Election 08 now goes down in history for being the first federal election campaign to have generated such public disdain that over 40% of the electorate didn’t bother even to cast a vote. Only 59.1 percent of us showed up at the polls.

Did vote swapping or strategic voting work? Not on your life. And the lowest voter turnout ever suggests that it helped achieve the opposite of what their proponents had wanted.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) had an ingenious idea for this election campaign, called Canada Votes: X-Challenge: a townhall-like meeting where voters have a chance to confront candidates of the main political parties. The CBC ran two instalments, one taped in Toronto and the other in Vancouver. The way it works is that members of a studio audience, all of whom state their voting preferences prior to the show, ask candidates questions. The candidates, then, have one minute each to respond, followed by two minutes each for rebuttal – or “free-for-all”, as the show’s host called it.

After each question, the studio audience votes on who they thought answered the question most expertly and truthfully. The results are revealed before the next round starts. At the end, the audience is asked to vote on the final winner based on his or her performance throughout the entire townhall meeting.
(more…)

The excerpt below is from a rather lengthy post written by a perplexed and frustrated Green Party member (me).

Help!

I just have to wonder how often Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, can be misconstrued in the media. Is it a concerted effort by ALL media types deliberately to distort her meaning or is there something about what May is saying which makes her position, at minimum, ambiguous? I mean this question seriously.

A few hours ago, the GPC issued yet another press release about May’s stance on strategic voting. I’ve lost count of how many there have been.

So, the Kingston Whig Standard supposedly took a oujai board to Sir John A. MacDonald’s grave and asked for some election predictions.

 I can’t find it online, and didn’t actually read the article (yes, they printed this, it wasn’t just a drunken journalistic escapade), but a reporter told me today that good ol’ John A. predicted 4 Green ridings. They had their eyes closed, they didn’t touch it, and John. A. predicted 4 Green ridings.

I can tell you now, I think two of them will be Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound and Guelph. Central Nova has a shot, Vancouver Centre has a shot, West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country has a shot. There could be a ton of flukes and a ton of students who aren’t counted in polls (because its still illegal to poll cell phones, thank God) who could give surprise results if they actually get themselves out to the polls.

But John A. says four… it’s probably more than DemocraticSpace will give us.

Predicted winner – Conservative

Tobique-Mactaquac stretches from outside the city of Fredericton to just north of the bilingual Town of Grand Falls. Conservative MP Mike Allen won this seat in the 2006 election by a mere 250 or so votes over Liberal Andy Savoy. Savoy himself had first taken the seat from the Progressive Conservatives in 2000 by a mere 150 votes although he increased his vote considerably in 2004 thanks in part to a local riding controversy over who would carry the Conservative banner in the riding.

This time Savoy isn’t running in favour of Stanley teacher Sally McGrath who is largely an unknown in much of the riding. Allen has had two and a half years to establish his name throughout the vast riding (not to mention this being his fourth election). Expect him to win this riding and increase his vote.

X-Factor – The NDP and Greens are relatively weak in this riding, more so than in other N.B. ridings. This is a riding where strategic voting if it were utilized heavily could give the Liberals the seat.

Crossposted – Spink About It

On a beaucoup parlé de la campagne libérale, de ses ratés et de son chef mais si la lecture des sondages est exacte, le grand perdant de cette élection devrait être le chef conservateur Stephen Harper.

Comprenons-nous bien : la performance de l’actuel premier ministre, quoique très ordinaire depuis le débat des chefs, n’est pas catastrophique. Dans la moyenne pour être exact. Mais ce n’est pas là-dessus qu’il sera jugé.

Les conservateurs, comme la majorité des mouvements de droite, veulent des résultats. Les coupures aux subventions dans le domaine culturel et dans le développement économique des régions sont des exemples bien réels de cette idéologie politique. Si le retour sur l’investissement n’est pas bon, on coupe ou on remodèle le programme. La logique peut tenir.

Stephen Harper a décidé d’utiliser un des échappatoires de sa propre loi sur les élections à date fixe pour se lancer dans une campagne électorale qui n’avait pour but que d’aller chercher les sièges manquants à une majorité conservatrice. L’opportunisme politique avec un grand O, quoique le seul reproche qu’on puisse lui faire est d’avoir voilé sciemment l’esprit de la loi qu’il a mis en place.

