[Videodrome]

I follow a few people on Twitter who are hardcore NDP partisans. They are in total denial of how bad the party is doing right now. It really is amusing to read their excuses why voting for the party isn't the equivalent of a wasted vote.

 

[PinkLucy]

I really dislike the "wasted vote" narrative. Too many people don't vote because they think their vote doesn't count, so telling someone that they are "wasting" their vote by not voting the way you think they should vote isn't helpful. Why would they even bother to get out and vote?

If I vote my conscience, for something I believe in, but the candidate I choose doesn't win, my vote isn't wasted. I have still cast a ballot based on my beliefs.

Don't go down the "a vote for x is really a vote for y" spiral. A vote for x is a vote for x.

 

[JGHali]

An election is not the only way to lose seats. If the Greens Do well, the Newfoundland Dippers may simply declare they’re leaving the provincial party and sitting as Greens. The NS election is sooner, so they may wait.

Uh this is so remarkably out of touch with the local dynamics that I don’t even know where to begin.

As far the NB situation, I refer you to this Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/d03z2i

 

[adma]

I really dislike the "wasted vote" narrative. Too many people don't vote because they think their vote doesn't count, so telling someone that they are "wasting" their vote by not voting the way you think they should vote isn't helpful. Why would they even bother to get out and vote?

If I vote my conscience, for something I believe in, but the candidate I choose doesn't win, my vote isn't wasted. I have still cast a ballot based on my beliefs.

Don't go down the "a vote for x is really a vote for y" spiral. A vote for x is a vote for x.

And besides, most of the time avoidance of so-called vote-wasting comes organically. That's why people who might vote NDP elsewhere might opt for the Liberals in Don Valley West, or why people who might vote Conservative elsewhere might opt for the Liberals in Toronto-Danforth. Or why except in Guelph-like circumstances, "gee, I'd like to vote Green, but..." is universal. One doesn't have to spray "don't waste your vote" as dogma--look, if you want to remedy that, change the electoral system from FPTP rather than wishing certain parties would just drop off the radar, amalgamate into one another or into a "primary" party, as if any system that's not strictly binary a la the US is unfair.

And by treating elections as *simply* about choosing a winner, the "don't waste your vote" approach totally disregards the deeper barometric and statistical usefulness of elections--look, electoral statistics on a poll-by-poll granular basis are fascinating, and even when it comes to the so-called "wasted" votes for non-winning or no-chance parties or candidates. They're the sort of stuff that serve as guidelines for future campaigns and approaches--or even extra-electoral purposes related to urbanism, social anthropology, etc.

Look, if it were about avoiding wasting votes, let's take this example from the last federal election.

BATTLE RIVER-CROWFOOT
Conservative 47,552 80.91%
Liberal 5,505 9.37%
NDP 3,844 6.54%
Green 1,868 3.18%

So, if you don't want to waste votes...everybody vote Conservative, and that's that.

BO-RING.

Or at least, unite the left so that it's 19.09%.

STILL BO-RING.

So, 'fess up. You don't give an eff about voting statistics, as long as your side wins.

But you see, comprehensively *comprehending* said stats allows you to formulate a strategy. It could be one to win; or if winning's not in the cards, to "lose smartly". And most of all, to comprehend the electoral lay of the land, the poll-by-poll subtleties of the turf you're running in. And it doesn't even matter which side you're on, in the end.

With such comprehension, it can all become the electoral equivalent of the Jane Jacobs "sidewalk ballet". Reduce it to a strict strategic binary, and the ballet becomes nothing but a dull Frankenstein-monster clomp-clomp.

And such all-around comprehension allows you to "know thy enemy". To know the weak spots, and how to target them; and how to plant seeds to "grow" your side in so-called enemy turf. And remember: it's not just about growing your side, it's also about subtracting from *their* side. (Unfortunately, the silo-ized nature of today's politics and culture has allowed a lot of that subtraction ability to atrophy.)

That's why elections are fascinating creatures, even when they shake out "strategically".

And also...may I say this, but a lot of this talk about not-wasting-one's-vote seems to me like pussyfooting around a more forthright kind of support. So, if you're voting Liberal because you feel Liberal is the best choice--let it stand at that. You don't even *have* to excuse yourself with this don't-want-to-waste-your-vote gobbledygook; it makes you look unnecessarily guilty about your support. But don't knock those who *do* opt to so-called "waste their vote", either; again, once one "comprehends the stats", even a distant third or fourth can take on a life beyond flat loserdom...

 

[lenaitch]

And besides, most of the time avoidance of so-called vote-wasting comes organically. That's why people who might vote NDP elsewhere might opt for the Liberals in Don Valley West, or why people who might vote Conservative elsewhere might opt for the Liberals in Toronto-Danforth. Or why except in Guelph-like circumstances, "gee, I'd like to vote Green, but..." is universal. One doesn't have to spray "don't waste your vote" as dogma--look, if you want to remedy that, change the electoral system from FPTP rather than wishing certain parties would just drop off the radar, amalgamate into one another or into a "primary" party, as if any system that's not strictly binary a la the US is unfair.

