Wasted Vote?

Zardnaar

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2003
Messages
20,040
Location
Dunedin, New Zealand
Here a wasted Vote is any Vote for a party that doesn't get 5% or win an electorate seat.

In effect it makes it easier to form a government. Around 5% are a wasted Vote which in effect nears you only need around 47-48% of the electorate to win (another 25% don't vote).

Election year here this year the current Labour lead government are behind in the polls and the right have a 1 seat majority in a couple of recent polls 61/120.

They've lurched to the right as well. Anyway even in a proportional system in one of the least corrupt countries in the world it can bite you in the ass.

Do you Vote for your favorite party if it's potentially a wasted Vote or vote for least bad option or vote for your favorite party regardless?
 
Yes. Unless I'm exceptionally in favor or against a particular candidate, I'll vote for my party of choice (assuming that candidate is at least decent) unless it's going to be exceptionally close which is when I'll point it where it'll do the most to sway that election the way I want. Though there are notable exceptions: in 2016 I voted third-party even though Clinton/Trump was expected to be close because I simply couldn't stomach voting for either of them.
 
I voted for Clinton over Bernie in 2016 because I believed she would get more Bernie esque legislation through than Bernie.

Obviously Bernie had my vote in 2020. I guess it was in a “don’t waste my vote” sense partially, I liked Warren but she was lagging and we needed to signal the Democratic Party as loudly as possible.

Overall I’m 100% for people voting their conscience, there’s no true such thing as a wasted vote. I just urge everyone’s conscience to rally to the Democratic Party as this is first past the post and the party changes with your participation.
 
Here a wasted Vote is any Vote for a party that doesn't get 5% or win an electorate seat.

In effect it makes it easier to form a government. Around 5% are a wasted Vote which in effect nears you only need around 47-48% of the electorate to win (another 25% don't vote).

Election year here this year the current Labour lead government are behind in the polls and the right have a 1 seat majority in a couple of recent polls 61/120.

They've lurched to the right as well. Anyway even in a proportional system in one of the least corrupt countries in the world it can bite you in the ass.

Do you Vote for your favorite party if it's potentially a wasted Vote or vote for least bad option or vote for your favorite party regardless?

In Canada it's formally referred to as 'strategic voting'. Informally it's referred to as "holding your nose" and voting for the party's candidate best able to defeat the party you don't want to win.

Either way, strategic voting, aka the ABC movement (Anybody But Conservatives) is what finally got rid of Stephen Harper in 2015 and put Justin Trudeau in as Prime Minister. As for me, I know that federally there's no chance of anyone winning here unless they're whatever the current conservative party is calling itself, so I vote my preference. That's usually NDP, has sometimes been Green, and once I went with a completely new party that had lofty goals but no chance, just because I liked the platform.

ABC means that in ridings where the Liberals had the best chance of winning, traditionally-NDP voters threw their votes to the Liberal candidate, and vice-versa.

Except in Quebec. Trudeau in large part owes his win to a Muslim woman who wanted to keep her niqab on while taking her citizenship oath. The Minister of Immigration and Citizenship said no. She took the government to court and won, just in time for the election.

How this contributed to Trudeau's winning is that the Liberals were in 3rd place at that time, as the NDP were the Official Opposition. Unfortunately the NDP leader who got them to that place, Jack Layton, died. His successor, Thomas Mulcair, didn't have half the vision and charisma that Layton did, and moreover was a federal leader from Quebec (they tend to be distrusted in Western Canada just because).

Mulcair was a believer in people's Charter rights and defended the woman's religious rights, to wear the niqab. This did not sit well with many voters in Quebec, as Quebec is becoming more secular over the years. The voters who were against anyone covering their face during the citizenship ceremony (the niqab covers the face and only the person's eyes are visible) and who weren't planning to vote either conservative or Bloc decided to vote Liberal - to punish Mulcair/NDP for supporting anyone wanting to cover their face for this ceremony.

So a lot of potential NDP votes in Quebec went to the Liberals instead. We woke up to not only a Liberal minority or a modest Liberal majority - but a large Liberal majority. On election night Stephen Harper decided to be a coward and had a lackey hand a note to the news anchors, announcing his resignation as party leader (leaders of parties that experience such a loss often do resign their leadership, but they have the integrity to do it on-camera, in person; Harper took the coward's way out).