Le résultat net, en date d’aujourd’hui, est que le Parti conservateur a fragilisé sa place à la Chambre des Communes. Après avoir créé de toutes pièces le personnage de Stéphane Dion, il a laissé les autres partis redéfinir son image. Il les a même aidés, par exemple avec sa position face à la situation économique mondiale. On ne se donne pas de chances lorsqu’on dit aux Canadiens d’investir dans la Bourse, alors que ceux-ci ne cherchent qu’à se faire rassurer. Pas plus qu’en présentant une plate-forme électorale (qui, malgré certains bons côtés, avait plutôt l’air d’un plan B fabriqué à la va-vite)… après le vote par anticipation.

Que feront les militants conservateurs après l’élection? Attendons les résultats, mais Stephen Harper devra répondre de ses actes. Si le résultat net de l’élection est le retour à la case départ, c’est que le premier ministre aura échoué son plus gros test politique.

I went to North Vancouver’s all candidates meeting on Wednesday night and was left with a few impressions (side note: there’s a prediction on the winner of this – and several other – ridings at the end).

 1. Compared to the 2006 debate at the same venue, the crowd was incredibly respectful. Despite being marginally pro-Saxton (though from my vantage point I may not have been able to gauge audience reaction entirely accurately), there was only one moment of heckling, which was over before the debate was 5 minutes old.

2. Don Bell knows what plays and what doesn’t in the riding. Bell is an old pro, probably running his last campaign, who is putting up a heck of a fight in a right leaning riding. He can come off as awkward from time to time double checking his policy notes and stumbling over his words. However, the answers he does provide (including the best joke of the night) show an inherent knowledge of North Vancouver’s electorate. Don Bell knows North Vancouver and North Vancouver knows Don Bell.

3. All the subtleties that Don Bell knows about North Vancouver, Andrew Saxton doesn’t. He’s a new comer, it shows and North Vancouver doesn’t like newcomers – just ask Warren Kinsella. He was awkward, caught in contradictions once or twice and really fell off the wagon towards the end of the night as his jokes fell flat and his short, pointed answers, turned into meandering forays into a party platform he wasn’t entirely familiar with and a defensive answer about missing debates and failing to fill out questionnaires. Saxton has the potential to do well. He may win this election, but in a few more years he’ll be a much better candidate with a much better understanding of North Vancouver’s fussy electorate. Let’s hope that the local Conservatives don’t eat their own and give Mr. Saxton a second chance should he require one.

4. Jim Stephenson was not nearly as good as he was in 2006, but was still a pleasure to watch. A great understanding of his party’s platform and a very engaging style proved him to be the most likable candidate on stage. Perhaps resigned to a third place finish, the most interesting moments of the night were the little bones he kept throwing the Liberals.

5. I’m looking very much forward to the NDP candidates next film – he fought the good fight. He had nothing to lose and it showed, still good for him to show up. In 2006 the NDP candidate missed this debate because she was recovering from exhaustion in hospital. The Libertarian candidate, well, she sure didn’t hold back (and good on the audience for respecting her for that).

 6. This debate reminded me of why Don Bell won this riding in 2004 and 2006, and why he’s going to be the victor on October 14th, that’s right I’m calling it. Don Bell, North Vancouver – Liberal HOLD, but not by much.

7. While I’m here, I’ll also make a few more calls: West Vancouver – Sunshine Coast -STSC, oh the anticipation….John Weston, Conservative PICKUP by a country mile, but not a majority. Vancouver Centre…Hedy Fry Liberal HOLD, with a reasonable plurality – 2-4th may be seperated by no more than a point.

 If anything comes up in the next few days I’ll be back…

Whatever the result on Tuesday, this election continues the downward spiral of political discourse in Canada. Gone are the days of big ideas like Medicare, Just Society and Free Trade, where debate raged on the merits of the programs, and criticism of leaders was based on their actions, not their personality, physical quirks or “spin”character assassination. While in the past politicians may have disagreed on policy, and even disliked each other, they at least appeared to respect each other enough to be civil in public and when conducting the business of government. Partisanship is one thing, vitriol quite another.

