Democratic Space Implodes!

Whoa! Weird. I tried to check Democratic Space's strategic voting guide, and I got this:



I checked it again five minutes later and got a 403 - Forbidden error. And now the front page is up (with a new look), but all the other pages are blank.

I hope it's just a facelift, but it would be interesting if it turned out to be a massive traffic surge.

You Have a Choice: The Video

From AnyoneButHarper and Avaaz.

A Further Thought on Strategic Voting

There was a little piece in the 'Ethics' column of the Toronto Star last weekend that really struck me. A card-carrying member of the NDP asked whether it would be 'ethical' to vote for a party they didn't favour in order to deny a majority to a party they despised. This was the answer:

Do I do the unthinkable to thwart Mr. Harper?

A: Strategic voting is a dangerous game that has a way of biting us back.

Many Liberals will attest to this: It was strategic voting at their leadership convention that got them into the Stéphane Dion mess in the first place.

But you are asking about ethics, not political strategy – and they are rarely the same. In this election you're caught in a situation of conflicting loyalties. You feel loyal to a group of people you have supported, worked with and come to respect.

But you also want to be loyal to your country, and worry that "wasting" your vote on a candidate who can't win helps deliver the nation into the hands of someone you detest – if not personally, then certainly politically.

So the question is: Which loyalty takes precedence? And the answer is clear, to me at least: Loyalty to country trumps loyalty to party. It's a question, ultimately, of who serves whom. Political parties exist to serve Canada, not vice versa.

I will repeat that:

LOYALTY TO COUNTRY TRUMPS LOYALTY TO PARTY.

And yes, he also says that the ethical thing to do would be to give up the NDP membership, at least for the duration. But I think a better idea is here.

I thought of that again today when I read about the three IPCC scientists who came out with a plea today for Green supporters to vote strategically to stop Harper.

What are your loyalties?

FYI, Halton is most certainly one of those swing ridings where the Green vote could make a difference. Or the NDP. Or, well, the Saturday night crowd at The Dickens.

Vote for Garth. I'll explain why later.

By Any Means Necessary

It's come to this.

After all my railing against strategic voting, and after spanking Garth Turner once for even suggesting such a thing, I have found myself spending the past few days on blog after blog actually defending strategic voting. All the while I kept telling myself that this was only me staying open to the idea, or playing devil's advocate or some damned thing, but after at least half a dozen comments I am forced to admit that I've finally crossed the Rubicon.

My name is Jennifer, and I support strategic voting.

I'm still reeling from all this, but let me try to explain my reasoning by collating some of what I've said elsewhere this week. This is going to be long and somewhat disjointed, so bear with me.

First off, when I say 'strategic voting', I'm not talking about that vote-swapping site or candidates dropping out or suggesting that everyone vote Liberal because everything else is a wasted vote. In fact, what has always put me off of the whole notion is that in its crude form it tends towards a two-party system, and that is most definitely not what I want to see. Diversity is one of the great strengths of both our country and our democratic system, and Canada would not be what it is today without the influence of its third and fourth parties.

What has turned my thinking around is the approach - and the numbers - presented on the Vote for Environment website I spoke about in my previous post. Because by voting in the way they suggest - strategically only in close races, for the candidate with the best chance of beating the Conservative regardless of party - we could actually increase the representation by non-Liberal/Conservative MPs by 20%. The NDP alone would potentially pick up a dozen more seats than they would otherwise, and the Greens would have a much better chance of getting a seat for their leader.

Now, I understand there are a number of people out there who seem to think that the Liberal party is almost as bad as the Conservatives and that they could never in good conscience vote for them. My opinion of that assessment is a debate for another day, but all I can say is that if you really feel that way then by all means, don't vote Liberal. Just understand that not everybody feels that way.

Other than a revulsion for the Liberal Party, the principle argument against strategic voting I've been seeing a lot is that democracy only works when people vote for their first choice of representative. While that is true in theory, my first question would be, what factors do you take into account when you make that choice?

There's the party itself, but how do you judge a party? By their track record? What if they don't have one, or if they're going through some significant changes? By their policy platform? Are they actually equipped to enact that platform once in power? By their leader? How are you judging them? Then there's the local candidate to consider.

Personally, if I were to just go by party platform, the closest to my wishes and beliefs would probably be the NDP. But I've seen what happens when a party with no experience governing unexpectedly takes power, and it's ain't pretty - plus, I just don't believe the country could afford everything on Jack's wish list. The local candidates? Garth rocks, although he's still got some rather annoying conservative tendencies like his fondness for itty bitty governments. The NDP guy is sweet but slightly naive. And the Green candidate apparently thinks that greenhouse gases cause peanut allergies.

So, should I vote for my favourite candidate, leader or party?

My point is, nothing is simple, least of all democracy. There are a whole lot of factors that go into deciding who to vote for, and I see no reason why one of those factors shouldn't be a calculation of the likelihood of defeating the candidate of a party you despise.

Unlike previous elections where calls for strategic voting were coming almost entirely from the parties which stood to benefit (not that some Liberals aren't above capitalizing on that sort of thing even now), this time it really does appear to be a legitimate and growing grassroots movement. As soon as the Conservatives started edging into majority territory in the polls, it seemed like a dozen initiatives and websites sprang up overnight, from the vote-swapping Facebook page to Danny Williams' "ABC" website to the highly focused "Vote for Environment" strategy.

And it's not just the political wonks who are looking for a work-around:

The Star poll found that more than half of Liberal voters (54 per cent), and almost half of NDP (47 per cent), and Green (44 per cent) voters would seriously consider "strategically" switching their votes against their preferred candidate if it looks like another party has a better shot at winning, and could block a Conservative.

Many have suggested that we should be fighting for democratic reform instead of 'cheating' like this. The thing is, I have fought for democratic reform in the form of proportional representation and have watched in frustration as the people in my province responded with a resounding yawn. There are other types of reform, of course - Dion has suggested preferential balloting - but in the end, any type of democratic reform is likely to take years or even decades to bring about. Because there is one way in which Canadians are inherently conservative: we are rather stubbornly resistant to institutional change. And frankly, we just don't have that much time.

Which brings me to the one overriding reason why I am supporting this specific form of strategic voting in this election: Stephen Harper.

I have lived through nine Prime Ministers, including four Conservative ones. I lived through Brian Mulroney. I even lived through the Harris years here in Ontario. I've voted Liberal, NDP, Green, and even Progressive Conservative once. And out of all those Prime Ministers and Premiers, some of whom I profoundly disagreed with and even protested against, Stephen Harper is the first one who has actually made me fear for my country.

If Harper's Conservatives win a majority, I don't think I want to live here for the next four years. How's that for a reason?
________________________

UPDATE: Some people are claiming that Vote for Environment might be Liberally biased. I have seen no evidence of this myself, but in case you don't like their numbers, DemocraticSPACE also has riding-by-riding analysis and seat projections, as well as a Strategic Voting Guide. Perhaps you'll find their numbers more palatable.

And just to make you even happier, DemocraticSPACE is specifically NOT endorsing strategic voting for the vast majority of Canadians. It's only in those very close races where it could actually make a difference that they make recommendations, and just to be fair they also offer advise for Conservatives who want to keep the Liberals out (no, not that...).

The vast majority of ridings in Canada are NOT appropriate for strategic voting whatsoever (in that it will not impact the outcome). There are only 13 ridings where it is appropriate for Conservative supporters, 16 ridings for Liberal supporters, 30 ridings for NDP supporters and 37 ridings for Green supporters.

So unless your riding is listed below, DO NOT VOTE STRATEGICALLY.

Halton is listed. Saanich-Gulf Islands is not. Go figure.

Resource Site for Strategic Voting. Not That I'm Suggesting Anything...

Let me say right off the bat, I am very uncomfortable with any discussion of 'strategic voting'. Not with the practice itself, but with people and especially candidates try to actively persuade voters to do it. In fact, the last time a candidate suggested something like that to me... well, I didn't react very well.

At the same time, I am not so naive as to think that everyone just voting for the candidate or the party they agree with the most is necessarily going to get the desired result - especially when you're dealing with our multi-party, first-past-the-post system. And especially when you're dealing with somebody like Stephen Harper.

As far as I'm concerned, it's up to each individual to decide whether or not they consider Harper to be enough of a threat to justify voting for a party that might not be their first choice. However, if you are considering a strategic vote this time around, there is an incredibly useful website called Vote for Environment that provides exactly the kind of detailed, riding-by-riding information you should have.

What Vote for Environment has done is identified potential swing ridings, analyzing likely results based on the previous election results adjusted by current poll results, and then recommending the candidate that has the best chance of beating the Conservatives - whether they be Liberal, NDP, Green or Bloc.

In this way, you can see whether or not your riding is 'safe' for any particular party, and if not, which party has the best shot at taking it. It's considerably more precise that just saying "don't waste your vote on ____" because it shows you exactly what the risks and benefits are for your particular riding.

Here is their argument. I'm not saying I agree with it 100%, but we live in extraordinary times and it's something that needs to be considered.



(big H/T to Impolitical)

_________________________

UPDATE: Scott Tribe brings news that Avaaz.org is putting together a targeted 3rd party advertising campaign pushing for strategic voting in three close ridings - one of which is John Baird's. And their fundraising acumen is evident in the fact that, within 8 hours of launching the campaign, they've raised over $40,000 of the $50,000 they're aiming for.

Also, thanks to commenters here and elsewhere who have put me on to several other strategic voting sites:

Anyone But Harper
Department of Culture (these are the folks organizing protests in swing ridings like the one in Oakville)
Democratic Space Strategic Voting Guide
Vote for Climate (possibly related to Vote for Environment - very similar)

I still thing 'Vote for Environment' has the best, detailed information on specific ridings.

Also, before the NDP supporters start piling on, let me point out that according to Vote for Environment calculations, real riding-by-riding strategic voting would actually result in a 12 seat increase for the NDP, as well as four more Bloc seats and at least one Green MP.

Ok, so I'm rapidly becoming a convert here. So sue me.