And by treating elections as *simply* about choosing a winner, the "don't waste your vote" approach totally disregards the deeper barometric and statistical usefulness of elections--look, electoral statistics on a poll-by-poll granular basis are fascinating, and even when it comes to the so-called "wasted" votes for non-winning or no-chance parties or candidates. They're the sort of stuff that serve as guidelines for future campaigns and approaches--or even extra-electoral purposes related to urbanism, social anthropology, etc.

Look, if it were about avoiding wasting votes, let's take this example from the last federal election.

BATTLE RIVER-CROWFOOT
Conservative 47,552 80.91%
Liberal 5,505 9.37%
NDP 3,844 6.54%
Green 1,868 3.18%

So, if you don't want to waste votes...everybody vote Conservative, and that's that.

BO-RING.

Or at least, unite the left so that it's 19.09%.

STILL BO-RING.

So, 'fess up. You don't give an eff about voting statistics, as long as your side wins.

But you see, comprehensively *comprehending* said stats allows you to formulate a strategy. It could be one to win; or if winning's not in the cards, to "lose smartly". And most of all, to comprehend the electoral lay of the land, the poll-by-poll subtleties of the turf you're running in. And it doesn't even matter which side you're on, in the end.

With such comprehension, it can all become the electoral equivalent of the Jane Jacobs "sidewalk ballet". Reduce it to a strict strategic binary, and the ballet becomes nothing but a dull Frankenstein-monster clomp-clomp.

And such all-around comprehension allows you to "know thy enemy". To know the weak spots, and how to target them; and how to plant seeds to "grow" your side in so-called enemy turf. And remember: it's not just about growing your side, it's also about subtracting from *their* side. (Unfortunately, the silo-ized nature of today's politics and culture has allowed a lot of that subtraction ability to atrophy.)

That's why elections are fascinating creatures, even when they shake out "strategically".

And also...may I say this, but a lot of this talk about not-wasting-one's-vote seems to me like pussyfooting around a more forthright kind of support. So, if you're voting Liberal because you feel Liberal is the best choice--let it stand at that. You don't even *have* to excuse yourself with this don't-want-to-waste-your-vote gobbledygook; it makes you look unnecessarily guilty about your support. But don't knock those who *do* opt to so-called "waste their vote", either; again, once one "comprehends the stats", even a distant third or fourth can take on a life beyond flat loserdom...

I'm not quite sure if you're supporting or refuting Pink Lucy's statement but, for better or worst, people make voting decisions based on either very complex or very simple reasons. Some vote locally (candidate), some for the party, some want to get a candidate in, some to try keep one out. Maybe some close their eyes and point. It's all good; most people don't get a woody about politics or elections. Ideally, citizens should make a considered decision but, regardless, so long as they vote, out system of democracy is served.

 

[Videodrome]

I really dislike the "wasted vote" narrative. Too many people don't vote because they think their vote doesn't count, so telling someone that they are "wasting" their vote by not voting the way you think they should vote isn't helpful. Why would they even bother to get out and vote?

If I vote my conscience, for something I believe in, but the candidate I choose doesn't win, my vote isn't wasted. I have still cast a ballot based on my beliefs.

Don't go down the "a vote for x is really a vote for y" spiral. A vote for x is a vote for x.

That is a fair point. The NDP is just in such bad shape.

 

[adma]

I'm not quite sure if you're supporting or refuting Pink Lucy's statement but, for better or worst, people make voting decisions based on either very complex or very simple reasons. Some vote locally (candidate), some for the party, some want to get a candidate in, some to try keep one out. Maybe some close their eyes and point. It's all good; most people don't get a woody about politics or elections. Ideally, citizens should make a considered decision but, regardless, so long as they vote, out system of democracy is served.

Well, I'm supporting. But also accepting that some form or another of the impulse to "not waste votes" has always been there.

The problem is more with those who engage in a simplistically scaremongering form of electoral "waste shaming". (Though yes, that sometimes *has* superdefined electoral dynamics--think of the BC Socreds at its "stop the socialist hordes" acme, or the Quebec Liberals when it was all about stopping the *separatist* hordes.)

 

[PinkLucy]

definitely, the concept of a “wasted” vote isn’t a new one. I am just weary of seeing it used to browbeat or shame people into strategic voting. If we want to vote to stop something,: that’s fine. But telling people that they will be responsible for Armageddon if they don’t vote a certain way gets old fast. Guilt is a terrible motivator. Often effective, however.

 

[Avenue]

Greens look extremely shady with his most recent New Brunswick stuff.

 

[PinkLucy]

NDP's named Richardson look extremely shady. Greens just look sloppy because they didn't check things out first. Both parties aren't coming out of this well.

 

[jje1000]

definitely, the concept of a “wasted” vote isn’t a new one. I am just weary of seeing it used to browbeat or shame people into strategic voting. If we want to vote to stop something,: that’s fine. But telling people that they will be responsible for Armageddon if they don’t vote a certain way gets old fast. Guilt is a terrible motivator. Often effective, however.