Now politics and elections have degenerated to personal attacks and characterizations of leaders intentions, and sloganeering, with little substantive discussion of policies or ideas. As a result, respect no longer exists between opponents, the willingness to compromise is not evident, and therefore the government ceases to function effectively. Its no longer business, its personal. Why has this happened and what are the consequences?

We have not only imported negative campaigning from the US, but have taken to focusing on “the leader”. Except we are not electing a president, we are electing a party/team to run a government. No question the leader is important, but not to the exclusion of everything else. So we hear too much about Harper, Dion, Layton and May, which supports an environment for personal attacks, than we do about party policies and teams (Only the Liberals tried this for a short time when things were not going well). Combined with negative campaigning, where the focus is simply to attack your opponent as opposed to proposing solutions of your own, emotion is trumping reason, and the soundbite is trumping real information.

The consequences are 1) party leaders who have been denigrated to such an extent that all suffer from a lack of wide spread public respect and trust. As a result, many self-respecting individuals with ability decline to seek public office 2) voter apathy with 35% of the population not voting (although an unrepresentative electoral system also hurts)       3) 40% of the voters in Quebec have declined to participate in the governing of Canada by supporting the Bloc whose primary goal is to breakup the country 4) a media focused on the horserace (who is winning or losing) and trying to “even things out” to keep the race going, instead of critically evaluating  and communicating party policies to the public. This leads to soundbites and spin, as opposed to ideas.

The only way to stop this negativity is for voters to demand better. We need to encourage positive behavior from all participants (including the media) and challenge them when they do not meet our expectations and do their job. And I mean challenge all of them, those we support as well as those we don’t. The sooner we return civility and respect to our politics, the sooner we focus on ideas and not personalities, the better our country will be in the end.

Going into the last week of a campaign, the buzz on the street is always your most important indicator of the outcome. When you work with the media, candidates and their campaigns will try and spin you a hundred different ways. So you need to hang out with real people who aren’t directly tied to campaigns. A good chunk of my weekend was spent talking to other people, from other parents at our kids’ Saturday afternoon activities to folks in the coffee shop to the nice people next to me in the pew Sunday morning.

The buzz is pretty much unanimous: Another Harper minority, another local win for Tony Martin (NDP). My gut feeling agrees with the latter. As one poster’s better half, a fellow parent, put it to me at the Y: “Tony is a safe bet. At least you know what he will do, which is nothing. Nobody is sure about the other [candidates].”

I’m not so sure it won’t be a Harper majority; the late NDP surge – they’re now in a statistical tie with the Liberals – may allow Tories to come up the middle in ridings where they otherwise weren’t competitive.

So barring some major faux pas this week, I’m predicting a Tony Martin win locally and a slim Tory majority nationally.

In speaking with other voters over the weekend, here’s what I found most interesting: They’re still asking the same questions about each candidate that they were asking when the writ was dropped.

Here are the questions:

- What has Tony Martin (NDP) done for this riding?

- Who is Cameron Ross (Conservative)?

- Why is Paul Bichler (Liberal), who has made Southern Ontario his home for the past few years, now running in the Sault?

- Why vote Luke MacMichael (Green), Cory Mcleod (First Nations Peoples Party) or Mike Taffarel (Marxist-Leninist) when their chances of winning are minute?

Note to individual campaigns: You have only a week left, so don’t waste time shooting the messenger. Answer the question for voters. They’re the ones who will decide your fate on October 14, not annoying Internet pundits like me.

Anyway, here are my predicted numbers for the Sault Ste. Marie riding:

1 – Tony Martin – 17,000
2 – Cameron Ross – 14,000
3 – Paul Bichler – 11,000
4 – Luke McMichael – 1,500
5 – Cory Mcleod – 500
6 – Mike Taffarel – 150

How did I arrive at these numbers? That’s easy. I asked my four-year-old, who is much more current in these matters than her old man.

One question that keeps coming up locally is how does Tony Martin keep winning elections when just under two-thirds of local voters opt for other candidates and the popular perception is that he has not delivered anything to this riding. The short answer is as follows: he’s a political care bear. He shows up at opportune times from his cloudy kingdom to tell you he cares.

