then we agree: strategic voting is the least useful way to help the small parties (which i’m about; i think we need less of that bipartisan flavour). but for the moment it remains the best way to hurt the Cons.
from what little i know about the Greens, they’re much a small “l” liberal when it comes to fiscal matters (i.e. centrist and bordering a bit on the conservative side). on that basis i would expect them to take away the small-c Conservative vote rather than the NDP vote (they’re not getting my otherwise-NDP vote).
finally, wrt the GST: i can buy that it is a regressive tax, but its also a disincentive to consumer spending, provided that the food/shelter/education axis gets a break from it (which it partially does). there is also partial compensation for the regressiveness from the GST rebate (which i should be getting next week: huzzah!).
The FPTP vs. other voting systems argument is a funny thing to bring up in this case, because the parties that want change least are the two big ones that always hold power and the parties that would be the first to try changing things are the two that are hurt most by strategic voting. The Green Party will never - ever - have a hope in Hell of even forming the opposition if every election the left-of-centre voters scramble around trying to figure out how to ABC it. There isn’t a single riding (okay, there’s realistically maybe one) where a vote for the Green Party is going to help take away a seat from the Tories. There are maybe a handful of ridings that the NDP have a chance of winning and aren’t running away with and aren’t in a battle with a Liberal instead of a Conservative. From an overall perspective, this might hurt the Conservatives, but it’s only going to help the Liberals. And frankly, even forgetting my disdain for strategic voting in general, I find that thought unconscionable.
As for the Liberals, they balanced the books alright, but they did it, as you said, by cutting things and they’ve only given them back when an election comes around and they need to bribe the electorate. Reneging on their promise to axe the GST - an inherently regressive tax - helped a lot too.true, the Liberals turned pretty slimy (though a cynic would argue thats an inevitability in party politics) but it must be pointed out that they put us on a very solid financial keel. how long were we in surplus? i dont doubt that all kinds of damage was done to vital programs to achieve that, but given that we were then more solid i was ready to let the Liberals efficiently start putting things back in place.
with the first-past-the-post system, vote splitting and strategic voting in response are inevitabilities. i’ve never been a strategic voter, but i can appreciate the attractiveness of the approach (is it ever effective, though?). so i agree with voting with your interests. but i can see why people want to vote against their disinterests.
in conclusion: single transferrable vote.
You know, if everyone just grew a pair (that goes for you ladies too) and also a brain, and had the balls and the smarts to both recognize what platform reflected their interests and vote for who they actually wanted, we wouldn’t need this website… that’s really going to help the Liberals more than anyone else. I mean, I hate Harper, and fear a Tory majority, but I hate the Liberals too. And if you’re thinking long term, the Grits need to go down so they have an excuse to get rid of Dion and find a real leader.re-blogged, Like Samecoe
While it’s got a thin veneer of environmentalism, this website is basically just a strategic voting machine. Type in your postal code, and it will locate your riding and tell you (based on recent polls and past election results) which party has the best chance to beat the Conservatives.
Please re-blog this.