Entirely agree- strategic voting is useful in multi-party situations where the 'good' is better than the 'perfect'.

But when the party you're being asked to support is more divergent from your values (i.e. the Liberals vs the NDP/Greens)? That's the point where it starts to get problematic.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But when the party you're being asked to support is more divergent from your values (i.e. the Liberals vs the NDP/Greens)? That's the point where it starts to get problematic.

The issue is manifold - a) no party represents the value of each member of the electorate perfectly, this is especially true with "big tent" parties - some of the policies will inevitably be undesirable; b) by the same token, choosing on the basis of who/which party you absolutely don't want to represent you - and doing so is a strategic manner, is just as democratic. It is a different kind of choice, but just as valid philosophically.

AoD

 

[lenaitch]

^^ This. I've yet to meet a person, charity, employer, party, etc. that exactly matches my views and values. You find peace with the one that is livably the closest. In elections, whether that means voting for the one you want, or making an assessment and voting for another in an attempt to block the one your really don't, is the challenge. I really do like our local Conservative member but there was no way in heck that I was going to be an enabler for Ford. A different electoral system might have eased that conundrum but that is for another thread.

 

[jje1000]

Interesting survey- I feel like liberal democracy's seeming inability to address or even discuss these topics will only lead to increasing populism down the road.

South American populisms of the 30s and 80s was in response to high inequality and the perceived and real failures of the democracies down there, while the rise of Trump and the Justice Democrats are possibly early signs of this occurring in the US.

Most Canadians feel society is ‘broken’, politicians don’t care about them: Ipsos poll
By Kerri Breen Global News September 6, 2019

The majority of Canadians think politicians aren’t concerned with people like them and experts don’t understand them.

They say society is “broken” and the economy is rigged in favour of elites.

That’s according to the findings of a new Ipsos poll, which shows that populist attitudes — as well as nativist (or anti-immigrant) sentiments — have gained new ground in Canada.

Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos, said that the general sentiments “create a series of difficulties for all the parties.”

“It’s not like one party is seen as a specific solution to any of this or specifically tapping into this,” he said. “What it is, is that it creates a different context for everybody that’s out there.”

The survey results, provided exclusively to Global News among Canadian outlets, were gathered at the end of March and early April.

They were collected as part of a poll that included 27 countries.

Sixty-one per cent of Canadian respondents agreed traditional political parties don’t care about people like them ⁠— an increase of five points over polling done in 2016, the first year of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau‘s mandate.

Just over half of respondents (52 per cent) agreed that society is “broken” — an increase of 15 points over three years ago. (On the other hand, 19 per cent said they disagree, while 28 per cent were neutral and 1 per cent said they don’t know.)

Two-thirds of respondents believe the economy is rigged to benefit the rich — up eight points since 2016.

The poll also found that 41 per cent of respondents believed immigrants are taking away crucial social services from what the poll called “real” Canadians ⁠— a six-point increase from 2016. (Thirty-four per cent, however, said they disagree).

So, what’s fuelling the shift toward populism?

Politics, Bricker said, has become more “tribal” and the distribution of political support has changed in Canada.

“You have a lot of stuff here where it’s the downtown Laurentian elite versus everybody else,” he said.

“If I broke this out and took at look at where these feelings are the strongest, they would be outside of the downtowns of the cities, so that cleavage has been created. Also when you get to Western Canada, the feelings are much stronger,” he said.

Most Canadians feel society is ‘broken’, politicians don’t care about them: Ipsos poll - National | Globalnews.ca

The results, released Thursday, provide a suggestion as to what political leaders could be facing from voters as they attempt to woo them in the upcoming election.

globalnews.ca

 

[Richard White]

I follow a few people on Twitter who are hardcore NDP partisans. They are in total denial of how bad the party is doing right now. It really is amusing to read their excuses why voting for the party isn't the equivalent of a wasted vote.

I used to be on one of the NDP Riding Executives in my younger years and got lambasted when I failed to support Andrea Horwath one year. She performed poorly in the election prior to last year and I said she lost my vote. I then said I did not support the choices she made and could not support her leadership. I promptly got stigmatized within the local riding. Basically drink the kool-aid or get out.

This time around in the most recent leadership election I put Jagmeet as my fifth choice on the ballot. I have always referred to him as a token candidate, the person the party members put in place because they thought they would win over a certain segment of the vote that they otherwise would not. No matter how many times I told them he was a poor choice and would cost us the election I got treated as a turncoat and a traitor by NDP members. Turns out I may yet be able to say I told you so.

I told people during the last leadership convention that he will not win Quebec, the Atlantic Provinces, the Prairies and the North. I went so far to say that they would not win much outside Brampton or some of the BC ridings.

I have been voting for the NDP since I was 18, I was good friends with a former MP and I have been with them through and through but this year I am voting for Scheer. I don't like the Liberals and I absolutely do not think Jagmeet is capable of running a lemonade stand let alone a country.