But here’s a longer explanation. I agree with Mac Headrick, a local NDP columnist with whom I have the pleasure of writing at SooToday.com. You can check out Mac’s columns here. Mac has repeatedly told supporters of other parties to quit whining about Tony’s wins and take an honest look at how Tony wins them.

Saying Tony comes up the middle because the Sault is an NDP riding just doesn’t work any more. At one time, yes, the Sault was a NDP power base. But the local NDP base strength has been eroding now for some years. Need proof? Look no further than the Sault’s MPP, David Orazietti.

A Tory collapse can account for Orazietti’s 2003 provincial win, in which he defeated NDP incumbent Tony Martin. (This would set the stage for Tony to enter the federal race a year later and narrowly win the seat from Liberal incumbent Carmen Provenzano). A similar Tory collapse helped Orazietti retain his seat for the the Liberals in the 2007 Ontario election, but Orazietti also increased his percentage of popular vote in 2007 while driving that of the NDP down by six percentage points, to 26.4 percent. By way of comparison, Tony pulled in 38.9 percent of the vote during the 2006 federal election – a difference of over 12 percentage points from what the provincial NDP candidate, Jeff Arbus, pulled in the 2007 provincial election. And in the raw vote count, Tony doubled Arbus. Polls show Tony pulling in similar numbers this election.

These are Tony votes, not NDP votes. These are people voting for the local candidate and not the party. So why do they vote Tony?

Numerous polls and studies, from different political parties and non-partisan groups, in different geo-political areas, and independent of each other, more-or-less come up with the same results when determining how people vote. It’s something like this:

- 60% – Does the candidate care about me and the community?
- 30% – Policy
- 10% – Other

Like it or not, this is what comes up time and time again. This is the difference between Tony’s numbers and those brought in by Jeff Arbus. It’s Tony’s reputation as “a nice guy, who cares about his constituents.” It’s the little things Tony has done to make himself visible in this community, and behind-the-scenes, like helping the elderly fill out passport applications. He doesn’t bring in any big money to the riding, other popular local politicians cannot rely upon him, but everyone in the riding has a personal story about Tony personally helping some disadvantaged relative maneuvre through governmental red tape.

The perception may or may not be true in real life, but it’s the popular perception. And like it or not, people vote according to their perception.

The same is true about the popular perception about the Sault’s other local politicians who keep getting re-elected by large margins:

- Orazietti: Cares about the community and its future. Look at the money he brings in.

- Councillor Frank Manzo: Cares about the average taxpayer. Only politician to return people’s phone calls. Will help you even when your own councillor is not getting back to you.

- Mayor John Rowswell: Has the personality of grumpy bear being woken up during hibernation, but he cares about this community and its people and is just trying to move us forward. So people take his side when he feuds with local reporters, city administrators, and other local politicians.

For Liberal candidate Paul Bichler or Conservative candidate Cameron Ross to win, each needs to establish himself, as soon as possible during this last week of campaigning, as the candidate who most cares about the Sault and its people. I have no doubt that this is the case in real life, but it needs to be popular perception. When people don’t know enough about a candidate, they don’t know if that candidate cares or not.

Which is why Tony Martin keeps winning.

Dans la région, le NPD n’est présent que sur la liste des candidats et dans les fichiers d’Élections Canada.

Hier, Jean-François Paradis, candidat dans Jonquière – Alma, a justifié son absence au débat organisé par l’Association des étudiants du Cégep de Jonquière en disant qu’il s’était présenté par défaut. Originaire du Saguenay il vit à Montréal. Et il travaille “très fort” pour faire élire Thomas Mulclair, transfuge du PLQ et principal porte-parole du Parti au Québec.

Tellement absent de la campagne régionale que le journaliste de CBJ n’a pu parler à personne d’autre que M. Paradis et que François Privé, le candidat du Parti dans Roberval – Lac-Saint-Jean en 2006. Et ce dernier s’est empressé de lancer un appel au vote stratégique pour battre Jean-Pierre Blackburn, le “Ministre le plus visible” du gouvernement Conservateur. Et selon le reporter de la première chaîne, Catherine Forbes, candidate dans Roberval – Lac-Saint-Jean, “fuit les journalistes comme la peste”!

