Ganked from theweaselking

[ironphoenix]

Poll results by riding. I encourage you all to vote strategically to prevent a Conservative majority.

Comments

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Bonus! That means it'll tell other people to vote with your heart too!

Edit: having looked it up, I now understand what you mean... oops!

[ziggy-b.livejournal.com]

I was hoping to vote Green, because it really isn't a race in my riding, but no luck... they aren't running a candidate so I guess that I will have to vote with the majority.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Interesting, it's telling me to vote the way I was planning on voting, even though I never voted for that party before.

[jagash.livejournal.com]

www.votepair.com for another option.

[concordantnexus.livejournal.com]

erm... that's an American site, we're talking Canadian federal election ;)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Funny: I only needed *one* party's position on copyright in order to figure out my vote.

(I'm the president of the local De-Elect Gordon O'Connor committee. Unfortunately, since he tends to pull ~50% of the vote in years when the ReformaTories are losing big, it's an uphill fight this year.)

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

It means that your previous decision is also the correct strategic choice for the goal of not getting a CPC majority.

[jagash.livejournal.com]

Aw crap, sorry about the mistype. Didn't know there was an american version. www.votepair.ca

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

I see what this site is saying. It is saying that to prevent a Conservative majority, we need a Liberal majority. No thanks, not while Stephane Dion is the Liberal party leader.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Well, according to this site (and previous election totals) that's only because things have changed here. In previous elections McGuinty was a shoe-in (and thus my vote was just to shore up the numbers for the NDP). In this election according to that site McGuinty is slightly losing right now against whoever our Conservative candidate is, so voting for anyone else but McGuinty right now is not a strategic move.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

Why exactly, besides his poor command of the English language?

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

His preference for party politics over cooperating to create a good working government.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

So, just like Harper then.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

You mean plurality, not majority... 97/308 is considerably less than a majority!

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Ah, neat... I didn't know there was a Canadian one too!

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Good luck!

[ranisilath.livejournal.com]

Wow. I needed a laugh, but not the lung-busting variety.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure I get your meaning.

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

I don't want a Liberal minority either. I don't even want the Liberals in opposition. I loathe the NDP, but my ideal government set up right now would be a Conservative minority with an NDP opposition.

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

When Harper was Leader of the Opposition, did he kick out party members that cooperated with the government?

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Wow... it sounds like you have a very serious hate on for Dion.

I guess I have the same kind of reaction to Harper, myself; in my case, there's a personal aspect to it, since I know someone who was screwed over by McKay and him.

The nice thing with poll information, though, is that you can vote strategically with whatever strategy you set; good information is agenda-neutral.

[zenten.livejournal.com]

I haven't found any examples of Conservatives voting against party lines since Harper took power. But what you're describing is how politics work in Canada, you vote against your party (except in a free vote), you go look for another party.

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

My riding is a Conservative stronghold so it doesn't matter which way I vote.

[kali-kali.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about voting, I'm talking about cooperation for the greater good, in the aspects of government that actually provide governance, rather than new law creation.

Copy/pasted from an earlier discussion I had with ironphoenix in my journal, the specific case I'm referring to:

Wajid Khan, who was Liberal MP for Mississauga-Streetsville had been working with Harper as a special advisor on the Middle East and Afghanistan (a post he was quite qualified to hold, being as he is originally from Pakistan and spent seven years as an officer in Pakistan's Air Force, hence having familiarity with the region that few other Canadian politicians could claim to have). He'd cleared this with interim Liberal leader Bill Graham.

Then when Dion came to power, he said that Khan couldn't continue working with the Conservatives like that while sitting as a Liberal, reportedly saying Khan "couldn't be a true Liberal and participate positively in the government of Canada", and then Khan crossed the floor to the Conservatives and responded "When I'm given a choice … between a political party and my country, I will always choose Canada and that's why I chose the Conservative government."

I greatly respect politicians who will work together for the common good, especially when it is across party lines, because it shows they are interested in having a government that works and actually governs, rather than being a bunch of people in suits acting like they're on an elementary school playground with their bickering and mudslinging. Dion not allowing inter-party co-operation and giving an ultimatum that said as much to Khan made me lose any and all respect I could've had for Dion (I was iffy on Dion to begin with, and would've preferred Ignatieff as Liberal leader).