So strategic voting worked federally. It almost worked for the most recent election in my province. We were desperate to get rid of the UCP, as they're taking this province further and further right, and the premier is determined to have us effectively separate while pretending she isn't.

If only those 1300 votes the NDP needed for a majority hadn't been spread out among so many ridings, it could have worked. The former health minister, Tyler Shandro, is hopefully going to be disbarred (he's a lawyer) for actions he took while in cabinet. If he were a private citizen he'd be in jail, or at least fined. He was defeated on election night by 7 votes. After the mandatory recount, his defeat stood - by 25 votes. He's demanding yet another recount, since he refuses to accept this. He especially doesn't like losing to a nurse. He had a very hostile attitude toward doctors and nurses, and decided to pick fights with them during a pandemic.

I don't know how many of those 25 votes were strategic. But thank goodness for them. They helped get rid of someone who gleefully put lives at risk, and thinks himself above the law, harassing doctors and nurses who were critical of him and his policies, invading their privacy, and making threats. Oh, and delisting meds for people like me - of course I could still get them if I wanted, but it would cost $$$/month. Oh, but wait... his WIFE runs an insurance company! There's the solution - pay his wife so I could afford the meds my doctor prescribed, instead of the substitute she didn't prescribe.

If anyone thinks his "blind trust" is really blind, I've got ocean-front property outside my window for sale.


There are other parties here besides the UCP and NDP. The Alberta Party has been trying to make headway, but hasn't, and NDP supporters were begging the people who vote AP to "lend their votes" to the NDP this time. Some did, which is why the NDP got more seats and the UCP lost seats (just not enough of a loss).


So in theory, no vote is wasted because in a democracy everyone gets to vote their conscience (and should, in my opinion). But in practicalities, when you have a party that is so toxic that their policies put peoples' lives at risk and they don't care... it's frustrating to see vote-splitting.


BTW, back to 2015... in the days leading up to the election, Harper's people saw the writing on the wall, that they were not going to win. Therefore the "opinion adjusters" - the people hired to flood social media and news comment sections with propaganda and "support" switched tactics... they started urging people to vote NDP in order for the Liberals not to win. Fortunately we knew the NDP weren't strong enough to win, and ignored those. I called one of them out in the CBC comment pages, pointing out that the day before, that account had been solidly pro-CPC, and now they were suddenly NDP? How stupid did they think the rest of us were?
 
If you're a leftist, woman, or minority in America, The Democrats don't actually have to promise meaningful policy because voting for them is basically a case of "tick this box to not be killed or enslaved". In addition to FPTP there are a bunch of other laws designed to screw third parties.
 
If you're a leftist, woman, or minority in America, The Democrats don't actually have to promise meaningful policy because voting for them is basically a case of "tick this box to not be killed or enslaved". In addition to FPTP there are a bunch of other laws designed to screw third parties.
Maybe WV democrats. Barbara Lee is my Congresswoman.
 
Wanna swap places? :deal:
 
I’ve voted for all the major UK political parties at one time or another, albeit without much success (pretty much whoever I’ve backed hasn’t done well!).

I’ve moved around a fair bit but always been in ‘safe seats’, where you could argue your vote doesn’t have much say and is likely to be wasted.

I don’t mind FPTP but it does lead to a rather underwhelming voting experience sometimes…
 
If you're a leftist, woman, or minority in America, The Democrats don't actually have to promise meaningful policy because voting for them is basically a case of "tick this box to not be killed or enslaved". In addition to FPTP there are a bunch of other laws designed to screw third parties.

In Canada it's formally referred to as 'strategic voting'. Informally it's referred to as "holding your nose" and voting for the party's candidate best able to defeat the party you don't want to win.

Either way, strategic voting, aka the ABC movement (Anybody But Conservatives) is what finally got rid of Stephen Harper in 2015 and put Justin Trudeau in as Prime Minister. As for me, I know that federally there's no chance of anyone winning here unless they're whatever the current conservative party is calling itself, so I vote my preference. That's usually NDP, has sometimes been Green, and once I went with a completely new party that had lofty goals but no chance, just because I liked the platform.

