Strategic voting can be effective
Re Why strategic voting doesn’t really work, Opinion Oct. 4
For the majority of Canadians the prime concern in this election is getting rid of Stephen Harper. This is more important than even such pressing issues as the environment, daycare, refugees, free trade, infrastructure. Unless we oust Harper, the rest doesn’t matter because Harper will continue to tear away the guts — and decency — of our country.
Do we really have to wait until after the election to slap ourselves in the head and scream, “Oh, it would have been so easy to block his ‘majority’ ”?
All we require — it’s still possible — is for the Liberals and New Democrats to exhibit a modicum of selflessness and each identify 10 ridings where one or the other has no chance of winning but where a united opposition could prevent a Conservative from slipping through with 40 per cent of the vote.
This would cost the parties very little while allowing the country, for once, to experience true majority rule.
Help us, please, we’re begging you. Jerry Ginsburg, Thornhill
It’s telling that columnist Bob Hepburn had to a resort to an example from 1999 to make his case about the futility of strategic voting, because his arguments are so last century.
It is difficult to prove that strategic voting works or doesn’t work because there is no accurate way to measure it. But today strategic voting is alive and well based on two key facts:
First, many voters are primarily motivated to cast a vote to prevent a given candidate, leader or party from winning.
Second, there is now polling data easily available in many ridings that inform voters who is competitive, sponsored by organizations such as LeadNow.ca.
Many ridings are decided by a very small percentage of votes, and so it doesn’t take many strategic voters to tip the balance. And in a close election the outcome in a handful of ridings can decide who forms government. Keith Neuman, The Environics Institute for Survey Research, Toronto
Let me be clear: I am not a panicky progressive; I am a terrorized panicky progressive. Terrorized and panicky is supposed to be the hallmark of conservative voters, not progressives.
But, after 9 years of Harper’s Conservative rule, progressives have earned the right to be terrorized by the prospect of four more years.
Progressives also have the right to be panicky because we are being betrayed by the pallbearers of Canadian progressive democracy: Justin Trudeau and Thomas Mulcair. Keith Parkinson, Cambridge
When Stephen Harper wins a fourth term in office on Oct. 19, I hope he takes the time to sit down and write Messrs Mulcair and Trudeau effusive thank-you letters. By constantly battling one another, the Opposition leaders are handing him the election on a platter. Ray Jones, Toronto
A big thanks to Bob Hepburn for clarifying why strategic voting is only effective if we choose the candidate with the best chance of defeating the one we want eliminated. Now, Toronto Star, please take the next logical step of keeping voters informed of the relevant odds in their respective riding between now and election day. Terry Poulton, Toronto
Thanks for Hepburn’s strategic voting reminder. But he did not answer the billion-dollar question. Is there a website that will graph 10 years of voting results in your riding by party, simply by entering your postal code?
You will find such precious data at VoteTogether.ca. If you like Harperman, vote Conservative. But if you want to kick out the bums, then vote for the strongest alternative — not the two weaker ones.
Knowledge is power. Will Barium, Mississauga
Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau, please do not succumb to Stephen Harper’s dirty tricks. Do not allow him to split the vote. Please, please work together if only for a year.
We must defeat Harper. Ruth Crafts, Kingston