarianna

I see Liberal Renee Heatherington falsely tweeted 3 days ago:

"Happy to receive the endorsement of "Swing 33" Check it out ...3:23 PM Apr 4th"

It was possibly originally an error, but 3 days later and no correction by her? ?

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Look, here is the bottom line on strategic voting. This is entirely about Libs pretending to be New Dems trying to get us to vote for their candidates. Iggy won't discuss coalitions, and he is telling people only the Libs can be a government. I mean  really, who does anyone really think this call for strategic voting is supposed to benefit. I have had enough of this. I'll tell you what, all you Libs, vote NDP, and we'll win, period. End of strategy session.

JKR

acramer, on the one hand you're saying that strategic voting is awful and on the other hand you're saying that all Liberal supporters should vote strategically for the NDP.

Which is it?

Doesn't this seem a tad hypocritical?

Aristotleded24

Hey JKR, why is it always NDP supporters asked to hold their noses and vote Liberal, yet there is never any serious discussion about the Liberals standing down for the NDP even though that would defeat so many Conservatives in Western Canada?

If I may speak for acramer, I think he's an NDPer calling for people to vote NDP. People ask for others to support their party all the time, nothing hypocritical about it.

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

 

If I may speak for acramer, I think he's an NDPer calling for people to vote NDP. People ask for others to support their party all the time, nothing hypocritical about it.

I thought he was asking all Liberal supporters across Canada to not vote for their favored party but to vote instead for the NDP for strategic purposes.

Maybe I misread his post?

Aristotleded24

Political parties do that, they ask for people to vote for them. Only the Liberals try to wrap that up as some sort of noble request.

JKR

double post

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Political parties do that, they ask for people to vote for them. Only the Liberals try to wrap that up as some sort of noble request.

There's a difference between asking people to vote for your party and asking people not to vote for their favorite party because a vote for their party will be a wasted vote.

I think all the parties try to manipulate voters to vote against their favored party when it makes no sense to do so.

I find it morally questionable. But maybe that's just the way it has to be with FPTP politics?

JKR

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Hey JKR, why is it always NDP supporters asked to hold their noses and vote Liberal, yet there is never any serious discussion about the Liberals standing down for the NDP even though that would defeat so many Conservatives in Western Canada?

Because the Liberals are trying to underhandedly manipulate NDP'ers into voting strategically even when it makes no sense to.  The Liberals are being disingenuous liars when they do this.

But just because another party is lying to voters doesn't make it right to respond to their lying by lying to them too, by asking them to mindlessly vote strategically when it doesn't make sense to.

Here in BC, the provincial NDP does this to Green voters. And if the NDP were ever to leapfrog well ahead of the Liberals, the NDP would likely be the ones mostly disingenously supporting strategic voting.

And people wonder why the public holds politicians of all stipes in such contempt.

Pages

Topic locked