I think it’s a workaround that increases the democratic representation within FPTP. I prefer an LPC MP than a CPC MP because the LPC MP represents me more closely than the CPC MP, even if I’d ultimately prefer an NDP MP. As I’ve mentioned in another comment - ABC doesn’t mean vote LPC if you don’t want CPC. It means vote for whoever not CPC can win in you riding, NDP, LPC, Green, etc. It sucks but I think that is in fact more democratic within the not-so-democratic system we have than producing vote splits which elect people who represent us even less.
I see where you’re coming from, but that’s kind of a lazy excuse (on a wider scale, not you personally). If candidate 2 is the crappy incumbent ABC people will vote for them to keep out candidate 3 because they think they have a shot, even if they all would’ve preferred candidate 1. And then the cycle repeats and gets more entrenched.
Yes but you’re telling me about problems of FPTP we’re already familiar with. FPTP is a bad system.
Guess what happens the next time after the vote is split between the shit incumbent and the better choice, electing a con - people go back voting for the shit incumbent that previously lost in the hope to not elect a con again.
Strategic voting (not campaigning) doesn’t come from thin air. It comes from people’s lived experiences with vote-split events that led to bad governments (for them) and trying to avoid that in the future.
Not running candidates in ridings where they’d split the vote is the only practical workaround I can think of that obviates the need for strategic voting. None of our parties are doing that except perhaps BQ.
Treating the FPTP as something that it’s not is the worst option in my opinion. It’s a shit system and the more people understand how it works and what outcomes their votes produce the better. Even better, the more people understand that, the more they’ll demand a change to something else.
I don’t know, that’s my thought process and I don’t think it’s devoid of logic.
I think it’s a workaround that increases the democratic representation within FPTP. I prefer an LPC MP than a CPC MP because the LPC MP represents me more closely than the CPC MP, even if I’d ultimately prefer an NDP MP. As I’ve mentioned in another comment - ABC doesn’t mean vote LPC if you don’t want CPC. It means vote for whoever not CPC can win in you riding, NDP, LPC, Green, etc. It sucks but I think that is in fact more democratic within the not-so-democratic system we have than producing vote splits which elect people who represent us even less.
I see where you’re coming from, but that’s kind of a lazy excuse (on a wider scale, not you personally). If candidate 2 is the crappy incumbent ABC people will vote for them to keep out candidate 3 because they think they have a shot, even if they all would’ve preferred candidate 1. And then the cycle repeats and gets more entrenched.
Yes but you’re telling me about problems of FPTP we’re already familiar with. FPTP is a bad system.
Guess what happens the next time after the vote is split between the shit incumbent and the better choice, electing a con - people go back voting for the shit incumbent that previously lost in the hope to not elect a con again.
Strategic voting (not campaigning) doesn’t come from thin air. It comes from people’s lived experiences with vote-split events that led to bad governments (for them) and trying to avoid that in the future.
Not running candidates in ridings where they’d split the vote is the only practical workaround I can think of that obviates the need for strategic voting. None of our parties are doing that except perhaps BQ.
Treating the FPTP as something that it’s not is the worst option in my opinion. It’s a shit system and the more people understand how it works and what outcomes their votes produce the better. Even better, the more people understand that, the more they’ll demand a change to something else.
I don’t know, that’s my thought process and I don’t think it’s devoid of logic.