Site Administrator Of:

Supporter Of:

Archives

Some Blogwars, & support of ABC (Anyone But Conservative) Political Strategy..

I just noted this morning that we have a mini-blogwar brewing between (who else) Jason and Antonio. I dont normally like inter-blog battles.. but watching those 2 spar is almost as good as watching the NHL playoffs (ok, a bit of an overstatement, but I’m a Maple Leafs fan who gets bored easily).

While I wish to stay away from getting myself embroiled in that brouhaha, I feel I do need to respond to this slight shot taken my direction by Antonio this AM:

Now that we have rationalized making political orphans out of 10 000 Liberal Nova Scotians, why not do it in the 25 or so other ridings where Liberal votes allow the Tories to beat the NDP. If the goal is to beat Stephen Harper, we should be willing to make political orphans out of these 250 000 Canadian Liberals as well…after all, the ends do justify the means, right Scott…

I’ll respond with the very same response I would have given pre-Dec 12th/06, when I was a mere Progressive Blogger only and not a Liberal member… and one with a history as anyone knows who has been reading our site of being ABC (Anyone But Conservative) or ABH (Anyone But Harper).

This following proposal is going to make me a heretic in the eyes of some Liberals, but it cant be any worse of a reaction then what Antonio is getting at his site, and we bloggers are for posting opinions and not being muzzled by the Party hierarchy, so what the heck.

My response to Antonio is that if not running in 25 Tory ridings where the CPC is the MP incumbent, the NDP is 2nd and we’re third, means a majority of those CPC seats get lost – even IF the NDP wins – then so be it. If it means less Conservatives getting elected and a loss of power for them, I’d go for that in a minute.

I would demand of the NDP however to reciprocate in other Tory incumbent ridings where the Liberals placed 2nd and the NDP by placing third had taken away or split enough non-CPC votes to allow the Tory candidate to be elected to do the same for us.. in at least the equivalent or close to the equivalent # of ridings that we step aside for them (I believe if you look at riding results across Canada, the NDP finished 2nd in about 30-40 ridings in 2006. I’ll have to check that to be sure, and I don’t have an exact breakdown how many of those were Tory vs Liberal wins.. still.. that would be a sizable # of potential seats for the NDP if they were to agree to the proposal).

As for the charge we are “orphaning” voters using that method… that’s very simple to solve. We then implement electoral reform as Dion and May have vaguely mentioned, and thus we can remove having to “orphan voters’ by making sure we electorally reform our system to have a form of Proportional Representation so that all votes are counted. Therefore, we’d be using the ABC/ABH strategy only once in order to unelect Harper

The ends justifies the means, as Machiavelli used to say.

Share

11 comments to Some Blogwars, & support of ABC (Anyone But Conservative) Political Strategy..

  • Hi!
    Please visit our website : http://toutsaufharper.ca and share it to your readers. It resumes tories action over the last 2 years on a graphical timeline.

  • Oshawa

    I love this site…but I don’t see any ABF’s out there…Anybody but Flaherty…if they’re here…we need them in Oshawa..

  • Militant Liberal

    You are absolutly right. Im disgusted with all this putting party over country. I would vote for the party of satan candidate if it meant a Conservative would lose his seat.
    It’s not surprising that much of the opposition to this comes from blue liberals who are still working to get rid of Dion and put in their boy Ignatiaff.

  • here here! i’m not a fan of stv or mmp, but anything is better than the status quo.

  • Scott, I’m ABH as well (actually, I should have called my blog Anybody But Harper, but oh well), and I’m completely with you on this. PR is important. However, it won’t happen before the next election, which will happen this year, and as Greg says, it promotes proportionality.

  • This situation illustrates how problematic our first-past-the-post system really is in a multi-party state. We tried to make it work for about 60 seats as a 3-party system (the result being that we see and increasing number of MPs winning with 30-35%, and a parliament that often bears no relation to the first-preferences of Canadians). The situation became even more odd after 1993 with the right vote split across 3 parties, due to the birth of Reform and the Bloc, which allowed the Liberals to rule unopposed for over a decade (with 38% of votes resulting in 60%+ of seats). It is also resulted in one of the founding parties, the Tories, being killed off — subsumed into the new Conservative Party. By limiting electoral choice on the right, the situation has improved somewhat in terms of the vote/seat mismatch (but with the obvious problem that we have less choice now). But suddenly, with the rise of the Greens, we are back to trying to make an electoral system that was designed for a 2-party system work with a 5-party system. That leads to the kinds of arrangement made between the Greens and Liberals. If the progressive vote is now being split across 3 parties (possibly 4 in Quebec), if non-compete arrangements aren’t made, then the other natural result will be a merger of progressive parties (the same as happened on the right), again limiting choice. Some have even speculated that the rise of the ADQ in Quebec (and subsequent fall of the PQ) suggests that some of the old rural Quebec conservative vote may well re-align with the new Conservatives. With consolidation happening on both the left and right, you see where this is headed: the winner-takes-all nature of our electoral system tends back towards 2-party rule, which is of course, what it is designed to do (at best, it will lead back to 3-party rule). What this deal between the Liberals and Greens suggests is that it is long time to add an element of proportionality to our electoral system so that Canadians can have real voter choice where their votes really count — a system where we keep our local MPs but add regional MPs elected on a proportional basis. Only then will voters have real choice and get the parliament they really asked for.

  • We’re a very poor blogging affiliate mushroom.. no one’s paid their dues in a couple of years :em01:

  • mushroom

    Scott,

    Can these 50 candidates run on both the Liberal and NDP ticket, get funding from the riding associtions of the two parties, and have the title Liberal-NDP printed on the election ballot?

    Or they have to be funded through Progressive Bloggers and have the website listed on the party list?

  • Scott, lets just hope the Raptors put together a long playoff run, its like a battle between goofy, and nerdy bloggers!

  • Why not just work like hell for proportional representation? Then you won’t need to engage in complicated arrangements of “who runs where”. Let the voters build the House they want and then build coalitions. Much cleaner and simpler.

  • The short term ends may justify the means, but what of the long term ones?

    I’ve said before elsewhere that I if were a Central Nova Liberal, I’d be staying home or spoiling my ballot on E-day. Until very recently, Greens in most ridings felt they didn’t have any real choice at the polls. Why turn off so many voters? Why not work on some real solutions instead?

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.