babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » Strategic Voting...

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Strategic Voting...
Shatter Star
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6144

posted 16 June 2004 09:30 PM      Profile for Shatter Star     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm new to this board obviously, so first I want to say hey to everyone. This will be just the second federal election where I'll be able to cast a ballot, and I am very concerned about the possiblity of a Conservative government after June 28th. My question is about strategic voting. Do you think it works? Is it a good idea for me to consider voting Liberal to defeat the Conservatives (given that the Liberals have greater support in the polls than do the NDP) despite the fact that I would rather vote New Democrat?

Any suggestions or analysis would be really great. Thanks.


From: Kingston, Ontario | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
inukjuak
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4425

posted 16 June 2004 09:39 PM      Profile for inukjuak   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think strategic voting rarely gets you what you want. Every voter should vote his or her heart's sense of the formula (Best Party nationally) x (Best Candidate in the voter's riding). That is, if you love what the NDP stands for but your local NDP candidate is a dolt just out on parole, you might want to park your vote elsewhere. However, in general, "strategic voting" tends to be more (Lesser stinking big party) x (fear of worser stinking big party). Why should you vote for EITHER stinking big party and come out of the voting booth needing to wash your hands?

Another, in this case extremely strategic, consideration is that your vote for the NDP now means an additional $1.75 for the NDP every year until the next election from the federal elections fund. Throw your almost-toonie in the pot and that will strengthen the NDP's prospects for elections to come.


From: Lowell, MA | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 16 June 2004 10:57 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Normally I would be quite comfortable voting NDP.
Unfortunately, this time the Barbarians are at the Gate.
If Stephen Harper wins on June 28th, regardless of the size of his win, he will implement changes that no future PMs will be able to reverse.
The prosperity and sovereignty of Canada are at stake.
Think before you vote this time.

From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 16 June 2004 10:59 PM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have no probelm with people making themselves aware of the situation in their riding. The reality is that it is better for the NDP for the Liberal to win enough seats that the NDP plus Liberals are a majority. I personally would vote NDP no matter where I lived. But, I think that sophisticated people should look at the situation in their ridings. There are many ridings in BC and Saskatchewan where Liberals who want to stop the Conservatives should vote NDP since the Liberals are clearly not a factor. There are many seasts in Toronto and Atlantic Canada and various other cities, where it is close between the NDP and the Liberals and the Tories are out of it. In those cases it is clear that the NDP is the choice.

But (and I know that some people will hate me for saying this), there are also SOME seats in suburban areas and rural areas of Ontario where the NDP is very unlikely to win more than 15% of the vote. Hypothetically you might have a progressive Liberal like Paul deVilliers in Simcoe North being opposed by a religious right Tory crackpot and where it is in the NDP's interest to have more Liberals and fewer Conservatives. I can see the rational for strategic voting in those rare cases. Though i myself would still vote NDP.


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 16 June 2004 11:06 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If Stephen Harper wins on June 28th, regardless of the size of his win, he will implement changes that no future PMs will be able to reverse.

If Stephen Harper's wins a relatively weak minority, as polls seem to suggest, he have an extremely hard time doing anything. The Bloc Liberals and NDP will fight them every step of the way, and at the same time Harper will have to keep the wackos in his cabinet under control. I think he'll rue the day he was elected.

Tell me this, do you really think the Liberals deserve to get your $1.75? Do you really think they have done a good job setting a progressive agenda for Canada?

In the debate last night, Martin basically was talking about how the health system desperately needed money ect ect, but did he forget that he was the one that cut it and left it underfunded over the past ten years?

Oh, so now he's going to re-invest with a ten year plan, after making huge cuts over ten years? W ell jeez, as someone mentioned to me last night, why don't the Liberals just call their election platform "Climbing back to zero"?