Le PVC lui est encore plus absent. Dans Jonquière il n’a même pas de représentant dans le fichier d’Élections Canada.

Situation idéale d’échange de vote pour les partisans du NPD, du PVC et du PLC du comté qui veulent aider au financement de leur Parti et contribuer à la défaite du Ministre Conservateur. Voir un des sites qui organisent l’échange sur le site Voter pour l’environnement. (Merci Sébastien Roy)

Last night’s community meeting attended by “all Ancaster Dundas Flamborough Westdale (ADFW) candidates” was a sobering reminder that politics can be as much about saying as little as possible as it is about recognizing and dealing with important issues. In an election campaign that was short enough to leave candidates little downtime, the cast of characters at the Dundas Lions Memorial Centre Tuesday evening seemed to lack both urgency and conviction. This was ridiculous just 14 days before a crucial election.

The crowd in attendance was primarily reflective of Dundas’ demographic (young seniors) as well as a cross section of voters including some students, party workers (read NDP “hall packers” mostly) and a few who indicated by their early departures that they expected more.

The format for the evening was questions for all candidates submitted by the audience to a panel prior to the meetings start, who then selected the questions that they wanted to ask with no scrutiny or discussion amongst them. There was no interaction between candidates. While this format may work well for US TV debates, it unfortunately set and secured the tone for this drab affair.

“What does supporting the troops mean to you?”.

This was the first question of the evening and provided the first respondent (a fill in for the local Marxist Leninist Candidate) the opportunity to garner the first of dozens of rounds of polite applause given each speaker for the remainder of the evening no matter what they said. To stay with this first speaker for a moment, her response was “bringing them home” which actually brought quite a rousing response from the audience. Good for her I thought, I like what she is saying…but she isn’t a candidate in this riding.

Every speaker who answered that question said more or less the same thing with the Liberal candidate qualifying her comments and the incumbent David Sweet going on briefly about the successes of the mission.

For the balance of the evening the questions for the most part appealed the tastes of NDP candidate Gordon Guyatt. Perhaps Dr. Guyatt, who is both a physician and a professor in medicine did better than the other candidates on almost questions because having unsuccessfully run for office so many times he’s had alot of practise (or is that practice!). He answered well on national health care issues and foreign policy.

He was the only participant who ran slightly against the pattern of the evenings format. He took a few opportunities to question the Conservative record on the economy (“I’m glad that Mr. Sweet is so confident that our economic fundamentals are in good order…but I believe that I was hearing the same thing from the US a month ago…”).  Guyatt also used his opening remarks to comment on food safety, another strong safe topic for him.

Unfortunately, with the “randomly selected” questions slanted for the NDP candidate by the large NDP contingent, Guyatt was unable to provide convincing proof that his party has a handle on any issue outside of withdrawal from Afghanistan (appealing but in reality not gonna happen in the timeframe Layton suggests) and no 2 tier health care (great but we don’t need the NDP to tell us that 2 tier is not good idea).

Which leads me to the conclusion that Dr. Guyatt is a great resource for his patients and the university that employs him not to mention the many national issues upon which he focuses by involvement in committees and studies. I’ll vote for him to stay where he is. As for Jack Layton, well he gives a great rally!

Unfortunately, the evening’s other disappointment was Green Party Candidate Peter Ormond. A professional engineer, Ormond would presumably be a good person to apply his knowledge and intellect to some of the pressing problems in this region. In particular one which he mentioned is the whole area of infrastructure. Although he didn’t personally articulate any of this clearly, there is an opportunity to make many improvements in mass transit (couldn’t believe that David Sweet actually took credit for new buses for “downtown Hamilton” as he called it), energy efficiency, utilities and others that would seem to fit a Green Party vision.

“The Green Party have a plan that you can read online”, Ormond told the audience. However, he didn’t seem conversant with it, and certainly did not come across as engaged in any of the issues that many in this community no matter what their politics might like to see addressed. By the evening’s end it was the greener David Sweet of the Conservatives who had proclaimed that he and Stephen Harper had “cleaned up the Randall Reef” (a toxic hotspot in Hamilton Harbour).

