Strategic voting vs. principled voting: Why I'd rather let the CPC win a majority!

[Machjo]

This election, everyone is voting strategically to stop a CPC majority. But have they really stopped to think of the long-term consequences? And what would be the advantages of a principled vote. here I'll try to compare them in the long-term.

Strategic voting: Out of fear of a CPC majority, everyone scrambles to vote Liberal. the Liberals win, or at least the CPC has no majority, and things go so-so for the next four to five years. The great medeocrity is far better than the great evil after all, does it not? Maybe not, as we shall see. What will happen four or five years from now as a consequence? The CPc will claim that the reason everything is just so-so is because they've never had a chance to prove themselves as a majority. and of course the Liberals will try the 'anything but conservative' ploy again. You can see how strategic voting just postpones the inevitable. the CPC will simply remain until having had the chance to prove themselves. Even if it takes another 100 years.

Now let's compare this to principled voting. So let's say you decide to vote for the best candidate in your riding regardless of his chances of winning. So yu cause a split vote, and the CPC gets a majority. Four years later, if indeed we're right and their policies are disastrous, they have no recourse for the next election but to be decimated. And the Liberals would know too that they couldn't just count on manipulating us with anything-but schemes. At that stage, we could start to see progress.

So now the choice is yours. You can vote strategically this election and the next, and the next.....

Or you can vote on principle this election, and the next, and the next...

The future is yours to make.

 

[earth_as_one]

I'll go back to principled voting when the Conservative party tosses Harper and control returns back to people who represent Canada like Conservative Danny Williams.

I miss the good old days when the conservative agenda was just about capitalism and business rather than death and destruction.

 

[s_lone]

So now the choice is yours. You can vote strategically this election and the next, and the next.....

Or you can vote on principle this election, and the next, and the next...

The future is yours to make.

OR we can finally improve our voting system with some type of proportional representation which opens the door to a lot more principled voting.

 

[TenPenny]

Voting strategically is admitting that your local member serves no purpose. Bill, Bob, Donna, or Ghislain, who cares?

To me, that's not right, and that's not the way our system should work. I'm not going to vote for a moron, just because somebody else thinks it make sense.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Machjo, thank you for creating this thread. I see a certain honesty to principled voting, and
a dishonesty to strategic voting. If I vote for someone whom I honestly think is the best choice
out of the lot we have to pick from and he/she wins, and then tanks...I won't vote for them the
next time. I earn the right to complain about them (or whomever wins) without feeling like a
hypocrite by using principled voting. I tried to make this point on a different thread and
thought I'd gotten my point across clearly but it seems not. Someone replied back that it was
their God given Right to complain under the Charter of Rights, yada-yada-yada....whatever.

Strategic voting just seems so dishonest, even if you're just not being honest to yourself, and
not potentially screwing your fellow Canadians.

 

[Zzarchov]

Even easier than proportional voting:

If no Candidate receives more than 50% of the vote the top two candidates go to a second bi-election.

 

[Machjo]

Proportional representation = you have to check a party off on your ballot, and the party gets to decide who'll represent you in parliament, and the independent candidate is no more.

No thanks to that. Down with partisan politics, and let's learn from Nunavut. Get rid of the parties and let everyone run as an independent. Then we can go to consensus governments rather than confrontational partisan bickering all the time.

OR we can finally improve our voting system with some type of proportional representation which opens the door to a lot more principled voting.

 

[Machjo]

Even easier than proportional voting:

If no Candidate receives more than 50% of the vote the top two candidates go to a second bi-election.

Too expensive and time consuming. Just leave it at first past the post... but without the parties.

 

[Machjo]

I'll go back to principled voting when the Conservative party tosses Harper and control returns back to people who represent Canada like Conservative Danny Williams.

I miss the good old days when the conservative agenda was just about capitalism and business rather than death and destruction.