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Hoffman ]


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 16 June 2004 11:13 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A conservative government will always be scary for some people, the fact is, we need to send more NDP mps to the House of Common in order to change the electoral system so we never have to think about strategical voting again.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 16 June 2004 11:17 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:
Normally I would be quite comfortable voting NDP.
Unfortunately, this time the Barbarians are at the Gate.

From your profile, I see that you are in Regina. What riding? If it's an NDP-Con race, then a "strategic" vote for the Liberals could give you the opposite of what you want: a Con MP.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 16 June 2004 11:29 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
If I see one more person post about those 175 pennies, I think I will puke. Please, financially support the best political party. Send them a $20. donation, or more, if you can. That will more than offset however you vote.

Then, think about what kind of country you want to live in. If you don't care to live in aGeorge Bush/Stephen Harper kind of country; think, campaign, and vote accordingly.

Look closesly at your individual riding as you approach voting day. Make it your business to know the local dynamics.

If it is clear thar the riding will be won by either the NDP or the Liberals; please vote NDP.

If there is no chance that either of those parties will win; then again, please vote NDP. The moral support and the paltry finances that flow from such vote will be very helpful.

If you are in a riding where a CPC candidate has a chance of winning by a "within reach" margin, vote for whoever has the best prospect of besting him/her.

Take all of your friends and assiciates through that analysis.

Your country has never needed, nor demanded anything more.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 16 June 2004 11:39 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The sad fact is , i think, many of these "strategic voters" dont bother to analysis the political situtation in their own riding in order to "vote accordingly." I am really sick of hearing from these strategic voters, they kill my NDP spirit.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 16 June 2004 11:40 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
All the same babblerwannabe, don't let the media talk of strategic voting discourage you. Polls show no reason to believe that it's happened so far. The last SES poll out today shows them at 19%, which is not going down. Strategic voting hasn't taken an effect, at least not yet.
From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 16 June 2004 11:40 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Hoffman:

If Stephen Harper's wins a relatively weak minority, as polls seem to suggest, he have an extremely hard time doing anything. The Bloc Liberals and NDP will fight them every step of the way, and at the same time Harper will have to keep the wackos in his cabinet under control. I think he'll rue the day he was elected.

Tell me this, do you really think the Liberals deserve to get your $1.75? Do you really think they have done a good job setting a progressive agenda for Canada?

In the debate last night, Martin basically was talking about how the health system desperately needed money ect ect, but did he forget that he was the one that cut it and left it underfunded over the past ten years?

Oh, so now he's going to re-invest with a ten year plan, after making huge cuts over ten years? W ell jeez, as someone mentioned to me last night, why don't the Liberals just call their election platform "Climbing back to zero"?

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Hoffman ]


My friend, and I say this genuinely, I hope and pray you are correct on this point.
I will answer your question this way - to me its not about the *%&@# money! The Liberal agenda is not perfect, to be sure, but it is better than what a Conservative government will do, and is roughly the same as what a New Democrat government would do.
There is no difference between the federal Liberal government and the Saskatchewan NDP government. Both are providing good government and are presiding over healthy economies where young people have every opportunity to succeed.

I for one will not be blamed some day for allowing the Barbarians to crash through the Gate in 2004, and I hope my friend that you won't either.

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: lonecat ]


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Marijuana Party of Alberta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6116

posted 16 June 2004 11:45 PM      Profile for Marijuana Party of Alberta   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
none of those Big money and Big Money wantabe political parties deserve your 1.75

either one if in power will do exactly the same as the other.

Scandle, robbing of the tax payers pockets, no representing, and more of the same.

your better off forming your own political party and keeping that $1.75 to yourself.


From: Edmonton, Alberta | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
speechpoet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3693

posted 16 June 2004 11:45 PM      Profile for speechpoet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is the most important election we have ever faced, with an opponent more dangerous than any we have ever had.

Except in 2000. And 1997. And 1993.

In each of those years, we were told again and again that we had to vote Liberal to defeat the Conservatives, and then Reform, and then the Alliance.