ABC means that in ridings where the Liberals had the best chance of winning, traditionally-NDP voters threw their votes to the Liberal candidate, and vice-versa.

Except in Quebec. Trudeau in large part owes his win to a Muslim woman who wanted to keep her niqab on while taking her citizenship oath. The Minister of Immigration and Citizenship said no. She took the government to court and won, just in time for the election.

How this contributed to Trudeau's winning is that the Liberals were in 3rd place at that time, as the NDP were the Official Opposition. Unfortunately the NDP leader who got them to that place, Jack Layton, died. His successor, Thomas Mulcair, didn't have half the vision and charisma that Layton did, and moreover was a federal leader from Quebec (they tend to be distrusted in Western Canada just because).

Mulcair was a believer in people's Charter rights and defended the woman's religious rights, to wear the niqab. This did not sit well with many voters in Quebec, as Quebec is becoming more secular over the years. The voters who were against anyone covering their face during the citizenship ceremony (the niqab covers the face and only the person's eyes are visible) and who weren't planning to vote either conservative or Bloc decided to vote Liberal - to punish Mulcair/NDP for supporting anyone wanting to cover their face for this ceremony.

So a lot of potential NDP votes in Quebec went to the Liberals instead. We woke up to not only a Liberal minority or a modest Liberal majority - but a large Liberal majority. On election night Stephen Harper decided to be a coward and had a lackey hand a note to the news anchors, announcing his resignation as party leader (leaders of parties that experience such a loss often do resign their leadership, but they have the integrity to do it on-camera, in person; Harper took the coward's way out).

So strategic voting worked federally. It almost worked for the most recent election in my province. We were desperate to get rid of the UCP, as they're taking this province further and further right, and the premier is determined to have us effectively separate while pretending she isn't.

If only those 1300 votes the NDP needed for a majority hadn't been spread out among so many ridings, it could have worked. The former health minister, Tyler Shandro, is hopefully going to be disbarred (he's a lawyer) for actions he took while in cabinet. If he were a private citizen he'd be in jail, or at least fined. He was defeated on election night by 7 votes. After the mandatory recount, his defeat stood - by 25 votes. He's demanding yet another recount, since he refuses to accept this. He especially doesn't like losing to a nurse. He had a very hostile attitude toward doctors and nurses, and decided to pick fights with them during a pandemic.

I don't know how many of those 25 votes were strategic. But thank goodness for them. They helped get rid of someone who gleefully put lives at risk, and thinks himself above the law, harassing doctors and nurses who were critical of him and his policies, invading their privacy, and making threats. Oh, and delisting meds for people like me - of course I could still get them if I wanted, but it would cost $$$/month. Oh, but wait... his WIFE runs an insurance company! There's the solution - pay his wife so I could afford the meds my doctor prescribed, instead of the substitute she didn't prescribe.

If anyone thinks his "blind trust" is really blind, I've got ocean-front property outside my window for sale.


There are other parties here besides the UCP and NDP. The Alberta Party has been trying to make headway, but hasn't, and NDP supporters were begging the people who vote AP to "lend their votes" to the NDP this time. Some did, which is why the NDP got more seats and the UCP lost seats (just not enough of a loss).


So in theory, no vote is wasted because in a democracy everyone gets to vote their conscience (and should, in my opinion). But in practicalities, when you have a party that is so toxic that their policies put peoples' lives at risk and they don't care... it's frustrating to see vote-splitting.


BTW, back to 2015... in the days leading up to the election, Harper's people saw the writing on the wall, that they were not going to win. Therefore the "opinion adjusters" - the people hired to flood social media and news comment sections with propaganda and "support" switched tactics... they started urging people to vote NDP in order for the Liberals not to win. Fortunately we knew the NDP weren't strong enough to win, and ignored those. I called one of them out in the CBC comment pages, pointing out that the day before, that account had been solidly pro-CPC, and now they were suddenly NDP? How stupid did they think the rest of us were?

