Strategic Voting

[outlandish]

To what extent do you believe in using Strategic Voting? 

This comes into play particularly in multi-party systems. A classic example would be the situation where you have 3 contenders in an electoral district, A B and C. Say C aligns with your values perfectly, B is not your ideal candidate, but preferred over A. In this election, it appears that A and B are in a tight race, and that C has little chance of winning. 

Do you vote for C and stick to your values, or do you compromise and vote for B, knowing that they are preferable to A?

[Cocolove]

This is such a good question. I think it depends on the circumstance. If for example Leo was running for president and had no chance I would still vote for example for Bernie, but maybe in a less important election I would vote for C if  it would have a positive effect on their political career or work in other areas if they got a higher percentage of votes.

[Forestluv]

I would vote for the highest consciousness candidate with a shot at winning, so in this case - most likely candidate B.

However, if A and B were similar and I only had a slight preference for B and really liked C - I’d vote C to help support that party for the long run.

[Leo Gura]

The opposite of strategic voting is called foolish voting.

Yes, don't be a fool. Values don't mean shit if they are not actualized. It helps no one to vote for people who cannot win.

[Girzo]

I vote for C and hope they get enough votes to get in and form a coalition with B. People are going to support C anyways and if they don't get enough votes they all go wasted, which only helps A.

That's a current situation in Poland.

A being 'Law and Justice' party, currently ruling party from the right. Catholicism, nationalism, drug war, anti-LGBT, you get the idea, topped with a lot of social programs that are based on giving money out directly, for example to parents with 2 kids and more, additional welfare for seniors, etc.

B is a mixture of all the Blue, Orange and Greenish parties that have united to avoid getting crushed by A. Lacks serious leadership. Have ruled for 8 years and during that time were selling the country to big corporations. That caused a backlash and current situation.

C is progressive left. Has great values but lacks maturity and experience with actually being in charge of a country.

[tenta]

There's no point in voting andrew yang when he himself thinks he is unelectable

[Nahm]

@outlandish Don’t forget E.

[See]

On 8/13/2019 at 11:58 PM, Leo Gura said:

The opposite of strategic voting is called foolish voting.

Yes, don't be a fool. Values don't mean shit if they are not actualized. It helps no one to vote for people who cannot win.

@Cocolove mentioned a hypothetical situation where you, Leo, were running. It occurs to me that it could be worth voting for someone who won't win if the intention is to demonstrate support and raise awareness. Although this may be seen as foolish because of probable lack of actualization for the election in question, there is the long-term to think about. It could alter the balance in subsequent elections, see (), or have other unforseen affects in the nearer term if support is demonstrated.

 

This is my first post here. I hope it's OK to revive this thread. I live in the UK where a general election is fast approaching and I've just watched the first part of 'Conscious Politics', which is how I ended up on the forum searching for the term 'voting' - I have a decision to make!

 

It's my belief that strategic voting isn't necessarily the best option, but would perhaps tend to be. People often criticise the first-past-the-post voting system seen in many countries and I can see disadvantages with it. Doesn't it create two-horse races, strategic voting and a lack of oportunity for alternative prospects to develop? (I suppose variations in voting systems country to country make this a little tricky to discuss)

[Bno]

On 8/13/2019 at 6:58 PM, Leo Gura said:

The opposite of strategic voting is called foolish voting.

Yes, don't be a fool. Values don't mean shit if they are not actualized. It helps no one to vote for people who cannot win.

Isn't this strategy what keeps us stuck in a two-party system (really 1 party if you consider who is really setting the rules) and why we don't see real progressive change happening?

[Bno]

Let's consider this in terms of what a conscious person wants most, which is implementation of progressive policies and in perspective of the 2016 US presidential election:

A - Donald Trump, a misogynistic fascist billionaire who depicts himself as an outsider of the governmental establishment and a populist. He tries to cater to people that are upset after 8 years of neoliberalism under Obama and possibly also upset at the other former neoliberal presidents (Bush, Clinton, etc.). The media is on his ass all day, every move he makes and every tweet he makes becomes headlines on the mainstream news. He criticizes our foreign policies, wars, and trade policies that objectively haven't helped the 99% financially. Even though he really is part of the club (the elite), the media is always onto him, thus people are always on to him.

B - Hillary Clinton, an establishment candidate who takes corporate money from the rich elites like big oil, the military industrial complex, wallstreet, etc. who have screwed up our economy during the housing market crash and the 7 wars we are currently in (2 started by Bush and 5 started by Obama). She is the mainstream media darling and criticism on her is very limited. Her neoliberal platform is hawkish, and her record as Secretary of State caused more harm to countries like Lybia, Honduras, and Yemen. She also says she will continue Barack Obama's policies, in which the majority of poor and middle class people did not see a net benefit from during the 8 years. However, because Obama was a Democrat who spoke well, did some minor tweaks around the edges in order to compromise with Republicans, and was good on social issues, many people were asleep (UNCONSCIOUS) about the environmental (overexploitation of oil and military and becoming number 1 country in fracking), economic (kicking millions of people out of their homes, millions of Americans still uninsured with healthcare, hundreds of thousands going bankrupt over medical bills, student loan debt skyrocketting), and foreign political (millions of civilians killed in the 7 countries we're still bombing) problems he did not fix. Chances are many people would remain unconscious under another neoliberal corporate Democrat.

C - Jill Stein, a Green Party candidate with low chance of winning as a result of people's preconceived notions that third party never wins and limited media exposure. Overall, her policies appear as if they will benefit the environment. She is also not nearly as influenced by big money interests as standard politicians are. 

D - Gary Johnson, a Libertarian. Sorry I can't say much about him other than that and that his ideas can take more votes away from Trump than Clinton.