David Sweet, despite his attempts as noted above to proclaim himself a friend of the environment, was the prime beneficiary of the failed meeting format. With no interaction between candidates, Sweet was able to paint a happy picture (although the picture would have to be classified as abstract) and when he wasn’t the first to speak on a question simply followed suit with the other speakers. There’s leadership.

Not one question related to climate change made it through the “random vetting” process. Thus, Sweet could spin comments around his limited knowledge of Green Shift to a rant about “increased taxes” and less money for us. It was interesting also to hear him parroting Stephen Harper’s recently retired attack General Rick Hillier, and his comments about military spending…”we’ve come out of a dark era”…. Would Mr. Sweet care to estimate the cost of this new era of warmaking?

The response by the audience to Mr. Sweet was clearly polite dismissal. There is no doubt that people who take time to attend a meeting like this are: seeking information; taking an opportunity to support their candidate; more engaged than most in the community. So, while Mr. Sweet no doubt thinks he has already won this riding those in attendance were trying to tell him something else. No performance by this incumbent in Ottawa, his attachment to some very questionable ideals and fear of a Stephen Harper majority and all that that might do to the country earned him the political equivalent of a polite “bronx cheer” last night in Dundas Ontario.

Liberal Arlene MacFarlane VanderBeek has a huge challenge that magnified itself throughout the evening. Endorsed by many in the community, and now even nationally (www.voteforenvironment.ca) MacFarlane VanderBeek stands on the verge of returning the riding to the Liberals. The non-interactive nature of an all candidates meeting like this seems not to be the real means through which her goals will be achieved though.

Her responses to questions, often sandwiched between the comments of candidates with no hope of election (who tended to say whatever they thought would get a rise from the audience) gave her the appearance of a sort of unnatural hesitancy to take on the Conservatives. She was able to accurately reflect at numerous times, from a timetable for troop withdrawal…to Green Shift as both an economic and environmental plan…to the Liberal opposition to privitization of healthcare…to improved care for seniors…well known Liberal policy, (well, it might have been better known had Mr. Harper not chosen to spend millions on attack and discredit ads, but I digress).

The challenge for this Liberal Candidate is that many people are living with out of date information about her party and its policies. They don’t know enough about the strength of not only its leader but also the incredible front bench talent that the party would have in government. And, she may have assumed incorrectly that her own long term commitment to this community is well known and understood.

Part of this assumption may be forgiven (not really but here’s the theory anyway) that in the past, beginning with Conservative David Sweet and some of those who came before him, not much was expected from the local MP. Sweet has perhaps overachieved in this race to the bottom, but if one takes a longer range look this riding has put little pressure on either major party to perform here.

Thankfully, that is changing and Arlene MacFarlane VanderBeek would appear to be a refreshing force for practical solutions and re-connection between Ottawa and ADFW. Her further challenge will be to continue to update all voters on both the Liberal party and their Green Shift platform which best reflects the reality of 2008.

Her responsibility in the next several days would appear to be to reach out to the thousands of voters who see the need to prevent a further widening of the gap between Canadians and their government. In other words those who view the possibility of conservative government as a further shift to a right wing, republican type entity with no energy/climate plan that in no way represents as many as 60% of voters or their aspirations.

De retour à la demande populaire! La première édition des Guides de Vote Stratégique de DemocraticSPACE est maintenant disponible. Voir les liens dans le coin supérieur droit de chaque page. Notez qu’il s’agit de guides non-partisans.

SOMMAIRE Voir la Page d’accueil du Guide de Vote Stratégique
Dans la vaste majorité des circonscriptions du Canada, le vote stratégique NE S’APPLIQUE PAS (en ce sens qu’il n’aura aucun impact sur les résultats). Il n’y a que 13 circonscriptions où il est approprié pour les sympathisants Conservateurs, 17 circonscriptions pour les sympathisants Libéraux, 30 circonscriptions pour les sympathisants Néo-Démocrates et 39 circonscriptions pour les sympathisants Verts.

