Strategic Votes Were Not Wasted

Along with others who were concerned about climate change, we promoted strategic voting in the 2008 election. It didn't work this time: we still have a Conservative minority government. But at least there is no Conservative "majority" government. In any event, a backlash against strategic voting is not justified. Acting within the law in a democracy to maximize the chances of a good outcome for the planet is a good thing. The strategy did not reach its ultimate goal because other people's actions. But the strategy's ethical value remains intact.

I was sad to see our local Liberal MP lose out to a Conservative despite my strategic vote. So I can sympathize with ScruffyDan who seems to be in a similar situation. Moreover, our MP was fairly progressive/green long before Dion, so this is a loss on many levels. Under Proportional Representation I would have probably voted Green because they are even closer to my values. Unlike ScruffyDan, though, I don't feel that my strategic vote was wasted. I feel like a person who had done the right thing but lost.

The Green Party did pretty well in this election, considering our unfair voting system (more on this below). They will survive without the few bucks that my vote would have given them in added funding. It would also be easy to send them a small cheque to make up not voting for them if I decide that this is justified by the Green Party's direction.

Some Green party members apparently want to oust Elizabeth May for her (admittedly vague) stance on strategic voting. They claim that

"the Green party needs a leader who supports the Green party over other political parties".

I thought that the Green Party is different from the others because it aims to serve the planet and humanity, not its own partisan interests. In fact, when other parties adopt major parts of the Green Party platform (as in the Liberals under Dion), the Green Party might want to ask,

"what do the Earth and humanity need us to do?"

In any case, I doubt that the Greens would elect any MPs until Proportional Representation is in place. Alas, this is total "Political Science Fiction" in federally right now. Quebec just voted massively for the Bloc. When push comes to shove, this party would probably oppose any system that would results in fewer seats for them. They might even turn it into another "wedge" issue in favour of separation/sovereignty/sovereignty-association/[insert new euphemism here]. Most of the other political parties would also oppose Proportional Representation for fear of losing seats in Parliament, if not right away, then eventually. The recent story about the NDP refusing to support Proportional Representation in 1980 is instructive (h/t Democratic Space).

And as Ontario voters have seen, mere lip service by a major party like the Liberals in the MMP Referendum is not enough to get Proportional Representation in place.

The country is also facing a potential recession. Many people are unlikely to have the time or stomach for citizens' assemblies and referenda on electoral reform. Harper's fantasy about abolishing the Senate if it cannot be reformed is also likely to fail. Nobody wants to talk about constitutional issues. Quebec and other regional interests would oppose the idea as well.

Strategic voting will continue to make sense in some ridings in future elections as long as the current electoral system is in place.

[Important Notice]

Improve Democracy in Ontario -- On October 10, 2007, Support Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) Voting!

We interrupt the Climate Change posts for an important message: Ontarians have a unique opportunity to improve their democracy (and incidentally, help save the Planet, too). On Provincial Election Day, October 10, 2007, Ontarians can vote "YES" on a Referendum question to add Proportional Representation to the electoral system.

The traditional voting system (known as "first past the post") has resulted in too many minority Governments (in terms of popular support for the governing party) that call themselves "majorities" (because they end up with a majority of the seats in the Legislature). [UPDATE August 19, 2007: See charts of percent popular vote vs. percent seats in the Legislature in recent elections (citizensassembly.gov.on.ca "Resources" - links under "Electronic Press Kit" near bottom of page).] Moreover, smaller parties with a strong but spread-out support base can't get a seat in the Legislature (unless their supporters all move into one or a few ridings :-) This is deeply undemocratic, and it over-emphasizes local (even parochial) concerns over Province-wide (even Planet-wide) issues.

Speaking of Parties promoting Planet-wide issues, a recent poll has put the Green Party of Ontario at 11% support (sesresearch.com [PDF] via greenparty.on.ca). But this Party is very unlikely to get even one seat under the current system. If a recession hits and saving the planet returns to the back-burner for larger political parties (like it did in the 1990s), having the Green Party in the Legislature would help ensure that the issue does not vanish completely. For these reasons, a system that would give the Green party a voice would be a vast improvement for democracy -- and for the Planet.

A bit of background:

"After months of learning, consulting and deliberating, the province’s first Citizens’ Assembly decided to recommend a new electoral system for Ontario: Mixed Member Proportional [MMP]." (citizensassembly.gov.on.ca "How We Got Here")

"A Mixed Member Proportional system combines members elected in local districts and members elected for the whole province from party lists to serve as Members of Provincial Parliament (MPPs) in the legislature.This combination produces proportional election results that better reflect the wishes of voters." (citizensassembly.gov.on.ca "The Recommendation")

This is known as "one person, two votes". You would vote for a local representative, and for a Party. The two don't have to be aligned, giving you great flexibility.

As a bonus, there would be no more need for "strategic voting"! Many Ontarians have voted for one large Party to try to block another large Party, despite really wanting to vote for a third (smaller) Party. Under MMP, you could vote for a local representative from the larger Party (for example), and still vote for the smaller Party to help them get Proportional seats.

Under the proposal, the 90 traditional, locally-elected representatives would still predominate. But 39 representatives would be assigned by Party. For any Party with at least 3% of the popular vote, the formula would bring the percentage of seats in the Legislature to the percentage of the popular vote. (See citizensassembly.gov.on.ca "How the New System Works" for more details.)

Also, check out the Vote for MMP web site, which is published by "is a multi-partisan citizens’ campaign to support the Mixed Member Proportional (MMP)" (voteformmp.ca "About Us").

If you have a blog, help spread the word by adding a "Vote for MMP" button from http://mmpbloggers.blogspot.com/

(We are not members or affiliates of any of the above organizations. We are expressing our support as individuals.)

Most importantly, if you are eligible to vote, make sure that you come out on October 10, 2007 and vote "YES" for MMP!

[Important Notice]

BlogThis! (Click to discuss this post on your own Blogger blog. To quote any text, highlight it before clicking.)