And by gum, it worked each time. Election after election, progressive Canadians held their noses and voted Liberal so we wouldn't get a government that would privatize health care, slash the social safety net or jeopardize basic human rights.

Instead, we got the Liberals cutting health, education and social spending. Silently presiding over the eruption of private hospitals and clinics. Raiding the EI surplus to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, while gutting benefits. Enacting the most Draconian security legislation since the War Measures Act, dragging out every human rights case as far as they could in the courts and getting behind same-sex marriage only, only once a) the Supreme Court made it necessary and b) it became a convenient wedge issue. And shrinking the Canadian government to its smallest size, relative to the economy, since the dawn of the Cold War.

So go ahead -- vote "strategically" if you must. Just resign yourself to being trapped in a logic that will demand you do it over, and over, and over again -- while the things you're trying to defend are being auctioned off piecemeal by people who see progressive values as nothing more than a way of rebranding the same old right-wing crap. And get used to the idea that, while you may get there a little more slowly, the Liberals are still taking us to the same desolate destination as Stephen Harper.


From: Sunny Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 16 June 2004 11:45 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Liberal agenda is not perfect, to be sure, but it is better than what a Conservative government will do, and is roughly the same as what a New Democrat government would do.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The agenda of the Liberals is far closer to the Conservatives than the NDP.

quote:
I for one will not be blamed some day for allowing the Barbarians to crash through the Gate in 2004, and I hope my friend that you won't either.

Oh give me a break. Since when did it become a crime to support a third party. I have next to nothing in common with the Liberal agenda, and I really don't like what Paul Martin has done to Canada in the last ten years. Why the hell would I vote for him?

I like to vote for someone, not against another. Don't try and guilt me for not blindly supporting someone who I so strongly disagree with.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 16 June 2004 11:48 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Marijuana Party of Alberta:
none of those Big money and Big Money wantabe political parties deserve your 1.75

either one if in power will do exactly the same as the other.

Scandle, robbing of the tax payers pockets, no representing, and more of the same.

your better off forming your own political party and keeping that $1.75 to yourself.


Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam. SPAM, SPAM, LOVELY SPAM!

Are you paying for all this online advertising?

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: Screaming Lord Byron ]


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 16 June 2004 11:51 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
From your profile, I see that you are in Regina. What riding? If it's an NDP-Con race, then a "strategic" vote for the Liberals could give you the opposite of what you want: a Con MP.

The constituency I live in is of no consequence.
I have a responsibility as an intelligent person, an educated voter and as a very progressive Canadian to do what I can to stop the Barbarians at the Gate, and so do you.

I will not be blamed by future generations for allowing the misery of Stephen Harper and his hordes to ravage social programs, undermine Canadian sovereignty and destroy opportunities for young people.

We all have to live in this country after June 28th.
The sad reality is that if the current polling trends continue, and I don't see why they won't, we are going to wind up with a Conservative MAJORITY government, and then the differences between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc won't make a bit of difference, because the Barbarians will have seized power.

I will continue to vote NDP provincially and proudly do so.
But I will not be bullied by anyone to do so federally in this election campaign.
I have work to do, so I won't continue this debate any further - obviously I am in the minority in this issue, and debating this issue further is pointless, because I'm going to get a lot of emotional arguments about why I should vote for Jack Layton (who is the better leader, by the way).

You can go ahead and tar and feather me for putting fear ahead of party label, but my progressive values haven't changed. At least I can face the future knowing I did my part to turn back the Barbarians at the Gate.


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 16 June 2004 11:55 PM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You can go ahead and tar and feather me for putting fear ahead of party label, but my progressive values haven't changed

No one attacked you. I just strongly disagree with your assesment.

BTW the riding in which you live is of extreme importance. In most of the Regina ridings the only way to stop the Conservatives is to support the NDP, and the Liberals are basically a non factor.

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: Jesse Hoffman ]


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 16 June 2004 11:56 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Hoffman:

Oh give me a break. Since when did it become a crime to support a third party. I have next to nothing in common with the Liberal agenda, and I really don't like what Paul Martin has done to Canada in the last ten years. Why the hell would I vote for him?

I like to vote for someone, not against another. Don't try and guilt me for not blindly supporting someone who I so strongly disagree with.



No, you give me a break.
I can see by your answers that you want Stephen Harper to become Prime Minister on June 28th so he can send thousands of young Canadians to be slaughtered in Iraq and other future U.S. invasions like Cuba and North Korea.
I can also see you want Medicare destroyed (shame on you), and that you want the Canadian dollar pegged to the U.S. dollar so the Canadian economy can be destroyed.

I will have none of this. I am outraged when I see or hear that the Liberals are no different than the Conservatives.
Would a Conservative government allow gays and lesbians to get married, like they should? Will a Harper government allow women to have the inherent right to choose whether or not to abort a fetus?

I want no part of your Conservative agenda!
No way, no how, no where!


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 17 June 2004 12:06 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Enough of the histrionics, please.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 17 June 2004 12:11 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:

The constituency I live in is of no consequence.
I have a responsibility as an intelligent person, an educated voter and as a very progressive Canadian to do what I can to stop the Barbarians at the Gate, and so do you.


As pointed out by alberio above, the riding you live in is of great consequence, if you're serious about "strategic voting". I just checked the postal code given in your profile, and ran it through the Elections Canada site. You're in Regina-Qu'Appelle. A seat won by the NDP last time, with the Alliance coming second. That means that voting Liberal will, if anything, increase the chance of a Conservative winning.

If you want to vote Liberal, that's up to you, but don't give us this nonsense about it being strategic. The strategic thing to do in that riding is vote NDP.

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 17 June 2004 12:17 AM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
It has come the time for many of us accross this country to decide whether we protet more, and first, our nation and its potential, or our particular ideosyncic "pet peeves"

At this point the existance of our coutry is threatened. ( and with it, much of the developing world which is using our political and legal system as a model)

Please, save your pwtty differences for another day. Look closely at your own riding, then work and vote to stop Harper. Without that, there is no "later " chance.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
leftcoastguy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5232

posted 17 June 2004 12:18 AM      Profile for leftcoastguy     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can see by your answers that you want Stephen Harper to become Prime Minister on June 28th so he can send thousands of young Canadians to be slaughtered in Iraq and other future U.S. invasions like Cuba and North Korea.
I can also see you want Medicare destroyed (shame on you), and that you want the Canadian dollar pegged to the U.S. dollar so the Canadian economy can be destroyed.

I will have none of this. I am outraged when I see or hear that the Liberals are no different than the Conservatives.
Would a Conservative government allow gays and lesbians to get married, like they should? Will a Harper government allow women to have the inherent right to choose whether or not to abort a fetus?


lonecat....it's over. As someone recently said, Liberals need to learn how to lose with dignity.

Chretien is gone.

We now have two 2 right wing parties in Canada.

Who do you thing right wing voters are going to choose? The Conservatives, not the Paul Martin liberal I'll campaign on the left, and govern on the right party.

As John Reynolds said today on CPAC there are 30-40 Liberal backbenchers that are going to support the Conservatives.

What Liberals should be focusing on right now is who is going to replace Paul Martin? It is time for a francophone leader so I think it will be either Stephane Dion, or Pierre Pettigrew. Who do you think it is going to be?

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: leftcoastguy ]


From: leftcoast | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138

posted 17 June 2004 12:24 AM      Profile for Stockholm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As John Reynolds said today on CPAC there are 30-40 Liberal backbenchers that are going to support the Conservatives.


This is a good point. There are a lot of very rightwing Liberals who are only Liberals in the first place becauyse they wanted to be on the governing side. Some of those people would be only too happy to jhoin the Conservatives to help them get a majority. Who would trust righwting freaks like Tom Wappel and Dan McTeague to stay Liberals if they got offered perks in exchange for becoming Conservatives.

If you elect an NDP MP, you can be almost 100% certain that that man or woman will oppose the Conservatives tooth and nail every step of the way. Elect a Liberal and there is a good chance they will screw you and join the Conservatives after the election!


From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 17 June 2004 12:29 AM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:

I can see by your answers that you want Stephen Harper to become Prime Minister on June 28th so he can send thousands of young Canadians to be slaughtered in Iraq and other future U.S. invasions like Cuba and North Korea.
I can also see you want Medicare destroyed (shame on you), and that you want the Canadian dollar pegged to the U.S. dollar so the Canadian economy can be destroyed.


Dude, he's not getting a majority. Do you think Gilles Duceppe is going to let him away with sending troops? No bloody way. And Harper's smart enough to know it.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 17 June 2004 01:12 AM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fortunately, I don't think I'm in a position where strategic voting would be tempting. Toronto Centre has a very good chance of being won by the NDP, so there's no question of not voting that way.

In the abstract, however, I just don't think I could do it. Voting Liberal would be to say that their theft, mismanagement and attitude of entitlement to power are all okay. It's saying, "Please, Paul Martin...break all your promises...again, I don't care." I really don't think I could live with myself for that, and for what? The only way to keep either Liberal or Conservatives honest is to have a strong NDP caucus in the balance of power.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jesse Hoffman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4903

posted 17 June 2004 08:40 AM      Profile for Jesse Hoffman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I can see by your answers that you want Stephen Harper to become Prime Minister on June 28th so he can send thousands of young Canadians to be slaughtered in Iraq and other future U.S. invasions like Cuba and North Korea.
I can also see you want Medicare destroyed (shame on you), and that you want the Canadian dollar pegged to the U.S. dollar so the Canadian economy can be destroyed.

Yes. That's exactly what I want.


From: Peterborough, Ontario | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 17 June 2004 10:06 AM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:


No, you give me a break.
I can see by your answers that you want Stephen Harper to become Prime Minister on June 28th so he can send thousands of young Canadians to be slaughtered in Iraq and other future U.S. invasions like Cuba and North Korea.
I can also see you want Medicare destroyed (shame on you), and that you want the Canadian dollar pegged to the U.S. dollar so the Canadian economy can be destroyed.


What's with all the Newspeak on the board this week? We want none of these things, obviously, and it seems like a really cheap shot to say these things of the supporters of the most progressive party in Canada, the party least likely to support such nonsense. I'd say that if you truly want these things not to come about, then you must vote NDP. I'm not convinced Martin wouldn't join a future US crusade, he's already undermined medicare by turning a blind eye to private clinics, including one he attended himself, and I don't see Paul Martin being particularly opposed to a customs union with the US, in fact, I think that's what he does want.
Sure, I understand the logic of strategic voting, and I leave it up to the individuals to decide the best use of their vote, but shame on you lonecat for laying such things at our door. You want someone to blame for the possibility of Stephen Harper PM? The guilty party is Paul Martin, who along with his Earnscliffe buddies has destroyed the Liberal vote machine that propelled Chretien to three majority governments and has totally fumbled the Liberal campaign. There's your guilty party.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 17 June 2004 12:07 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lonecat, if you missed this, you really need to read it:
quote:
Originally posted by Mike Keenan:
I just checked the postal code given in your profile, and ran it through the Elections Canada site. You're in Regina-Qu'Appelle. A seat won by the NDP last time, with the Alliance coming second. That means that voting Liberal will, if anything, increase the chance of a Conservative winning.

If you want to vote Liberal, that's up to you, but don't give us this nonsense about it being strategic. The strategic thing to do in that riding is vote NDP.


