Voting third parties (that probably don't have a chance)

[Valka D'Ur]

That's one of the reasons I liked the Greens - they reach out to their constituents and potential voters. They feel like a more of a personal party.

But it doesn't change the fact that they support voodoo magic in their platform, which is something Elizabeth May is on record as saying that she supports. So I have no choice but (for now) to put them in the "these people are crazy" pile, which means that I will never vote for them until they change their ways. It doesn't seem that they will - they are pulling in all the crazy anti-vax, anti-gmo, homeopathy, hippie/whatever/crazy people types and turning into a bit of a pseudoscientific collection of idiots. I can't vote for people like that - they may say they care about the environment, which is what drew me to them initially, but you will not help the environment if you throw away science and replace it with whatever you want. That's just crazy.

Do you have a link where I can check out their platform as regards health care?

BTW, most of the anti-vaccine zealots I've seen on the CBC comment pages have given a very strong impression of being Harper supporters (you know - the Conservatives who are not really Conservatives but just hijacked the party so they could pretend not to be the Reform-Alliance anymore).

The way politics is here in Central Alberta, you could run a mosquito for the Conservatives (federal or provincial) and it would be voted in. The only non-Conservative MP we've ever had in my memory was Reform-Alliance. During the last federal election, several dozen incumbent Conservative MPs were told they didn't need to bother with those inconvenient all-candidate forums (since they were either in 'safe' ridings or the audience had some reason to ask awkward and pointed questions).

I think it was a riding in Saskatchewan where this happened, that started the practice of setting a potted plant at the candidates' table in the place where the Conservative candidate was supposed to have sat. They did that here, and it certainly caused more people to focus on the absence of our incumbent MP (a useless backbencher, but still he should have been there) and some rather pointed comments and questions were made/asked anyway.

The United States will have to change its electoral system to entertain more than two parties. Unfortunately both the existing parties are unlikely to do just that.

Canada enjoys diversification with at least three parties federally having influence (Conservative, Liberal, New Democrat) and two others with 2 and 1 seats respectively (Bloc Quebecois and Green). This is in part owed to the former per vote subsidy and regional diversification of politics. Canada should explore electoral reform nevertheless or risk the possibility (although I believe it to be more than unlikely) of a merged left.

I recall reading that the Greens now have 2 seats.

MPs can be elected as Independents as well, or sit as an Independent if they leave or get kicked out of their party caucus. At present, there's a former NDP who is now an Independent, and people are wishing there was some way to completely get rid of her as an MP since she's only been in the House for a whopping 8% of the votes and never shows up at her constituency office. Her excuse? "I have kids."


I wonder if this next election will finally see Elizabeth May participating in the televised leaders' debates. It's infuriating how the Bloc has been allowed in (running candidates in only one province), but the Greens have not (running candidates in every riding across the country).

 

[warpus]

Do you have a link where I can check out their platform as regards health care?

I think they've removed homeopathy from their platform. Good on them, if true! I'm not sure because I just ran a very cursory check.. so it's possible I've missed it..

And either way, here's an article on the party's embrace of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. It seems to be a big problem with the Greens - they want more voters.. but as a result they've taken on a lot of people who support pseudoscience.

 

[Recon Rover]

I wonder if this next election will finally see Elizabeth May participating in the televised leaders' debates. It's infuriating how the Bloc has been allowed in (running candidates in only one province), but the Greens have not (running candidates in every riding across the country).

The initial opposition to Elizabeth May participating came from Stephen Harper and the late NDP leader Jack Layton in 2008. Eventually she was invited to participate in 2008 and did but was subsequently denied without as much protest in 2011.

I agree with Warpus and his concerns about the Greens. I believe they are fiscally conservative and socially liberal, but have lately found themselves on side with some really questionable people and ideas. The party has moved back towards the fringes and as much as I like Elizabeth May, it may be time for her to be replaced by someone who can enforce a more scientific party platform if she cannot do this job.

On another note, some other posters have made mention that the Democratic and Republican party are all encompassing of many political ideologies from different parts of the political spectrum therefore negating or at least consuming the space for a third party. This answer does nothing to support the status quo and I would like to hear exactly why a two party system is beneficial to three or more.