We have strategic voting here. Its usually against the left as the rights alot better at it.
Usually it's for a seat to soak up that 1-2% thar goes to ACT or dilute an incoming Labour's options for coalition (2002/2017).
 
Prior to November 8, 2016, I would sometimes vote for a candidate that had no chance of winning if they were my favorite candidate.

Since then, I have reliably voted blue, even if a Green or other third-party candidate may have been the one I agreed with more.

I'd like to see more areas adopt ranked-choice voting, as Maine (IIRC) has done recently. It avoids the wasted vote problem. You can vote for who you really want to vote for even if it's someone who will have 1/10th of a percent of the vote, and put the likely-popular candidate whom you dislike the least as your 2nd or 3rd or 4th choice and still have them well above the candidate you really dislike.
 
Prior to November 8, 2016, I would sometimes vote for a candidate that had no chance of winning if they were my favorite candidate.

Since then, I have reliably voted blue, even if a Green or other third-party candidate may have been the one I agreed with more.

I'd like to see more areas adopt ranked-choice voting, as Maine (IIRC) has done recently. It avoids the wasted vote problem. You can vote for who you really want to vote for even if it's someone who will have 1/10th of a percent of the vote, and put the likely-popular candidate whom you dislike the least as your 2nd or 3rd or 4th choice and still have them well above the candidate you really dislike.

I woukd vote blue except maybe in Saphire blue areas then vote for whoever.
 
I watched part of the swearing-in ceremony for the Official Opposition yesterday.

It was strange to hear people swearing loyalty to King Charles III, rather than Queen Elizabeth II.
 
I watched part of the swearing-in ceremony for the Official Opposition yesterday.

It was strange to hear people swearing loyalty to King Charles III, rather than Queen Elizabeth II.

Yeah God Save the Quee erm King.
 
traditionally I think voting for the person who you want to be elected is never wasted.

I just see little reason to vote, unless you really know the person personally i.e. "yes this person is actually a good leader and I can attest to it" not "i'd like to think he'd/she'd make a good leader".
 
^That is a very good point that unless you actually know a person, it can be hard to judge whether they'd be qualified for the job. You can see whether their talking points on certain policies agree with yours. You can see whether they've been a politician for a long time. But it takes more time than most people are willing to invest (myself included, much of the time) to determine, "would this person really be a good leader/a good representative for my area?"

The larger the geographic area, the less likely you are to have enough knowledge to answer that.

It's part of why if I were to redesign the government from scratch, I'd have a more parliamentary system. Does it make sense for 150,000,000 people to vote for president when perhaps 3000 know one of the candidates well enough to have a somewhat-informed opinion of their leadership abilities? Expand it out to 30,000 to include the primaries, but we're still talking 0.02% of the electorate.

The same applies at the state level; I've never met nor expect to meet any of the governors or potential governors of my state, so does it make sense to have direct elections, versus the House of Representatives/Burgesses/etc. electing them - a body where presumably most of the members have interacted with the candidates to some extent?

Even that may be assuming a bit much of their ability to select good leaders as well, considering the nuclear bribery scandal that the Ohio House's self-elected speaker engaged in. He did eventually get kicked out (by his own party), but even in that relatively close-knit election, the voters weren't able to predict he'd take such corrupt actions. Although one could argue that perhaps the flaw was a change in the Speaker's personality for the worse, rather than a history of poor choices that should have been caught.
 
traditionally I think voting for the person who you want to be elected is never wasted.

I just see little reason to vote, unless you really know the person personally i.e. "yes this person is actually a good leader and I can attest to it" not "i'd like to think he'd/she'd make a good leader".

People seeing little reason to vote is why we have a pathological liar and her merry band of sociopaths running my province. If only a little over 1300 more NDP supporters had bothered to vote last month, we'd have an NDP government with sane people running things, instead of what we have now.

I don't need to have met Danielle Smith personally to know what a horrible premier she's been so far and will continue to be. I have met my local MLA and followed her time as Minister of Gutting Public Education enough to know that her current cabinet portfolio will turn out to be Minister of Gutting Public Health Care Even Worse Than Tyler Shandro Gutted it Last Time.
 
Top Bottom