When you live in a rural area, there is much relief from the vicissitudes of modern life. It allows you, when the moment comes, to become reflective. Far too often, we are busy dealing with the vagaries of now to pay attention to the longer term.
As we enter the home stretch of the election season, we hear the word ‘strategy’ batted about, in all number of occasions. Of course, there is the general strategy of running campaigns – either in targeting particular ridings and polls, and the finer nuances of messaging and communicating to the public.
Inevitably, though, the word gets used in a particular context – that of voting intentions.
Strategic voting, for those not in the know, is the conscious decision among voters to cast their ballot for their second choice candidate and party, all in the attempt to block the party and candidate that they really do not want.
It come from a judgment that your preferred choice doesn’t stand a ghost of winning, and that by voting for a less palatable alternative, you can help prevent an even more objectionable candidate from winning. The old ‘lesser of two evils’ paradigm.
It is a tactic, and a tool that, under the right circumstances, can give the desired result. For example, a Tory wins a riding by only a handful of votes over their Liberal rival. A group of NDP supporters switch their support to the Grits, and said Tory gets unseated. In a controlled environment, this experiment works somewhat well.
The problem with strategic voting is that it is a strategy borne of desperation – much like the Muslim commander Tariq ibn Ziyad who, once his forces landed in Spain, promptly put the torch to his own boats. No way back – only forward. The British and American armies used this tactic in the War of 1812 with squads called “forlorn hope”. They were cautioned that the chances of returning alive were negligible, and that the desperation of the moment dictated the strategy.
In many ways, strategic voting is the political equivalent of this. It is a move of desperation that carries as much risk as it does reward. It is the “Hail Mary” pass of political campaigning.
First, it only works if the numbers are right. What if Liberal plus NDP cannot equal victory? The serene shores of Cole Lake reside in a riding where, for the last three elections, the constituency has been carried with more than half the total ballots cast. Adding independents and folks from the Marijuana Party ain’t gonna turn the tide on that one.
Second, how do you coordinate it? Party members and campaign staff aside, over 95% of voters do not belong to a political party. How do you tell them that you want to do a pile-on? Will enough of them do it to make a difference? Perhaps too many do it, and your campaign is not weakened but outright obliterated.
Thirdly, how do you put out the message that you are prepared to lose on purpose? If you thought enough to field a candidate, but literature and print signs, then why wouldn’t you care enough to win? Voters would be right to ask why you are wasting their time if you were not serious to begin with.
Beyond that, even if the strategy accomplishes its stated goals, it comes with a heavy price.
One, local campaigns get rebated the lion’s share of their campaign expenses if, and only if, they attain at least 15% of the popular vote. What if, in pursuit of hobbling a potential winner, you ‘lend’ enough votes to another challenger to place your own campaign below the threshhold. You, my friend, will then suffer the indignity of being the only one not getting a cheque from Elections Canada that has four zeroes on it. Rest assured, come the next election, when you decide to play for keeps, you will understand what you sacrificed in order to achieve a short-term result.
Beyond that, there is also the matter of the $2.00 per vote per year that a party gets as a result of the support you give. This is the money that goes to party headquarters, to buy commercials, to rent planes, busses and hotel rooms, to hire staffers and run the cross-Canada ground game. Assuming that 1000 NDP’ers have decided to hold their nose and vote Liberal to stymie the Tories, over a four-year period, that equates to a loss of $8000 to the Federal NDP to fight the next campaign. Worse still, it is $8000 that goes to a party you don’t support, and only voted for in order to put the kybosh on the neo-Cons – which may, or may not actually work…You’re welcome.
Having said all of that, strategic voting is, like any strategy, a perfectly valid tactic and, under the right circumstances and in the right measure, have an impact. It is, however, a very tricky piece of equipment to operate. Not enough and nothing happens, while too much is tantamount to political hiri-kiri. You are guaranteed a certain degree of loss, and it is not always clear that what you gain will be adequate compensation for what you sacrifice.
There is, of course, the question of how committed a person is to a party, a platform, and a leader if they are prepared to throw them under the bus just for one desperate chance to be the fly in the ointment, but je degress.
Life, and nature, are eternal. The trees that border the lake have many rings. Some are wide and mark years of growth, while others narrow and show lean and challenging times. Nevertheless, the tree continues to exist while it has life and a purpose for being. Maybe some politicians should stop staring at forests and look at the trees within them.
