RSSCongrats to May for getting into the debates
Sep 11
I think it was pretty stupid that the old-boys club wanted to stop her from entering the debates.
But, now begins my own decision making. Who to vote for? I don’t know if there’s any recent polling for my riding, but according to the 2006 election results I’m in a safe Liberal riding. As such I’m pretty safe to vote Green. If my riding was close between the Libs and Cons it would be a more difficult decision, as I fear the damage the Cons would do to the environment is potentially worse than the extra good the Greens would do compared to the Libs.
However, that’s not even a real consideration since I’m obviously not hoping my vote for the Greens would help them take power. Too bad we don’t have the MMP system federally that was voted on in Ontario, in which case my Green vote might actually help get some Greens into Parliament. In either case, considering the Environment is the most important issue for me, voting Green is a good way to “send a message.”
Sep 11, 2008 @ 13:50:02
It is disappointing that none of the parties, particularly the NDP and the Greens, are talking about electoral reform. Our electoral system is so broken and undemocratic. It is a relic of 19th century aristocratic fears of democracy. Someone needs to make this into a major election issue.
Sep 11, 2008 @ 14:55:50
Beautifully designed blog!
Re your post, my riding places me in a similar position: for as far back as I’ve been able to track, it swings between the NDP and the Cons (go figure!). Ergo, the Libs haven’t a chance and the Greens, up until the last election anyway, always come fourth.
So my vote will go Green. Like you, had the Libs stood a chance here, I’d have voted Red.
Sep 11, 2008 @ 16:28:00
So, two different “strategic voting scenerios.” The first poster says I am in a safe Liberal seat so I can vote Green. I understand that reasoning. One less seat towards a Harper majority.
Next poster states that the riding she lives in swings between Harper’s conservatives and Layton’s NDP, so since the liberal doesn’t have a hope in hell, she will vote Green. Ensuring that what happens?
I’m just trying to understand the logic of poster 2. Appears that Harper getting a majority is secondary to Green supporter interests. Logic that EMay would not support. In the 2006 election,and in the last week, when EMay the head of the Sierra Club and a part of the “think twice” coalition, she was so concerned about Harper getting elected that she telephoned some Green candidates and asked them to step down. Wondering out loud what they could do, perhaps form a coalition or what not.
I would hope that if this election is about stop Harper from forming a majority govt and the environment is the main thing – NOW – that one would “think twice” in their voting preference. Just a suggestion.
Nice webpage and design.
Sep 11, 2008 @ 18:34:16
I have to empathize with the Greens, they’re in a tough spot. How do you build a new political party from scratch? Their closest ally should be the Libs, from a policy perspective, so I understand the desire to throw support behind them. However, I don’t think that’s helping them build their party. They need to get some representation in parliament so people can see they’re not crazy (a fear of any new party before they get representation).
I haven’t yet looked at the federal Green platform (will soon) but I was pleasantly surprised when I read the Ontario Green one. I had previously assumed they were “pro-environment at the expense of everything else, including the economy”. But, their platform really does seem sensible.
Sep 12, 2008 @ 09:19:05
Why “strategically vote” at all, Neil (and other commenters)? Why not just vote what your conscience tells you to do, all the time?
I can’t vote in the U.S. (yet) so this is perhaps neither here nor there. But if I could, I wouldn’t vote for McCain. This is true despite the fact that I personally feel that Obama is dangerous and would be disastrous for the U.S. (Probably the same way you feel about Harper.) McCain might be the easiest way to “stop” Obama, but I’d likely do what Sarah is doing, and that’s vote Libertarian or some other third party that has even less of a chance of winning anything than the Greens do in Canada.
If the Greens are a movement which you truly support, how are they ever going to gain momentum as a mainstream party without getting the votes of voters like you, even if it is in a losing cause? If you vote your conscience, sure, your guy/girl might not win, but at the end of the day, you leave the voting booth without feeling dirty.
Why don’t we stop voting against people, and start voting for them?
Sep 12, 2008 @ 09:56:51
Steve,
I’m 99% sure I would act as you suggest, although it’s somewhat complicated since I don’t feel any particular allegiance to the Greens or any other party. Right now I would vote for whoever would do the most to fight climate change. *Gasp*, even the Cons
As long as I didn’t believe any other parts of Harpers platform were incredibly insane (ie: would do more damage than the good he would be doing to fight climate change) I’d vote for him if he was the strongest in that area.
Given that, if in the situation of voting Green but helping Harper get a majority, and there was a chance my Liberal vote could help avert that, that’s a tough decision. As long as voting Liberal does more good to fight climate change compared to a Harper majority, then it might be worth it.
However, as you suggest, helping build a Green movement which may not pay off for many years is also valuable. Luckily I don’t believe I’m in the tougher case described above so I can vote my first choice.
Does that make sense?
Sep 12, 2008 @ 10:27:10
What you’re saying makes sense – basically that you’re not strongly bound to a party, but to a political ideology/belief. I’m of the same mindset – Sarah and I disagree as to whether it’s more productive to support libertarianism by supporting the capital-L Libertarian party, or to work to promote a libertarian movement within the Republicans by supporting guys like Ron Paul. Regardless, John McCain isn’t either of those. But that’s neither here nor there.
One more thing I’ll say on strategic voting – you said “Given that, if in the situation of voting Green but helping Harper get a majority, and there was a chance my Liberal vote could help avert that, that’s a tough decision.” Let’s dissect that for a minute. The idea of voting strategically is to vote in a way that is more likely to be impactful in the final result of the election. What are the chances, then, that your single vote will ever make the difference in your riding in an election? Almost zero.
Sep 12, 2008 @ 11:10:48
Agreed that the actual impact of one vote is almost nil. Really, in this example the only case I’d want to vote Liberal would be if I knew the Conservatives might win over them by a relatively small margin. In that case one vote does have a larger value.
If the margin of victory by either the Libs or Cons were to be larger than, say, a few hundred votes then I’d still have preferred to vote Green.
In any event, I can’t see any circumstance in this election where I wouldn’t vote Green.
Sep 12, 2008 @ 14:39:04
Love the redesign Neil! It looks great
I agree with Steve and also see your point. I cannot imagine a scenario, these days anyway, in which I would not vote my conscience…even if I knew it might mean that someone became elected that I did NOT want, I still think the ONLY way a system can be truly based on democratic principles is to vote your conscience. And, if your conscience is an issue, that’s fine too…I get that completely. Just my two cents…but really, I just wanted to comment on the new layout 
Sep 15, 2008 @ 10:46:28
Sarah, I agree, strategic voting hurts a democratic system. It is even more frustrating in the US given the 2-party system.