babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Divided Majority

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Divided Majority
Divided Majority
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15603

posted 05 October 2008 11:15 AM      Profile for Divided Majority     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sunday October 5, 2008

The smartest move Mr. Harper made this election was the Psychological Operation (PsyOp) he ran by saying "I think the Canadian public has become more conservative". This I think caused the progressive majority to surrender this election and turn to the American presidential election hoping for better news.

But this is not true. In 2006 federal election 76% of all NDP ballots went to waste, producing zero seats, 50 percent of the Liberal ballots and 100 percent of the Green ballots suffered the same fate.

The combined vote share in the last federal election of all of the three parties was 53 percent of the total ballots, which produced only 43 percent of the total parliament seats. The latest Harris-Decima poll is giving the three parties 52 percent of the total public opinion polls while Nanos Research is giving them 57 percent. This translates – believe or not - to 121 seats which is only 39 percent of the total seats. The result Mr. Harper would love you to believe is due to Canadians growing more conservative. Or is it?

The Centre to Centre-left was always fragmented and it won elections because the right and far-right suffered from the same problem, now that the Canadian Alliance party has completely acquired and devoured the PCs, the Canadian electoral map is left with a very fragmented progressive vote and very concentrated right and far-right vote. This could lead to a conservative majority government with only 36 percent of the popular vote.

The three progressive party leaders except for Elizabeth May are waiting for a miracle to change the opinion polls, unfortunately this is not going to happen as the conservative did not increase their vote share (around 35 percent) it is the Centre that got more fragmented. The solution is very simple; progressives need to vote as a bloc in each and every riding. This will allow for a better share of MPs and will allow for the each party to keep its total vote share. Harper wants you to think that this election is already lost, it is not.

Please visit http://www.strategicvoting.ca/ for a riding by riding vote suggestion.


From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 05 October 2008 02:17 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Divided Majority:
The solution is very simple; progressives need to vote as a bloc in each and every riding.

But first you will have to convince me that the Liberal and Green parties are, in fact, progressive.


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alone30s
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15113

posted 05 October 2008 02:23 PM      Profile for Alone30s        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by MacD:

But first you will have to convince me that the Liberal and Green parties are, in fact, progressive.


Do you really think you are the only game in town? This is what is wrong with the NDP party. Fifty years of claiming to be "the chosen ones" has not worked. Give it a rest already.


From: Dartmouth | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Uncle John
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14940

posted 05 October 2008 02:28 PM      Profile for Uncle John     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There is no evidence that Liberal is progressive. The track record of decades of Liberal rule is testament to that.

What the Liberals do is campaign as 'progressives' when they are in opposition, and then govern like conservatives when in government.

If I want 'progressive', I'll take NDP, and if I want 'conservative', I'll take the Conservatives.

The main thing is that I am no longer deluded by a bullshit party like the Liberals.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2008  |  IP: Logged
MacD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2511

posted 05 October 2008 02:36 PM      Profile for MacD     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alone30s:
Do you really think you are the only game in town? This is what is wrong with the NDP party. Fifty years of claiming to be "the chosen ones" has not worked. Give it a rest already.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call "HYPOCRITE" on this one. Over in this thread you were complaining about "name calling" that never happened and here you are doing some name calling of your own.

I'll also point out the obvious -- that your "response" did not actually address my post. The Chretien-Martin Liberal governments were elected on progressive platforms but while in office, if anything, they accelerated the neo-liberal reforms that Mulroney begin.

I consider myself a progressive but I do not consider the Liberals progressive; therefore, I don't see any sense in voting "strategically". I also don't see your ranting as a reason to reconsider my opinion.

[ 05 October 2008: Message edited by: MacD ]


From: Redmonton, Alberta | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Divided Majority
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15603

posted 05 October 2008 02:38 PM      Profile for Divided Majority     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is the same mistake Ralph Nader and his supporters did back in 2000. To cast your vote as if there is no difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives is a big mistake. There is a difference and I tried my best using a clear and fair criteria to pick a party to vote for in each riding.
From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 October 2008 02:51 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Divided Majority:
Sunday October 5, 2008
The three progressive party leaders . . .


