tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post113379952214237787..comments2023-08-03T07:33:41.442-07:00Comments on Idealistic Pragmatist: An idealistic pragmatist's guide to strategic votingIdealistic Pragmatisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1134518719174354382005-12-13T17:05:00.000-07:002005-12-13T17:05:00.000-07:00Oh, well, that's not strategic voting; that's just...Oh, well, that's not strategic voting; that's just panic. It's not strategy unless you <I>think</I> about it. So I'm just observing that when one does think about it seriously, as you obviously have, there are sometimes occasions when it's possible to vote strategically at two different levels.Q. Pheevrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07168025023862285721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1134517132298074972005-12-13T16:38:00.000-07:002005-12-13T16:38:00.000-07:00QP,Okay, I somehow missed your "suppose it's 1993"...QP,<BR/><BR/>Okay, I somehow missed your "suppose it's 1993" line the first time around, and I got <I>very</I> confused when you started in about the Reform Party and Lucien Bouchard. :-)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I can certainly see the logic behind a strategic vote like that, but I don't think most voters think about it that hard. For all too many people, it's just: "Argh! the Conservatives are too high in the polls for my comfort! I'd better vote Liberal!"Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1134516309413129262005-12-13T16:25:00.000-07:002005-12-13T16:25:00.000-07:00This is one of the most sensible things I've ever ...This is one of the most sensible things I've ever read about strategic voting. In particular, I very much agree with your observations about the irrelevance of national percentages as opposed to how things look within one's own riding. However, I do think it's possible to vote strategically on a national level, provided one thinks in terms of seats rather than raw poll figures.<BR/><BR/>For example, suppose it's 1993 and I'm a left-leaning federalist voting in the riding of La Prairie. I've seen enough polls to be confident that the Tories, including the local incumbent, Fernand Jourdenais, are on their way out, and the Liberals are headed for a strong majority. My real sympathies are with the NDP, but in my riding, the NDP has about as much chance as the Natural Law Party. (Five years earlier, nearly fourteen hundred people in my riding voted for the Parti Rhinocéros, but Jourdenais was pretty much a shoo-in that time around.) So the real race here is between the Liberal candidate, Jacques Saada, and the B.Q. candidate, Richard Bélisle, and it looks pretty close. Naturally, I prefer the Liberals to the Bloc, but I'm confident that the Liberals are going to form the next government no matter what. The people who really scare me are the Reform Party--they're as much of a force for decentralization as the Bloc, and a whole heck of a lot farther to the right on social issues. And at the federal level, Reform and the Bloc are competing with each other for second place, even though they're not in direct competition in any one riding (the Reform Party have no candidates inside Québec; the Bloc have none outside). So I strategically cast my vote for Bélisle. And it works! Bélisle narrowly beats Saada, which does little to dampen the spirits of the Liberals, but which helps ensure that Lucien Bouchard becomes the next leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition instead of Preston Manning. I'd rather it had been Audrey McLaughlin, of course, and I'm very sorry to see my own team lose official party status, but there really wasn't anything I could do about that.<BR/><BR/>In this hypothetical example, the strategic vote depends on both the percentages in the voter's own riding and the likely distribution of seats at the federal level.Q. Pheevrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07168025023862285721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1133946547914227352005-12-07T02:09:00.000-07:002005-12-07T02:09:00.000-07:00AP,Thanks! That looks great.AP,<BR/><BR/>Thanks! That looks great.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1133937542725228972005-12-06T23:39:00.000-07:002005-12-06T23:39:00.000-07:00IP, this may be of interest to your viewers. CBC h...IP, this may be of interest to your viewers. CBC has now set up an <A HREF="http://www.votebyissue.org/cbc/q.aspx?q=3" REL="nofollow">online survey</A> via which participants may determine which party best represents his/her ideologies. Completing the survey only reminded me that my allegiance remains unchanged!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1133923294164840212005-12-06T19:41:00.000-07:002005-12-06T19:41:00.000-07:00Mark,Aww. Thanks. :-) Although your theory abou...Mark,<BR/><BR/>Aww. Thanks. :-) Although your theory about Westmount made my head hurt.Idealistic Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18296481430598981678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12426618.post-1133893066120695612005-12-06T11:17:00.000-07:002005-12-06T11:17:00.000-07:00Excellent post. On TV, the message should be "don'...Excellent post. On TV, the message should be "don't vote strategically". In print, it should be "go to Idealistic Pragmatist to see how to vote strategically".<BR/><BR/>Of course, you assume that only a small fraction of people vote this way. It's quite possible that 60% of the people in Westmount actually want the NDP to win, but vote Liberal to keep out the Bloc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com