Open letter to strategic voters

[d_rawk]

Open letter from Fair Vote Canada to strategic voters and vote-swappers

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.†- Albert Einstein

Another federal election and another disaster for democracy.On October 14, millions of Canadians – possibly eight million – will become orphan voters, casting ballots that send no one to Ottawa. As usual, the election results will be wildly distorted.

Some parties will get a portion of seats far exceeding their portion of the popular vote, while others will get too little or none at all.We may even see a party opposed by six voters in every ten take majority control in the House of Commons.

Why we call this exercise “democracy†is a continuing mystery.

During every election in recent memory the frustration created by an undemocratic electoral system leads some to conclude that voters should try to “game†the system. Instead of marking the ballot for a party you support, they say, be “smart†and vote for a party you do not support in order block another party that you despise.

A recent poll by the Toronto Star indicated that about half of those supporting the Liberals, NDP and Green Party would consider casting a negative or “strategic†vote, abandoning the party they actually prefer, to vote for another party in the hope of stopping a candidate from the front-running Conservatives.

In addition to 40% of the eligible voters who choose not to vote we could now have another large group of people who have given up on sincere voting and genuine democratic representation.

This is no way to nourish pride of citizenship or public respect for the laws that emanate from an unrepresentative Parliament.

Citizens in most major democracies take for granted their right to cast a vote that elects the representation they want. In the upcoming election, the majority of Canadian voters will all but certainly be denied that right.Fair Vote Canada cannot advise voters whether to cast negative votes or to participate in vote-swapping schemes on October 14. It’s rarely a clear or easy choice.

What we can advise is that all Canadians should be coming together to demand reform of our country’s undemocratic election process.

If you have not already done so, join and support Fair Vote Canada. Sign the Fair Vote Canada petition calling for a national referendum on electoral reform. Urge other organizations to make active citizenship, equal votes and proportional representation for all Canadians a part of their basic mission.

Together we can win.

British Columbians showed the way in 2005 when 58% voted by referendum for proportional representation, only to be frustrated – in the short-term – by an undemocratic government-imposed threshold of 60%. On May 12, 2009, British Columbians will vote again in an electoral reform referendum. With our encouragement and help, they can lead Canada on the path of democratic renewal.

The electoral system has orphaned many of us. We must refuse to be silenced. Democracy has been long delayed, but if democrats are steadfast, democracy will not be forever denied.

[Hux]

Ditch Harper, reform the system after.

Poor d_jango - looks like he's got the 19% blues...again.

[d_rawk]

Seems to me that it doesn't really matter for the Dippers, in terms of seat wins, where they fall in the 19% to, say, 26% range. 19% doesn't feel much worse than when the NDP and the Liberals were running neck and neck.

I'm actually quite happy with the current trajectory of this election.

You know me well enough to know that my main bugaboo is a broken system more than the successes or failures of any individual party.

Congrats on inheriting the economic panic vote. Don't waste it.

[SaggyBalls]

Strategic Voting is for suckers.

[d_rawk]

Hux, FWIW - if I was in a different riding where it would make sense to do so, I would be inclined to vote Liberal this time around. It's been a long time since I could imagine doing that, and a long time since the Liberals felt this fresh and the NDP felt this tired.

[ollie]

Strategic Voting is for suckers.

Not voting is for suckers. Telling me how I can and cannot decide to cast my vote is the height of arrogance.

[Freak By Night]

To me, "strategic voting" is the same as the old "let's all boycott a particular chain of gas stations until they lower the price of gas" thing.

There's no way to organize enough people to have any significant effect.

[phishtaper]

Strategic Voting is for suckers.

Not voting is for suckers. Telling me how I can and cannot decide to cast my vote is the height of arrogance.

i like your style. can i buy ya a drink, sailor?

[SaggyBalls]

I agree entirely.

So I won't tell you how you can and cannot decide to cast your vote, but I am free to comment on strategic voting, just as you're free to presume I was actually trying to direct people to not strategically vote, which I now gather you are.

Really, it's okay for people to be suckers. People get suckered into things every day. Although understandable it's entirely unfortunate.

All these years of strategic voting hasn't kept Harper out of office and it's cost thousands of votes for other parties that voters would have voted for anyway.

that's why the PC party, Libertarian Party, and other 'fringe' parties don't get the funding they could otherwise have, so strategic voting essentially cheats parties out of support they'd otherwise have if fear weren't running through the veins of Canadians every few years.

It would be great if the right wing vote were as split as the left

Just think! 'Election playoff' style debates! A series of debates between politicans...playoffs and finals. It'd be great for voters and great for the politicians to talk about how they'd fix things. Maybe we could vote for the theme song!

Every election, thousands of voters are 'suckered' into voting for a party they wouldn't have voted for anyway...

so really...Strategic Voting IS for Suckers.

Not voting - is not for suckers. It's for quitters.

Quitters suck at times but leave the race for the rest of us to run.

To merely suck and to be a sucker is entirely different which is also entirely different than being a douchebag.

