Down to the final paces in Canada's federal election that crosses the finish line October 19, 2015, how you vote and how you decide are critical.
The problem with “strategic voting” is that it creates a cast of ‘voter strategists’ presuming to tell us who to vote for. Like a visit to a bookie, there is a wellspring of websites now to tell you who has “the best chance of winning.” Too bad this isn’t a lottery game show, where the object is to guess who’s going to win. But an election is a contest of minds, not soothsayers.
Those in love with new concepts like so-called strategic voting will positively adore this one: Vote for what you believe in. Vote for the person you like.
If everyone did that, we would not see lopsided majorities where no one walks away happy except the top prize holder.
What’s old is made new again. For there was a time, before pollsters and media hype, that making one’s voting choice according to one’s principles was the way it was done. Whether for the candidate or the party, the choice made indicated a set of ideals to which the voter most closely subscribed.
We learned very quickly from the flawed concept of strategic voting that when you vote for what you don’t want, that exactly what you will get – someone you didn’t really want.
What good is a construct without the proper underpinnings of decent logic? Strategic voting reeks of manipulation that serves to prop up the status quo. All the elements are there, someone else telling you who to vote for based only on past results and current incumbencies and always with an eye to the polls, which presumably lead us to know what everyone’s thinking in advance of the ballots being cast – a fait d’accomplis.
Why even bother with elections? Just hand the decision to a bunch of strategic voters and they will help tilt the victory toward the last person on earth you’d want to elect.
What else would one expect from voting for that which one does not want?
In my opinion, sufficient critical thought would conclude strategic voting is an unfortunate fad, not to mention a complete and utter farce.
The problem with “strategic voting” is that it creates a cast of ‘voter strategists’ presuming to tell us who to vote for. Like a visit to a bookie, there is a wellspring of websites now to tell you who has “the best chance of winning.” Too bad this isn’t a lottery game show, where the object is to guess who’s going to win. But an election is a contest of minds, not soothsayers.
Those in love with new concepts like so-called strategic voting will positively adore this one: Vote for what you believe in. Vote for the person you like.
If everyone did that, we would not see lopsided majorities where no one walks away happy except the top prize holder.
What’s old is made new again. For there was a time, before pollsters and media hype, that making one’s voting choice according to one’s principles was the way it was done. Whether for the candidate or the party, the choice made indicated a set of ideals to which the voter most closely subscribed.
We learned very quickly from the flawed concept of strategic voting that when you vote for what you don’t want, that exactly what you will get – someone you didn’t really want.
What good is a construct without the proper underpinnings of decent logic? Strategic voting reeks of manipulation that serves to prop up the status quo. All the elements are there, someone else telling you who to vote for based only on past results and current incumbencies and always with an eye to the polls, which presumably lead us to know what everyone’s thinking in advance of the ballots being cast – a fait d’accomplis.
Why even bother with elections? Just hand the decision to a bunch of strategic voters and they will help tilt the victory toward the last person on earth you’d want to elect.
What else would one expect from voting for that which one does not want?
In my opinion, sufficient critical thought would conclude strategic voting is an unfortunate fad, not to mention a complete and utter farce.
RSS Feed