We'll still be left with a harper-like party still claiming that they haven't had the chance to prove themselves yet. strategic voting does all of us a disservice. Vote on principle, and let the chips fall where they may. i can guarantee that that's the best way to wipe out the CPC once and for all come next election, in spite of the damage, which is just a matter of time anyway,

 

[Ron in Regina]

Even easier than proportional voting:

If no Candidate receives more than 50% of the vote the top two candidates go to a second bi-election.

That's a neat twist. I like it, but I wonder how often (percentage wise) that would happen. You'd
need to add another rule to that of, for the bi-election...no additional advertising budget...or at least
none fronted up by the tax payers. It's a bi-election, and they have lets say a two week window, so
they get of their backsides and put on their walking shoes and start walking door to door in their own
ridings.

 

[Machjo]

Hey, good point. That could save lots of money. An election should last no more than, say, 19 days from the time it's declared to the end. That would make the campaing less expensive for all, thus making it more accessible to independents.

 

[Zzarchov]

The idea of needing more than 50% to win isn't some grand new scheme.

Almost all nations that use "first past the post" elections have it, otherwise you get vote splitting, even without parties.


If me and you vote for Tom, 2 people vote for Dick and 3 people vote for Harry (all independants)

That doesn't mean Harry represents the wishes of his constituency, since 4 people voted against him.

A first past the post system is supposed to represent the constituency, he if has the approval of less than 50%, he doesn't.

 

[earth_as_one]

We'll still be left with a harper-like party still claiming that they haven't had the chance to prove themselves yet. strategic voting does all of us a disservice. Vote on principle, and let the chips fall where they may. i can guarantee that that's the best way to wipe out the CPC once and for all come next election, in spite of the damage, which is just a matter of time anyway,

Are you a Harper supporter and the point of this string is to discourage strategic voting so Harper can win a majority? Your choice of the word "principled" voting implies something "unprincipled" about voting "strategically".

In this election, "principled" voting as you call it would lead to a Harper majority. That would give Harper 4-5 years to implement his neocon agenda. No thanks. Think of how much damage Harper could do with a majority over 4-5 years....

It only took Bush neocons two and a half years to manipulate anger over 9/11 into support for an unprovoked war crime against the people of Iraq. A war crime which neocon Harper also supported. If Americans had not elected Bush neocons, they would have avoided that needless war and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be alive. If the Americans had voted strategically, millions of people who voted for Ralph Nader of the green party would have voted Al Gore. The Iraq war would not have happened and the US would be a world leader in environmental issues.

If Harper wins another minority, his hands will be tied again and he won't have the ability to implement his neocon agenda. By the time the next election comes around, maybe the conservatives will have taken back control of their party from the neocons.

"Strategic" voting is the smart thing to do in specific circumstances with our "first past the poll" electoral system. For example, when Fort William and Port Arthur alagamated the new city's name was decided by referendum. The choices were:

1) "Lakehead"
2) "The Lakehead"
3) "Thunder Bay"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Bay,_Ontario#Thunder_Bay.27s_name

Is there really a big difference between "Lakehead" and "The Lakehead"? So a "principled" voter would vote for one or the other and "Thunder Bay" would win because of a vote split. In theory, "Thunder Bay" could win with 34% of the vote even though 66% voted for either "Lakehead" (33%) or "The Lakehead" (33%).

In that referendum "principled" voting was really "stupid" voting because it allowed the people who decided which names got on the ballot to get away with manipulating the outcome. Voters who allowed that to happen would "dumb", not "principled".

"Strategic" voters could prevent that manipulation by holding a referendum amongst themselves to gauge whether "Lakehead" or "The Lakehead" had more support and then vote "strategically" for the one most likely to win. That's called "smart" voting.

 

[scratch]

Are you a Harper supporter and the point of this string is to discourage strategic voting so Harper can win a majority? Your choice of the word "principled" voting implies something "unprincipled" about voting "strategically".

In this election, "principled" voting as you call it would lead to a Harper majority. That would give Harper 4-5 years to implement his neocon agenda. No thanks. Think of how much damage Harper could do with a majority over 4-5 years....