As we enter the home stretch of the election season, we hear the word ‘strategy’ batted about, in all number of occasions. Of course, there is the general strategy of running campaigns – either in targeting particular ridings and polls, and the finer nuances of messaging and communicating to the public.
Inevitably, though, the word gets used in a particular context – that of voting intentions.
Strategic voting, for those not in the know, is the conscious decision among voters to cast their ballot for their second choice candidate and party, all in the attempt to block the party and candidate that they really do not want.
It come from a judgment that your preferred choice doesn’t stand a ghost of winning, and that by voting for a less palatable alternative, you can help prevent an even more objectionable candidate from winning. The old ‘lesser of two evils’ paradigm.
It is a tactic, and a tool that, under the right circumstances, can give the desired result. For example, a Tory wins a riding by only a handful of votes over their Liberal rival. A group of NDP supporters switch their support to the Grits, and said Tory gets unseated. In a controlled environment, this experiment works somewhat well.
The problem with strategic voting is that it is a strategy borne of desperation – much like the Muslim commander Tariq ibn Ziyad who, once his forces landed in Spain, promptly put the torch to his own boats. No way back – only forward. The British and American armies used this tactic in the War of 1812 with squads called “forlorn hope”. They were cautioned that the chances of returning alive were negligible, and that the desperation of the moment dictated the strategy.
In many ways, strategic voting is the political equivalent of this. It is a move of desperation that carries as much risk as it does reward. It is the “Hail Mary” pass of political campaigning.
First, it only works if the numbers are right. What if Liberal plus NDP cannot equal victory? The serene shores of Cole Lake reside in a riding where, for the last three elections, the constituency has been carried with more than half the total ballots cast. Adding independents and folks from the Marijuana Party ain’t gonna turn the tide on that one.
Second, how do you coordinate it? Party members and campaign staff aside, over 95% of voters do not belong to a political party. How do you tell them that you want to do a pile-on? Will enough of them do it to make a difference? Perhaps too many do it, and your campaign is not weakened but outright obliterated.
Thirdly, how do you put out the message that you are prepared to lose on purpose? If you thought enough to field a candidate, but literature and print signs, then why wouldn’t you care enough to win? Voters would be right to ask why you are wasting their time if you were not serious to begin with.
Beyond that, even if the strategy accomplishes its stated goals, it comes with a heavy price.
One, local campaigns get rebated the lion’s share of their campaign expenses if, and only if, they attain at least 15% of the popular vote. What if, in pursuit of hobbling a potential winner, you ‘lend’ enough votes to another challenger to place your own campaign below the threshhold. You, my friend, will then suffer the indignity of being the only one not getting a cheque from Elections Canada that has four zeroes on it. Rest assured, come the next election, when you decide to play for keeps, you will understand what you sacrificed in order to achieve a short-term result.
Beyond that, there is also the matter of the $2.00 per vote per year that a party gets as a result of the support you give. This is the money that goes to party headquarters, to buy commercials, to rent planes, busses and hotel rooms, to hire staffers and run the cross-Canada ground game. Assuming that 1000 NDP’ers have decided to hold their nose and vote Liberal to stymie the Tories, over a four-year period, that equates to a loss of $8000 to the Federal NDP to fight the next campaign. Worse still, it is $8000 that goes to a party you don’t support, and only voted for in order to put the kybosh on the neo-Cons – which may, or may not actually work…You’re welcome.
Having said all of that, strategic voting is, like any strategy, a perfectly valid tactic and, under the right circumstances and in the right measure, have an impact. It is, however, a very tricky piece of equipment to operate. Not enough and nothing happens, while too much is tantamount to political hiri-kiri. You are guaranteed a certain degree of loss, and it is not always clear that what you gain will be adequate compensation for what you sacrifice.
There is, of course, the question of how committed a person is to a party, a platform, and a leader if they are prepared to throw them under the bus just for one desperate chance to be the fly in the ointment, but je degress.
Life, and nature, are eternal. The trees that border the lake have many rings. Some are wide and mark years of growth, while others narrow and show lean and challenging times. Nevertheless, the tree continues to exist while it has life and a purpose for being. Maybe some politicians should stop staring at forests and look at the trees within them.
