Strategic Voting???

[the caracal kid]

a spoiled ballot

there should be a way for people to vote "non of the above". Spoiled ballots, just not voting, etc fail to allow for what people really are saying to be heard.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I'd like to a none of the above option and if it outweighs the combined ballots of the candidates, a by-election where those candidates are not allowed to run again.

That'd toss the parties into a tizzy.

 

[PoisonPete2]

or a ballot that includes a 'write in' line. Elmer Fudd may win.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I'm not a fan of write-in ballots precisely because Elmer Fudd might not only win, but may be the best candidate. A none of the above option might force the parties to do better and actually put in some worthwhile people.

 

[the caracal kid]

non of the above is a statement of non-confidence in the declared candidates while a write-in is an invitation to undeclared movements. In the extreme, imagine somebody worse than what currently is declared rallying the troops (the way scientology keeps its books on the best sellers lists, for example) to hijack the democratic process.

 

[pastafarian]

I'm not a fan of write-in ballots precisely because Elmer Fudd might not only win, but may be the best candidate.

Reminds me of when Michael Moore's "The Awful Truth" organised running more than twenty Ficus plants as write-in candidates in the 2000 Congressional elections. I believe a few may have won some districts.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 26, 2000
7:03 PM
CONTACT: Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com



Ficus Plant Announces Candidacy For Congress

MORRISTOWN, NJ - April 26 - Claiming that the American people "deserve better," a potted plant, commonly known as "Ficus," formally announced its campaign this morning to seek the Congressional seat in New Jersey's 11th District as a write-in candidate on both the Democrat and Republican Party ballots in the June 6 primary.
"The United States Congress is full of babbling idiots and bumbling morons," said Ficus campaign strategist and filmmaker Michael Moore. "Most run unopposed in their primaries and 95% are re-elected every time in the general election. What we get from these Congressmen-for-life is a lot of hot air, a bunch of promises that are never kept, problems like health care and education that are never addressed, more taxes for a bigger military when there are no wars, and a bigger paycheck for Congress when they don't deserve it."

Moore, in presenting the Ficus at a press conference in the historic town square of Morristown, New Jersey (site of George Washington's military headquarters), also announced that Ficuses in more than twenty other Congressional districts around the country (see list), where the incumbent faces little or no opposition, are also entering the race.

"Ficus Fever is sweeping the nation," said Moore. "In a country where the majority no longer vote, writing in Ficus will give the disenfranchised voter a chance to cast a vote for "None of the Above!"

Ficus will run as both a Democrat and a Republican because, according to Moore, "There is little difference between the two so-called parties."

"Both the Democrat and Republican nominees for President are for NAFTA, for the death penalty, for increased military spending, against immediate universal health care, against stringent gun control that would ban handguns, and both looked like pandering idiots regarding their exploitation of that six-year old Cuban boy."

"But, more important, both parties are beholden to those who pay for their campaigns. Why should the wealthy have two parties doing their bidding, and the other 90% of Americans have no real representation?"

The Ficus will accept no campaign contributions. All it needs is air, sunlight, and water.

"And a little fertilizer," which Moore said the Ficus "should find plenty of in Washington."

Moore said that "all Ficuses running for Congress across the country meet the Constitutional qualifications: each Ficus is at least twenty-five years old, each has been in the U.S. for at least seven years, and each is a resident of the district where it seeks election."

:laughing5:

 

[Reverend Blair]

I remember that. It was brilliant.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

I believe that people should vote for the party that they perceive would be best for the country no matter who the party is.

Strategic voting undermines democracy itself.

 

[no1important]

Strategic voting undermines democracy itself.

How so?

I don't think it is, sometimes you have to vote to keep someone out, especially if the party you support does not have a realistic chance of winning the seat.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Strategic Voting???

Strategic voting undermines democracy itself.

How so?

I don't think it is, sometimes you have to vote to keep someone out, especially if the party you support does not have a realistic chance of winning the seat.

I don't think strategic voting undermines democracy anymore than refusing your ballot undermines democracy.

I do think strategic voting is akin to Russian Roulette, i.e. there is about 1 chance in 6 you're going to really f#ck things up.

 

[the caracal kid]

heh heh, your right there colpy! there is nothing like vote-splitting that puts a party with 30% of the pop vote in a majority position either!

of course, any party that can achieve that isn't going to be interested in electoral reform.

 

[Semperfi_dani]

I don't like this concept because for me, as a general fence sitter (who leans mostly towards the Liberals but have voted Conservative and NDP in the past)....