It only took Bush neocons two and a half years to manipulate anger over 9/11 into support for an unprovoked war crime against the people of Iraq. A war crime which neocon Harper also supported. If Americans had not elected Bush neocons, they would have avoided that needless war and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians would still be alive. If the Americans had voted strategically, millions of people who voted for Ralph Nader of the green party would have voted Al Gore. The Iraq war would not have happened and the US would be a world leader in environmental issues.

If Harper wins another minority, his hands will be tied again and he won't have the ability to implement his neocon agenda. By the time the next election comes around, maybe the conservatives will have taken back control of their party from the neocons.

"Strategic" voting is the smart thing to do in specific circumstances with our "first past the poll" electoral system. For example, when Fort William and Port Arthur alagamated the new city's name was decided by referendum. The choices were:

1) "Lakehead"
2) "The Lakehead"
3) "Thunder Bay"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Bay,_Ontario#Thunder_Bay.27s_name

Is there really a big difference between "Lakehead" and "The Lakehead"? So a "principled" voter would vote for one or the other and "Thunder Bay" would win because of a vote split. In theory, "Thunder Bay" could win with 34% of the vote even though 66% voted for either "Lakehead" (33%) or "The Lakehead" (33%).

In that referendum "principled" voting was really "stupid" voting because it allowed the people who decided which names got on the ballot to get away with manipulating the outcome. Voters who allowed that to happen would "dumb", not "principled".

"Strategic" voters could prevent that manipulation by holding a referendum amongst themselves to gauge whether "Lakehead" or "The Lakehead" had more support and then vote "strategically" for the one most likely to win. That's called "smart" voting.

Superb.

 

[earth_as_one]

It makes sense to vote strategically if:
1) ...your riding is a close race between a conservative and someone else
2) ...the person/party you like isn't either of these and doesn't have a chance
3) ...you can live with voting for your second choice to prevent your last choice from winning.

Then voting strategically makes sense.

Back to the example. The final results were:

Thunder Bay 15,870,
"Lakehead" 15,302
"The Lakehead" 8,377

If 569 people who voted for "The Lakehead" had voted strategically for their second choice, Thunder Bay would be known as "Lakehead".

In my case I'd prefer to vote Green or NDP, but they haven't got a chance. Its a two horse race between the Liberal incumbent and a surging Conservative. So I held my nose and voted Liberal who is my riding's "Anyone But Conservative" candidate. I'll take immense satisfaction if Liberal Paul Szabo keeps his seat by a single vote.

BTW, I donated $200 to the NDP, $100 for the Greens and $100 to the Liberals in this election.

 

[scratch]

It makes sense to vote strategically if:
1) ...your riding is a close race between a conservative and someone else
2) ...the person/party you like isn't either of these and doesn't have a chance
3) ...you can live with voting for your second choice to prevent your last choice from winning.

Then voting strategically makes sense.

Back to the example. The final results were:

Thunder Bay 15,870,
"Lakehead" 15,302
"The Lakehead" 8,377

If 569 people who voted for "The Lakehead" had voted strategically for their second choice, Thunder Bay would be known as "Lakehead".

In my case I'd prefer to vote Green or NDP, but they haven't got a chance. Its a two horse race between the Liberal incumbent and a surging Conservative. So I held my nose and voted Liberal who is my riding's "Anyone But Conservative" candidate. I'll take immense satisfaction if Liberal Paul Szabo keeps his seat by a single vote.

BTW, I donated $200 to the NDP, $100 for the Greens and $100 to the Liberals in this election.

....crunch isn't hurting you...

 

[Zzarchov]

You know what would have been better though EAO?

If people hadn't been forced to make a choice like that.

Its against our democratic principles. An election isn't a game about vote splitting.

 

[earth_as_one]

I agree with you Z. Strategic voting is a way to compensate for a flawed electoral system. The best solution would be electoral reform, which people voted down.

 

[earth_as_one]

....crunch isn't hurting you...

Not yet.

 

[scratch]

Not yet.

Well our dollar has dropped to .882 vs U.S., probably to bottom at .86

TSX was up 400+

Dow below 8600

GM stocks dropped to their lowest since 1950

You and I may not be hurting now but it is coming.....