Anyone who argues that the Liberals and the Greens are progressive can immediately be written off as having nothing intelligent to say.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 October 2008 02:53 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Divided Majority:
There is a difference and I tried my best using a clear and fair criteria to pick a party to vote for in each riding.


There is a difference.

The Harper Conservatives admit that they are a right wing party.

The Liberals lie.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alone30s
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15113

posted 05 October 2008 02:56 PM      Profile for Alone30s        Edit/Delete Post
Same-sex marriage. Please don't tell me Layton wants to take credit for that too???


From: Dartmouth | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 October 2008 02:56 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Went and checked your site.

Despite the fact that the Green Party finished a distant, distant fourth - well behind the Liberals who finished a distant third, despite the fact that the combined Liberal and Green vote would STILL leave them in a distant third, you have advocated voting Green.

Clearly your methodology is crap.

Pretty much standard from "strategic" voting advocates.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 05 October 2008 03:13 PM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow - I thought the other strategic voting sites were problematic, but this is really something. Among the "68 seats that will make the difference" are Saskatoon-Wanuskewin, where the Conservative MP is unfortunately well-entrenched, with just under 50% of the vote last time. It also includes Saanich-Gulf Islands - which is fine, except that the recommendation is to vote for the NDP in a riding where the NDP candidate has withdrawn.
From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Divided Majority
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15603

posted 05 October 2008 03:27 PM      Profile for Divided Majority     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Please read the methodology page. I used 2006 election results with the criteria described in the page.
From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lord Palmerston
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4901

posted 05 October 2008 03:32 PM      Profile for Lord Palmerston     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Using the last federal election results I calculated what I call the “Cumulative Progressive Vote” (CPV), which is the combined vote of the Liberals, the N.D.P. and the Green party. Using the CPV I found that 68 ridings would’ve voted a progressive MP if the supporters of the three parties voted for one candidate.

How about changing CPV to CNCPV Cumulative Non-Conservative Party Vote? Using the CNCPV, 68 ridings would've elected someone who wasn't a Tory if supporters of three parties voted for one candidate.


From: Toronto | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 October 2008 03:46 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alone30s:
Same-sex marriage. Please don't tell me Layton wants to take credit for that too???


Same sex marriage.

Oh. Right.

That would be the issue where the Liberals introduced a Parliamentary motion to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, and where the vast majority of Liberal MPs, including Jean Chretien and Paul Martin voted for it.

Equal Marriage only passed when the courts pressed Martin's hand.

Of course, you're the fibber who claims to have left the NDP over this issue, so your "case" is exactly tripe.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3145

posted 05 October 2008 03:46 PM      Profile for Tim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Divided Majority:
Please read the methodology page. I used 2006 election results with the criteria described in the page.

Well that's alright then. All we have to do is make sure everyone follows your instructions.

Strategic voting is problematic enough - nicely covered in
this thread, for example - but you still have to account for local factors, like the party you're recommending not having a candidate (or at least not campaigning), in the case of Saanich. And expecting that about 25% of the electorate in a riding will switch their vote as part of your strategy is plain unrealistic, in the case of Wanuskewin.


From: Paris of the Prairies | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193

posted 05 October 2008 04:35 PM      Profile for V. Jara     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you want to see how "strategic voting" really works, check out the recommendation for Saanich Gulf Islands. It recommends everyone vote NDP in a riding where there is NO NDP candidate.

Similarly, check out the recommendation for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. It recommends voting for Canada's leading parliamentary advocate for the privatization of health care, a former candidate for the Reform Party leadership, and did I mention a member of the Canadian Alliance until they became the Conservative Party in 2004.

True strategic voting is when you use your head and vote for the candidate you would most like to see represent you- regardless of party.


From: - | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Divided Majority
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15603

posted 05 October 2008 04:56 PM      Profile for Divided Majority     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To think for a second that any MP really has a saying other than that's of the leader is not true check Barry Campbell’s political memoirs. You might vote for a specific local politician, but how many Canadians actually do? People vote for parties and the party platform. check the
methodology page to find out how I came up with the suggestions.

From: Calgary | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 06 October 2008 08:39 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's keep all these strategic voting conversations together. Continue here.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca