And they're off...the election thread

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
Lastpointe said:
I agree. What is the point of trying to vote strategically. Unless everyone else agrees with your position you arent making a difference

I thik it is more important to vote for the person or party you prefer. At least then your vote counts as part of their percentage vote

Most oundits say that stategic voting doesnt work. Vote your personal best choice and see where you sit with the rest of the country

There is no question that no one is going to get more than 50% of the vote. Just never happens with three parties. So whoever gets the most will get around 35%. Which always means 60+% voted for someone else.

Its how we work with three parties. I am ok with that. Never voted for Cretienne. Disliked him profoundly. He usually win with around 37%. So be it. That is how it works
Click to expand...
Disagree.
 
We'll see. I think there's going to be a much greater number of people voting strategically this time. The ridings' strongest parties are pretty well set now. Advanced voting is up 26% since 2011, and 90% since 2008. People either really know who they want already - or they really know who they don't want, already. I think it's the latter.
 
I've got 8 people decided so far and two close between Abbotsford and Van who have agreed to vote conservative if I vote NDP. When I get to 15 it will be a done deal. I thing strategic can be the way to go. It just takes a little effort to make it worthwhile.
 
If you don't vote your conscience then you're not voting properly and democracy is not truly served. Strictly strategic voting leads to voting against your conscience and this does not serve democracy.
 
What of those that have no conscious bean ... and thus no room for the paired un-con-science, in that some booth with all the other nut cases? A feast, or fete, of booths ... as it stands there bean Ayer doubt!

Without such abstract things we don't have a hope ... and hope is needed to get one out of a pit ... or Nus ... a mental state!

People that ignore psyche don't believe in psyches ... and thus do not think of such fa route things ... as psyche gatherings of gravid thoughts ... and thus a lot of h-8 occurs ...

One should have knowledge of strange things ... like souls ... as they run off ... shedding drips on us?
 
revsdd said:
If you don't vote your conscience then you're not voting properly and democracy is not truly served. Strictly strategic voting leads to voting against your conscience and this does not serve democracy.
Click to expand...

What if my conscience is to remove the Conservatives from power. Should I not then vote accordingly - which may well involve voting strategically.
 
Kimmio said:
It makes sense when it is the only tool we have to elect a different government in this system, without proportional representation, a new government which is desperately needed. If people don't get smart the majority of Canadians will be very disappointed. In my opinion, voting with conscience means not re-electing the PCs. So, that means not wasting votes on a party with the least chance of winning your riding and, en masse, winning the new government. My roommate disagrees with strategic voting so I am mad at her right now. She doesn't get it, in my opinion. In a different time, maybe we could afford to vote for a party just cuz they're our favourite. Not now, I don't think.
Click to expand...

It's about more than who is your "favorite", though, @Kimmio . Saying it that way trivializes the whole voting process. It is about having a philosophy and a set of principles that you live by. Voting with conscience, for me, means voting for a party without compromising my principles, not just voting out the party I don't like.

The Liberals may well be that party but I am not sure (I actually am currently unsure who I will vote for). I won't vote for them just because they are the alternative to Harper. I will vote for them if they are the RIGHT alternative to Harper; if I find their platform comes close enough to satisfying my principles that I can do so in good conscience.
 
Pr. Jae said:
What if my conscience is to remove the Conservatives from power. Should I not then vote accordingly - which may well involve voting strategically.
Click to expand...

Touche. But I prefer to vote positively, for something, rather than simply against something.
 
Pr. Jae said:
What if my conscience is to remove the Conservatives from power. Should I not then vote accordingly - which may well involve voting strategically.
Click to expand...

So the only thing that matters to you is getting the Cons out? You don't even look to see if the party you are voting in actually fits with your principles?
 
revsdd said:
Touche. But I prefer to vote positively, for something, rather than simply against something.
Click to expand...

revsdd - any time you vote you're voting against something. A vote - for example - that's for the Liberals is a vote against every other party. In my riding - there's only two candidates out of five who have a realistic chance of winning. I'm planning to vote for the one of those two whom I believe will make the best MP.
 
Mendalla said:
So the only thing that matters to you is getting the Cons out? You don't even look to see if the party you are voting in actually fits with your principles?
Click to expand...
Me personally? There are actually more than one party that align reasonably well with my principles - but one of them has no realistic chance of winning in my riding.
 
No party will align itself 100% with your principles. I clearly identify most strongly with the Greens, but my philosophy in MY riding, given that there's only a slim chance to beat the Cons here, is that a vote for anyone but Liberal is a vote for the Cons. And that goes VERY strongly against my principles. We're currently in a situation (first past the post) that is predicated on having only two major parties; once we have proportional representation, strategic voting should become considerably less necessary.
 
Well, I voted this afternoon. Only three peoplee ahead of me in linee, and three people behind me as I moved through the system. Busy, steady, but no long waits. It's Thanksgiving, an hour after most churches finish their regular service - light rain.
I voted with my heart for the party that most closely matches my beliefs on most issues.
If the Cons win in my riding by one vote - blame me. Otherewise my vote might add strength to the popular vote for my party, if there is electorial reform in the next while.
 
Pr. Jae said:
revsdd - any time you vote you're voting against something. A vote - for example - that's for the Liberals is a vote against every other party. In my riding - there's only two candidates out of five who have a realistic chance of winning. I'm planning to vote for the one of those two whom I believe will make the best MP.
Click to expand...

That's a rather silly argument, jae in that it's obvious that since I can only vote "for" one person, I'm voting "against" all the others. The question is the reason for your vote. Are you voting for a candidate because you actually support them, or are you holding your nose to vote for a candidate because you're really voting against their opponent. One's a positive vote; one's a negative vote. If I were into strategic voting, my choice would be pretty simple. This is a strong Conservative riding. Mind you, the Conservative incumbent has retired, and the NDP and Liberals have both fielded very credible candidates well grounded in local politics. Since the NDP finished second (albeit distantly) in the last election, my vote if it's a strategic anti-Harper vote should go to the NDP. And I've voted NDP in the last two elections so it wouldn't be unusual. So, the local Liberal and NDP candidates are of equal calibre in my opinion, and in terms of national platforms, I'm very drawn to the Liberal emphasis on infrastructure and the willingness to run a deficit to fund infrastructure programs. So, positively my vote should be Liberal; negatively, my vote should be NDP. Based on what I've said here, my vote should be Liberal. And yet my gut can't stand Harper, so there's a part of me that wants to vote NDP on the off chance that they might win. Frankly, I'll most likely end up voting Liberal for the first time in almost 20 years, but it's a tough choice.
 
BetteTheRed said:
No party will align itself 100% with your principles. I clearly identify most strongly with the Greens, but my philosophy in MY riding, given that there's only a slim chance to beat the Cons here, is that a vote for anyone but Liberal is a vote for the Cons. And that goes VERY strongly against my principles. We're currently in a situation (first past the post) that is predicated on having only two major parties; once we have proportional representation, strategic voting should become considerably less necessary.
Click to expand...
Personally I hope we never do have PR. I would much rather strengthen to role of individual MPs as representatives of their ridings and as members of the house rather than lackeys of the party
 
Pr. Jae said:
revsdd - any time you vote you're voting against something.
Click to expand...

How do you figure?

On a ballot you are asked to vote for and individual.

Every mark on every ballot is counted as an affirmation of the individual for a particular position.

If we mark all names but one we have spoiled our ballot because the ballot never asks who are we voting against.

A vote for candidate X is a vote for candidate X and nothing more.

If candidate X wins their seat and candidate X represents party Y then Party Y has won a seat.

Names not present on ballots in the riding of Brant include Gilles Duceppe, Stephen Harper, Elizabeth May, Tom Mulcair or Justin Trudeau. Nobody in Brantford will vote for either one of them. We will never be given a chance to vote for anyone of them unless they choose to represent our riding.

We won't get to vote Bloc ever I imagine so we can vote for a representative from the Conservative Party, Green Party, New Democrats Party or the Liberal Party. We can also choose from a Libertarian, and an Independent.

When I cast my vote Friday past I chose one. I n so doing I did not chose to vote against several I simply did not choose several to vote for.

The parties will spin it and say I voted for their leader they will never likely actually ask me to affirm that belief of theirs.

Those keen on proportional representation will say (possibly) that if the candidate of my choice is ultimately defeated that my voice has not been heard. Which is baloney because it will be counted.

I cannot say my vote was wasted because at the end of the day I will have a member of Parliament to represent me in Ottawa. It doesn't matter much if it is not the one I wanted.

And none of those candidates will know unless I decide to make it a matter of public record. From comments I've made hear there will likely be no surprises in figuring out whom I did not cast my ballot for. So by process of elimination that cuts a field of six down to a field of three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top