E - Stay home

For me, I stayed true to my authentic beliefs and voted for C. I could not put myself to vote for someone that can cause more harm than good to the people. I would also add that if Hillary Clinton had won, the neoliberal problems of this country would exacerbate and people would remain asleep and uncritical. And then when the majority of the country are tired of the wealth inequality, there's a high chance people would vote for a worse neoliberal in a Republican if no other progressive like Bernie Sanders came into the race. And at that point, where would our environmental crisis be?

At least with Trump, it's easier to get him out after 4 years and run a progressive candidate in 2020. People are more awake and many can analyze and become conscious about why we have a fascist as president. What led to this crazy orange man to win? Why did people vote for him?

Also, we saw how Bernie Sanders almost beat Hillary Clintom and that if it wasn't for the DNC cheating he actually would have beaten her. He also could've beaten Trump since he would've spoken about the economic problems poor white people face and how his plans would work and Trump's are lies. Hillary just went for personal attacks and she had her history against her.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Bno

[outlandish]

1 hour ago, See said:

This is my first post here. I hope it's OK to revive this thread. I live in the UK where a general election is fast approaching and I've just watched the first part of 'Conscious Politics', which is how I ended up on the forum searching for the term 'voting' - I have a decision to make!

We encourage reviving old threads here, rather than starting new ones in the same topic. It helps keep the forum organized.

Welcome to the forum @See and I really hope the UK elections go well. Good luck!

[tsuki]

classic

[silene]

This video clearly explains the problems with first past the post. I used to do what we call tactical voting here in the UK, but that just reinforces the two party system, so I stopped and now just vote for who I mostly agree with, rather than who I think will get in. Mind you, we've only got ourselves to blame, back in 2011 we had a referendum for a slightly more proportional system, which was rejected. 

[See]

5 hours ago, silene said:

This video clearly explains the problems with first past the post. I used to do what we call tactical voting here in the UK, but that just reinforces the two party system, so I stopped and now just vote for who I mostly agree with, rather than who I think will get in. Mind you, we've only got ourselves to blame, back in 2011 we had a referendum for a slightly more proportional system, which was rejected. 

Are you yet aware of this proposal by Jeremy Corbyn? I've watched the first part of Leo's 'Conscious Politics' series, and this proposal is claiming to tackle many of the problematic aspects of modern politics as described by Leo. It seems like Corbyn wants to break the revolving door to lessen the links between big business and government. It's a coincidence that I watched Leo's video within the last few days and now there's an announcement of intentions to correct a large aspect of the devilry Leo described...

[silene]

@See  I hadn't seen that proposal, thanks for the link. Sounds a great idea, and I've got a couple of my own. How about extending the Freedom of Information to private corporations, PLC companies, to improve transparency of where they spend lobbying money & other info? Also extending the Right to Buy to private tenants to help make housing more affordable and secure. 

But that's all for the future. I'm only voting on one issue this time, Brexit, to get that out of the way, as it cuts across political parties, the main ones are divided. Then I would say we need another general election in Spring to get to grips with the other issues. Actually I've already voted, I think postal voting is great!

[Leo Gura]

On 12/3/2019 at 2:12 PM, Bno said:

Isn't this strategy what keeps us stuck in a two-party system (really 1 party if you consider who is really setting the rules) and why we don't see real progressive change happening?

Change doesn't happen for much more profound reasons: because people aren't conscious enough to want it or handle it.

Just because you have more than two parties doesn't automatically guarantee that good stuff will happen without resistance.

And wasting your vote is not gonna help change the 2 party system.

[silene]

"wasting your vote is not gonna help change the 2 party system."

I don't think my vote for party C is wasted. It is counted for the party C which I prefer so that everyone knows how much support they have, and encourages them to continue to exist and have good policies. If, on the other hand, I vote for party B which I don't agree with just to try and keep the even more disagreeable party A out, there's no data to record why I did that. Party B will take my vote as if I was a full supporter  and agree with their manifesto. Then I will be complaining about them for the next 5 years or so but only have myself to blame. It's worse than not voting at all IMO, or spoiling your ballot paper, because at least that sends a message that the system is failing me. Party B has as much interest in maintaining the 2 party system as party A, why should they change it? 

Edited December 6, 2019 by silene

[Bno]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And wasting your vote is not gonna help change the 2 party system.

No vote is a wasted vote. You're voting for your beliefs and against what you do not believe in. I would rather do that than succumb to an illusion that I have to vote for one or the other. 

Edited December 6, 2019 by Bno

[Thewritersunion]

Change is change, regardless of the results 

[Emerald]

On 8/13/2019 at 2:19 PM, outlandish said:

To what extent do you believe in using Strategic Voting? 

This comes into play particularly in multi-party systems. A classic example would be the situation where you have 3 contenders in an electoral district, A B and C. Say C aligns with your values perfectly, B is not your ideal candidate, but preferred over A. In this election, it appears that A and B are in a tight race, and that C has little chance of winning. 

Do you vote for C and stick to your values, or do you compromise and vote for B, knowing that they are preferable to A?

I'm fully on the side of strategic voting. Otherwise, you're just throwing your vote away.

You need to vote like you're waging a war. You can't always have anything perfect. So, if you're throwing battles just to be "pure" or "voting with integrity", then I think that's a person losing sight of the overall goal of the war being waged and prioritizing their own identity concerns. 

And if it's your goal to be pure, you will lose the war. 

That said, there is great power in putting your foot down when things are mostly equal between the candidates. This is also a viable strategy for the war.

But if you're faced with the choice between a Fascist and a Neo-Liberal... vote the Neo-Liberal even if they suck. But if you have an election between two Neo-Liberals and things will be otherwise the same... vote for what you actually want and try to change the system.