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Fair 'nuf... gonna take it to the next level and look up votepair.ca?

[beable]

I wish you luck. I have no idea which riding this is, but I have gotten SO MUCH JUNK MAIL in the past year from Gordon O'Connor that I automatically don't want to see him elected no matter what riding he is in.

In case you are wondering, all my 10%'ers seemed to come "courtesy of Gordon O'Connor".

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

If you're getting spammed by O'Connor, you're in Carleton/Mississippi Mills, which covers a good chunk of Kanata.

And he's incompetent.

[beable]

Oh no, that's what pisses me off so much. I'm in Ottawa Centre.

But all year I've been getting those stupid mail-in cards with questions for people to answer. The questions are always really loaded towards what the "correct" answer is supposed to be.

E.g. one of them was about the childcare credit and how the Liberals want to take it away and decide how your children should be cared or something. So the "statistical survey" I was supposed to mail back had two options,
1) Do you want to keep the credit and decide what's best for your children or
2) Do you want the govenrment to spend lots of money telling you they know what's better for your children than you do while taking away your moneys

I'm paraphrasing, but the sense was pretty similar and it was crystal clear what the expected and correct answer was supposed to be.

It annoys me not for the partisan-ness itself so much as that it was "compliments of Gordon O'Connor, MP" and he is not my representative nor angling to be.

Also the fact that they way the mailouts are designed seems like a cheap stunt to get around spending limits - a cheap stunt i see no sign of any of the other political parties doing.

[ranisilath.livejournal.com]

Well, at the time of writing, it was a grey, dreary morning, I had hours of scut work ahead of me, and here's a bunch of otherwise intelligent people (those that I know, at least) planning to act moronically. Appreciative of the Theatre of the Absurd aspects, I laughed to the point of bringing up a lung.

In a sense, however, it's rather pathetic: when offered the rare -- once in three to five years -- chance to express their opinion on who they'd prefer to have as their governmental representative, there are people out there that fully intend to lie.

(And it is a lie: the whole point of Strategic Voting is to vote otherwise than you normally would. In the context of a FPtP election, which boils down to "which of these people do you favour most, or, failing that, dislike least", casting a strategic vote is answering the question falsely.)

It's also mind-boggling stupid, particularly with the Canadian system giving parties taxpayer funding based on the number of people who vote for them. Leaving the issue of where tax money goes aside, feeding false information on how one would prefer to be governed to the government borders on the asinine. "Oh, sure, I agree with the Green Party, but they don't seem to be likely to win; the Liberals might, so I'm going to give every visible indication that I support them, despite them having responses contrary to the Green Party on some core environmental questions, and in spite of my personal beliefs." I'm hard pressed to come up with a more vacuous concept.

And while I'm heaping scorn on the idea, just how irresolute in one's beliefs does one have to be to apostatize in the polling booth? I know it's popular to be the sort of feckless complainer who is against everything and for nothing, but in the polling booth, where the sanctity of one's privacy is guaranteed by law?

(Tragic aside: There's a headline in the Citizen today "Only the NDP can stop Harper, Layton says"; it's pretty much a direct quote. Is this really how far we've fallen? It doesn't matter what party policies are; the quality of the local candidates is irrelevant; all that matters is the Leader of Party X can (politically) curb-stomp the Leader of Party Y? Reprehensible.)

So, yeah, I found the (apparently serious) suggestion of Strategic Voting laughably funny; someone of different temperament would likely have cried.

To try and end this on a slightly lighter note, I'll close by geeking out and quoting Shepherd Book from the movie Serenity: "I don't care what you believe in, just believe in it."

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

Um... wow.

I think I would like to speak with you face-to-face rather than carry this on here.

[beable]

Does this mean I shouldn't argue with your friends in your blog?

The arguments are typical of what FPtP advocates often claim and they are based on a very narrow definition of voter beliefs.

As many holes as swiss cheese comes to mind.

[ironphoenix.livejournal.com]

It's more the tone than the point itself that causes me to want to step in, in this case. Ad hominem, even by implication, isn't something that I find makes for a reasonable, sensible discussion of an issue.

I chose not to freeze comments or anything like that, but I would much prefer people to keep it civil in here; if you and he can discuss it in that mode, go for it!