Edited October 11, 2008 by Guest
was feeling 'not so fresh'

[phishtaper]

strategic voting might be for suckers in your riding, YT. but to assert that overall it is for suckers is, again, as a wise man just said, the height of arrogance.

why not just say "anyone who doesnt vote exactly as I do is a sucker". because that's essentially what you are saying.

[Birdy]

That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying the act of strategically voting is for suckers. He's not telling you how to vote or whom to vote for. He's saying that if your ideals align to the Fascist party of Canada, by all means vote for them.

And he's right. The cost to all of these parties that do represent people more wholly are HUGE because of this kind of behaviour. Some of the same people who whined and complained Elizabeth May wasn't in the debates, are some of the same who would cast a vote for the Libs instead of their Green candidate to keep someone else out of power. Yet if they just voted for the Greens in the first place, they would be voting for the legitimization of that party on the federal front and we wouldn't have had to be in that position come election time.

If you're under the inclination to vote for one of these parties, you're not advancing yourself or any of your ideas by strategically voting. And that is the most common definition of a sucker.

[Birdy]

Aside from this, of course:

[Hux]

All these years of strategic voting hasn't kept Harper out of office

Most would agree it kept him out in 2004, kept him from a majority in 2006 and hopefully does again this time.

[Birdy]

What wonders it did keeping him from a majority in 2006.

[d_rawk]

How do you mean?

[phishtaper]

so, i can be for one party only? my ideas cannot be multi-dimensional? i cannot agree perhaps with the economic policies of say the liberals and the social policies of the greens? yes, i understand the philosophical argument that strategic voting is compromising one's ideals, bailing on the party of choice and supporting another one for all the wrong reasons. moreover, the party of original choice double-loses because they dont even get financial compensation.

this all entirely relies on the premiss that i cannot support more than one party for more than one reason. and if the context of my specific riding is such that only one of those two parties i support has a chance of winning, and especially winning over a party that i really do not support, then i still dont see how this would make me a sucker.

bottom line, no single party represents all my concerns and ideals on every important issue. yes, if would be convenient of one did, but they dont. and really, can any of you say that you are fully and 100% behind everything that one party says? that's kinda simplistic and its the basic problem i have with the party system. its an all or nothing mentality.

[Birdy]

How do you mean?

More of the Harper already had a majority, liberal inaction stuff.

Phishtaper, if you have multiple parties that you would vote for, and choose to vote for say, the Liberals as one of them, I wouldn't say you're strategically voting. Strategically voting is choosing a party who you don't necessarily want to vote for, but do it anyway to prevent something you consider worse. There's a difference.

[phishtaper]

ok, we seem to just have different definitions of what strategic voting is. im using it as any type of tactical voting within a rational choice game where you vote for something other than your true preferrene in order to affect the overall outcome. you state your second (or third) preference first. i think its pretty common in first past the post voting.

so, while i might want to vote green, i'd be wiling to vote liberal in order to prevent the conservative from winning. that's strategic voting as i've always understood it.

[Thorgnor]

Unless your only voting liberal because you don't want the con to win... it's only legit if you like something that Birdy deems "good", than you can vote for who you like.

I think I get it now.

[SaggyBalls]

If you want to vote one way but vote another way just to block a conservative from winning is diluting your own deep seeded preferences.

I'm not trying to get people to not strategically vote, not am I trying to guilt trip anyone into not strategically voting.

But as long as people continue to cheat themselves out of their own personal confidences this country will continue failing to truly empower itself and those around them.

What do you want from your representative in Ottawa? Merely to beat the other guy? That's not aiming high, let alone for anything in particular.

Rationalizing a choice and trying to support a maligned effort isn't the healthiest thing that we can do - en masse - to the spirit and nature of Canadian Democracy.

This next Harper Government will wake this country up to the need of truly aligning ourselves to our goals, needs, and intentions and making the best choices for the long term while keeping our recent indiscretions firmly in mind.

[Birdy]

Ding!

[Thorgnor]

Fingers crossed... but I'm not gonna hold my breath.

[SaggyBalls]

And Hux...it hasn't continued to keep him out of office. It may have worked once but I was speaking in present tense.

Strategic voting isn't really succeeding. Too bad it's really the last tool the Liberals have to win this one.

I really like Dion and think that there won't really be a 'good' time to implement the necessary changes the Liberal Party (and to a greater extent the Green Party) intend to bring to Canada.

Too bad Canada is so scared of things that won't really hurt us that bad.

The needle just looks big - It's always how steady the nurse is anyway. There's a big juicy vein popping out of the right arm of this nation and when the juice'd start flowin' we'd all know it's not so bad. Out hearts would stop fluttering and when it's all over we'd get a sweet treat.

It'd be a different thing if we weren't as prepared as we are...like the States...Can't squeeze blood from a stone, eh?

[Birdy]

It's always how the steady the nurse is anyway.

Ding!

[bradm]

If you want to vote one way but vote another way just to block a conservative from winning is diluting your own deep seeded preferences.

If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for...but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against.

While strategic voting may dilute one's deep-seeded preferences for what is wanted, it may be the most effective way to express one's deep-seeded preferences for what is not wanted.

Aloha,

Brad