Tuesday, September 23, 2008

How to vote strategically to stop dangerous climate change

In the Globe today, their analysts were talking about the vote split on the centre-left. Greg Lyle (a pollster) was down on strategic voting, saying that "The problem with this strategy is that it is just not realistic. Many voters, particularly swing voters, do not have the information they need to make this choice."

A new website can fill the information gap: http://www.voteforenvironment.ca/
They figure out if strategic voting would make a difference in defeating the Conservatives in your riding -- and then recommend who to vote for.

This site's methodology is a bit different from the other site that tries to do this, http://www.voteforclimate.ca/, but the recommendation for our riding happens to be the same from both sites.

Check out both of these sites. Do your own research. Think about the future of your children, grandchildren (or any child that you know). Think about the risk of wasting the next 48 months (out of the 99 months that we may have left to avert climate disaster) with a climate-hostile government. Then go out and vote to defeat the Conservatives!

2 comments:

janfromthebruce said...

I knew what the generators would say, but alas, the lib that just retired and the now candidate who was the retired lib MP was so right-wing that he could have won as a reform candidate.
And the new guy, why he coded on the news that 'nothing' would change if he was elected.
Sorry he is not a good choice. I'm going NDP. He is a real environmentalist, and not the pretend liberal kind.

ydzabelishensky said...

Thanks, janfromthebruce. I respect your desire to vote for someone who fully matches your views. I happen to agree with the NDP positions on many (but not all) issues. Having said this, in our system the party leader sets the policy and the tone. It seems to me that Dion is pretty far from being "Reform". Compare the Liberals on social policy with the Conservatives. Can you honestly say they're the same?

Also, "left wing" or "right wing" is the traditional debate about how to "cut the pie" (distribute income, wealth and power). But dangerous climate change can "shrink the pie" (wreck the ecosystem, which would wreck the economy). As usual, the rich would be cushioned by their wealth and power (at least initially), while the poor would suffer first and most. In relative terms, the rich would once again get richer, and the poor would once again get poorer.

So my first priority is to stop dangerous climate change and "prevent the pie from shrinking". Once the ecosystem is stabilized, we can go back to the traditional left/right wing argument about how to "cut the pie".