Les guides fonctionnent de la façon suivante : le vote stratégique Conservateur fait en sorte que les Libéraux ne gagnent pas; le vote stratégique Libéral, Néo-Démocrate ainsi que celui des Verts fait en sorte que les Conservateurs ne gagnent pas. Évidemment, il y a plusieurs autres combinaisons possibles, mais celles-ci sont, de loin, les deux manières les plus communes de voter de façon stratégique.

Alors, à moins que votre circonscription n’apparaisse dans ce guide, NE VOTEZ PAS STRATÉGIQUEMENT.

GUIDES DE VOTE STRATÉGIQUE CIRCONSCRIPTION-PAR-CIRCONSCRIPTION
Sélectionnez le parti que vous supportez afin de vérifier si le vote stratégique s’applique à votre circonscription.

CONSERVATEUR	LIBÉRAL	NPD	VERT

Avis Important :
DemocraticSPACE n’endosse pas le vote stratégique (c’est-à-dire, le fait pour l’électeur de privilégier un second choix afin d’empêcher l’élection d’un autre parti). Nous croyons que le Canada devrait examiner la possibilité d’ajouter un élément de proportionnalité dans le système électoral afin de s’assurer d’une représentation parlementaire juste et adéquate. Cela dit, le vote stratégique se produit au Canada et DemocraticSPACE croit alors qu’il est préférable de faire des choix informés plutôt que désinformés. Par conséquent, ce guide a été conçu de manière à aider les électeurs qui pensent à voter stratégiquement.

Afin qu’une circonscription se qualifie pour le vote stratégique, nous avons le sentiment que 3 conditions doivent être remplies :
1. Il doit s’agir d’une course serrée entre deux partis (c’est-à-dire que l’écart entre les deux partis soit inférieur à 5%)
2. Les chances qu’un troisième/quatrième/cinquième parti d’être élu doivent être minimes (c’est-à-dire un support égal ou inférieur à 20%)
3. Le faible nombre de votes du troisième/quatrième/cinquième parti peut faire la différence (c’est-à-dire inférieur à un électeur sur trois)

Back by popular demand! The first edition of the DemocraticSPACE Strategic Voting Guides are now available. See the links in the upper right of every page. These are non-partisan guides.

SUMMARY See Strategic Voting Guide Homepage
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, 17 ridings for Liberal supporters, 30 ridings for NDP supporters and 39 ridings for Green supporters.

The guides work like this: Conservative strategic voting is to ensure a Liberal does not win; Liberal, NDP, and Green strategic voting is to ensure a Conservative does not win. Obviously there are many different permutations, but these are, by far, the two most common forms of strategic voting.

So unless your riding is listed in the guide, DO NOT VOTE STRATEGICALLY.

RIDING-BY-RIDING STRATEGIC VOTING GUIDES
Select the party you support to check if your riding is appropriate for strategic voting.

CONSERVATIVE	LIBERAL	NDP	GREEN

Important Note:
DemocraticSPACE does not endorse strategic voting (i.e. where voters cast their ballot for their second choice party to prevent a less favourable party from winning). We believe that Canada should explore options of adding an element of proportionality into our electoral system to ensure fair and accurate representation in parliament. However, strategic voting happens in Canada. DemocraticSPACE believes that it is better to make informed choices than misinformed choices. Therefore, this guide is meant to help voters who are thinking of voting strategically.

In order for a riding to qualify for strategic voting, we feel 3 conditions must be met:
1. It must be a close 2-way race (i.e. the two other parties must be within 5%)
2. The chances of third/fourth/fifth party winning riding are remote (i.e. support < ~20%)
3. Small number of votes of third/fourth/fifth party can make a difference (i.e. < 1 in 3 voters).

I wrote this back on Sept.15.

“ La Presse (newspaper in Montreal) has questioned if deal between Dion and May not to run opposing candidates in each others’ ridings is only part of deal for strategic voting across the country. Does anyone have suggestion of that in their riding?”

 Now May has made it official by calling on Greens to vote Liberal. Regretably, this hurts the Green brand in the long term and now makes it irrelevant and illegitimate. Instead of voting tactically, Green voters should now think strategically and choose another party, be it Liberal or NDP, and stick with them for the long term. 

Tactically, May did more than anyone to build the Greens into a legitimate force. Strategically, she has put the first nail into the Green Party’s coffin.