Part of the reason why people vote for a particular party is because it represents a brand of politics but not necessarily the things which matter most to a constituent. A two party system is much less effective at conveying that which actually matters to an individual because it must cater to an even larger audience to maintain support, which of course means dumping ideas that don't have support not only in the left, but towards the right.

 

[sophie]

As for why 3rd parties pursue national elections rather than focusing on local elections in competitive districts: it's really hard to motivate/excite people to volunteer for the party - stumping/number crunching/donating/canvassing/etc. for such small chips. People are already quite apathetic about local elections (plus incumbency rates are really high; nobody likes Congress, but nearly everybody loves their representative) as it is. National elections are a great way to get the name and the platform out to a national audience. Get the name recognition out there and it might translate to more people voting for those party members in local elections. None of these 3rd parties are genuinely expecting to win those presidential or big ticket congressional elections. They're merely hoping to bring their brand and platform out to a larger audience. Unfortunately they usually get shut out of the debates so even that small goal doesn't materialize for the most part.

Apathy is a big problem in general in addition to all the things dt said.

If Hillary wins the Democratic Nomination 2016 is going a rough voting cycle for me.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think they've removed homeopathy from their platform. Good on them, if true! I'm not sure because I just ran a very cursory check.. so it's possible I've missed it..

And either way, here's an article on the party's embrace of pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo. It seems to be a big problem with the Greens - they want more voters.. but as a result they've taken on a lot of people who support pseudoscience.

I detect a right-wing slant in that article. And they have no call for self-righteousness, given all the religious zealots and bigots that had to be kicked out of the Reform party before that party would be remotely palatable outside of Alberta.

I don't support pseudoscience, but then you'll find pseudoscience supporters in every political party. One of the people in an atheist/agnostic group I belonged to was highly indignant when I dismissed a UFO/space alien claim by a former astronaut and Canadian politician and said I "should have a more open mind."

 

[warpus]

Oh, I don't like any of the other political parties either. All I'm saying is that the Green party has been seemingly taken over by idiots (who support and push pseudoscience).

 

[classical_hero]

First preferences matter for electoral funding, AFAIK. So I'll always put a third party as my first preference so the two majors don't get the funding for my vote.

I think he was talking about chances of getting a seat or electorate raher than funding.

 

[Arwon]

One of the Greens core principles, globally, is consensus decision-making. That means the members have a lot of input into the writing of platforms and at a very local level. When Green parties have very small and fringe memberships they naturally more weird stuff gets into the platforms because someone wanted them there. You also get, thanks to fairly localised selection processes, individual candidates with a lot of views that don't actually reflect the platform but have bene chosen by the small group of other members in that area.

The thing is, though, the best way to filter out the woo is to increase the membership and representation and bring in a wider variety of views and voices to crowd them out. We've seen that happen here as the party has moved from a base of, essentially, boomer generation Tasmanian environmentalists, north-coast NSW hippie dropouts and inner city Sydney socialists to being a party of lawyers, educators, and technology and new media professionals.

I'd suggest, Warpus, that if you want a smarter version of the Greens in Canadian politics you should consider supporting them to help them grow and professionalise and crowd out the woo.

(Edit: Though I'd also suggest a lot of people who would be Greens in Australia are NDP at a national level in Canada.)

 

[JollyRoger]

I only get to vote a few thousand times each election. I don't have any votes to spare for a 3rd Party.

 

[warpus]

One of the Greens core principles, globally, is consensus decision-making. That means the members have a lot of input into the writing of platforms and at a very local level.

Yeah, when I emailed them about it, the response was: "Our platform is put together using democratic principles. If there's something in there you don't like, you can come out to a meeting and make your voice heard."

Yeah well, that is a stupid idea then, to draft your platform that way. I can't really support a party that does this, unless they have checks in place to make sure that idiotic things do not make it into the platform in the first place.

I'd suggest, Warpus, that if you want a smarter version of the Greens in Canadian politics you should consider supporting them to help them grow and professionalise and crowd out the woo.