I vote for the candidate that will best represent MY constituence and who I know i would be able to present my views to. But the big thing for me, is that sometimes the person is either better than the party, or other canadidates who you might normally vote for.

As well, in the last election...ONLY ONE candidate even bothered to knock on my door, than spent the time listen to me and to present their view. ONE. Face to face is important for me, becuase they answer questions that you don't hear in the media. For example, it appals me that CRIME is not a number one priority.

So yah, strategic voting is an insult to the candidate who runs.

 

[neocon-hunter]

Well if NDP may not win the riding it is better to vote liberal just to keep Harper out. It only makes sense.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Well if NDP may not win the riding it is better to vote liberal just to keep Harper out. It only makes sense.

Change "may not" to "cannot" and that might be reasonable advice, neo-con hunter. That only really works if there is reciprocity from Liberal voters in ridings where they cannot win. Until Martin is willing to stand up like a man and make that clear, strategic voting doesn't work well. Martin has shown little or no compunction for standing up like a man though.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

I don't think it is, sometimes you have to vote to keep someone out, especially if the party you support does not have a realistic chance of winning the seat.

If that's the case, then you're party will NEVER win. An example of this would be the NDP. They always hover around 15% and will never move up because many NDPers vote "strategicaly" for the Liberals. Due to this, we never "really" know what the NDP support really is thus it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Layton may as well pack it in and call themselves Liberal-lite and get it over with.

When you have people excercising their franchise for a party they despise simply because they are told to be "afraid" of another party is not "democracy".

This is exactly why the political process in Canada is in shambles. No one votes with their minds. They vote with their hearts and for fear, never for hope.

Because of this, we will continue to have corrupt governments because Martin knows that he can steal NDP votes at the last minute to squeek out a minority government and we will be back at the voting booths within 2 years. I don't know of any government on the face of this planet that can be hated by more than half of the populace yet still continue to be elected no matter how much money they steal/waste/mismanage.

I voted Liberal my whole life and I will be voting Conservative for the first time because I KNOW that we need a change. Personally, at this point I couldn't care less who gets in be it the NDP, CPC, Green, hell I'll even be willing to have a Bloc majority if it meant that the Liberals would not be running Canada into the ground.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, so you are going to vote for the Conservatives, who are willing to nothing to reduce either the absolute power or the tendency towards corruption.

Meanwhile, a vote that that helps the NDP hold the balance of power. Holding that balance would, especially if the Conservatives would smarten up and support them, allow the NDP ethics package to be pushed through. That package includes proportional representation, so it would do away with absolute power.

You're voting against what you say you support, Breakthrough. Worse yet, you are encouraging others to do the same.

 

[Breakthrough2006]

I agree with proportional representation and it is part of the Conservative platform also. The only party who has benefited from the lack of this is the Liberal party.

I choose not to vote for a party that is only looking to hold the "balance" of power. I want to vote for a party that will hold power. If the NDP had a chance, I would vote for them if I knew that the Liberals would NOT hold power.

 

[#juan]

The last thing we want is to have Harper in even a minority government. I tend to agree with Hargroves. "If the NDP can't win, vote liberal. The best we can hope for is a Liberal minority with around 135 seat and the NDP with twenty or more. The CPC, if they won 90 seats, could make a deal with the bloc and be the next government. Go help us.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I agree with proportional representation and it is part of the Conservative platform also.

Harper refused to help the NDP push for PR. Even the Bloc said they'd support it. If Harper believed in PR, it would be law already and we'd have it in place after this election.

PR does not show up at all on the Conservative's "Key Issues" web page.

I choose not to vote for a party that is only looking to hold the "balance" of power. I want to vote for a party that will hold power.

So apparently you don't support PR then, because it's all about balancing power.

The last thing we want is to have Harper in even a minority government.

What's the matter, Juan...not thrilled by the prospect of having two elections in 2006?

I'm only kind of joking there. Every other party has come out against Harper's GST cut. That would be a money bill. If Harper introduced it in a minority parliament, his government would be defeated. Either he knows that and has no intention of cutting the GST, or he's willing to put us through two elections in a single year.

The best we can hope for is a Liberal minority with around 135 seat and the NDP with twenty or more.

The best we can hope for is 58 NDP seats. The reality is likely closer to 30.

 

[#juan]

Rev, I think 58 seats is a little optimistic. I would like to see the bloc lose a few as well. What would be nice is a stable minority that would last for four or five years.