I can't really support them, given the sorts of things they support. If they have so many idiots in the party pushing through such silly additions to their platform - who's to say this would go away if the party grew? I'm not going to support a party of quacks, so that it can grow and become even more ridiculous.

 

[Borachio]

Is voting about picking a "winning" party?

I don't think it is. Or it shouldn't be. Just vote the way your conscience tells you to, is my belief.

What would happen if you did vote for the winning party, and they turned out to make a mess of things? (As they often do.)

 

[warpus]

A vote is essentially me saying: "I want these people to be in charge".

I don't want the Greens in charge, so I will not vote for them.

 

[Borachio]

I don't want the Greens in charge either. But since I know they won't win, I vote for them anyway - to encourage the others to think more environmentally.

(Come to think of it, who do I want to be in charge?)

 

[warpus]

Yeah, but I also see a vote for them as me encouraging people to support pseudoscience. Which I am against. So I have to find somebody else to vote for.

 

[Bootstoots]

The overall argument not to vote for parties that aren't going to win is obviously stupid in general, although tactical voting in close elections is reasonable in FPTP systems if you have a clear preference for one major party.

I've begun voting for third parties where they exist and offer a better alternative to the Democrats. I was one of 684 people who wrote in the Green Party candidate for Illinois governor. I don't think that vote was any more wasted than a vote to re-elect a governor I didn't like, from a political machine I like even less, and who lost by several percentage points anyway. Also I looked at the precinct-level returns and was able to verify that my precinct did have one write-in vote for the Green Party, so I was able to verify that they accurately counted my vote, assuming there wasn't another of me among the ~100 voters in the precinct. I guess that upped my faith in democracy a little tiny bit.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah, but I also see a vote for them as me encouraging people to support pseudoscience. Which I am against. So I have to find somebody else to vote for.

Hmm. You're kinda leaving me no one to vote for here. Which I'm not in favour of either. I do want to vote.

 

[warpus]

Hmm. You're kinda leaving me no one to vote for here. Which I'm not in favour of either. I do want to vote.

I have been voting strategically in the last couple elections for this reason. Instead of trying to vote in people who I would want to see in government (There are none), I vote so that the people who I want to see there the least do not end up representing me.

It's a bit depressing, but it is what it is.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Is voting about picking a "winning" party?

Some people think it is. What annoys me about the upcoming federal election later this year is that there is no longer any prohibition against the media communicating results from closed polls to regions of the country where the polls are still open. We have 6 time zones in Canada, so that means that when the polls close in Newfoundland, they're still open in Ontario and further west. It used to be that the TV networks would not start broadcasting in a specific time zone until the polls closed in that time zone, so as to not unduly influence people.

That's been tossed out, now. So now we'll have a case of the cascade of results we get dumped on us as soon as the polls close in Quebec and Ontario, before our polls close out here in the west. Then you get the people who think if they don't vote for whichever party is in the lead, they'll have "wasted" their vote.

Idiots.


It used to be suspenseful, to turn on CBC at 8 p.m. to see what's going on. Sometimes it was a relief to find out which party was leading, and other times I'd feel like throwing a brick at the TV. And sometimes it was too close to call, with a minority government waiting on results from British Columbia.

Hmm. You're kinda leaving me no one to vote for here. Which I'm not in favour of either. I do want to vote.

I have been voting strategically in the last couple elections for this reason. Instead of trying to vote in people who I would want to see in government (There are none), I vote so that the people who I want to see there the least do not end up representing me.

It's a bit depressing, but it is what it is.

Yep, in this country we tend not to vote for who we want, but against who we don't want. That means that in Red Deer, if you want to vote strategically, you vote Liberal.

Of course that never works, since any damnfool idiot can get elected under the Reform or Conservative banner whether they can string two original thoughts together or not.

 

[Bootstoots]

As I understand it, nearly all of Alberta is solid Conservative. Is it really tactical voting if the Liberals and the NDP also have no chance of winning your riding?

 

[Lohrenswald]

I rather hopefully voted for an eight party last election, but a rivaling eight party, the greens, stole the seat in the great council.

Though my vote didn't matter either way, seeing as it was the Oslo votes that determined those parties' outcome.