The case of Kingston (first post above) isn't quite as straightforward. It's a Liberal seat, and IF the Liberals lose it, it would be more likely to the Cons than to the NDP.

In general, if you prefer the NDP to the Liberals, and the Liberals to the Cons, then the only time you should consider voting Liberal is in a close Lib-Con race where the NDP is not a factor. This might become the case for Kingston.

If it's a safe seat for anyone, you might as well vote your conscience. If it's a Lib-NDP battle, you might as well vote NDP if you prefer them. If it's a Con-NDP battle, voting "strategically" for the Liberal is just plain dumb.

Another way to look at it is this: Unless you are out actively campaigning and swaying dozens or hundreds of voters, you have control over only one vote: your own. The odds of that one vote being decisive are almost nil. So you'd be better to just vote for what you really want, rather than voting for your 2nd choice to stop your last choice.

[ 17 June 2004: Message edited by: albireo ]


From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 17 June 2004 12:50 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There's also the question of what happens if a Conservative government is elected anyway? Who's going to be a more effective opposition? A defeated Liberal Party at war with itself or a renewed NDP caucus full of fresh faces? It makes no sense to vote for more Liberals in that situation.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 17 June 2004 12:56 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:

There is no difference between the federal Liberal government and the Saskatchewan NDP government.


I for one will not be blamed some day for allowing the Barbarians to crash through the Gate in 2004, and I hope my friend that you won't either.

[ 16 June 2004: Message edited by: lonecat ]


I think you are on the right track voting Liberal. Think of the kind of Canadian Robert Borks that Harper might appoint to the two Supreme court vancanics that are already open.

Can any of the babbler lawyers (there's a neat term!) answer this question? If the Liberals are reduced to a minority on June 28th, can they stay on and appoint people to those two Supreme Court vacancies before they even meet the House?

However, I have to say I am a bit confused over your statement that the Calvert NDs and the federal Liberals are near-duplicates. I thought Calvert represented the ND left?


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 17 June 2004 01:00 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:

The constituency I live in is of no consequence.

The sad reality is that if the current polling trends continue, and I don't see why they won't, we are going to wind up with a Conservative MAJORITY government, and then the differences between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc won't make a bit of difference, because the Barbarians will have seized power.



Well said. The riding is not the issue, the country is the issue. You are a very sophisticated student.

However, you don't need to worry about a Conservative majority, that won't happen.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 17 June 2004 01:02 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The riding is the only issue the voter has any influence over.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 17 June 2004 01:04 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
Mark my word: All Cons numbers are mere bogus, just like a party itself. There is no concrete base for this party and it's support. Word on the street is that people (even ex hardcore Tories) are pretty scared of Cons agendas. That is why Harper hangs out in the shadows of the backyards.
Another thing is to bring all progressives together as a good-will opposition to the 'scared bunch': old-minded crooks- Libs and Cons, who, for some reason, make themselves and some senseless members of the public believe that they can come to power and finally destroy the whole country.
I would say silly and stupid, rather then scary.
New World Progressives from all provinces-UNITE!

From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 17 June 2004 01:13 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Pool:
You are a very sophisticated student.
His main goal is to stop the Conservatives. He apparently lives in a riding that is a Con-NDP battle, with the Liberals a poor third. He is thinking of going against his own main goal by "strategically" voting for the 3rd-place Liberal, possibly allowing the Con to win. "Sophisticated" indeed.

From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Political Will
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4766

posted 17 June 2004 01:21 PM      Profile for Political Will     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A writer with the North East Avalon Times here near St. John's NL suggested a vote for the NDP is a vote for Harper

Worse yet, he's my girlfriend's father and used to be a Dipper. My response was published last week.

If we don't let these shots get fired without a retort that Martin is hardly an alternative, he's a conservative in playing at being liberal.


From: Red Square, The Rock | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 17 June 2004 01:44 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:

The constituency I live in is of no consequence.
. . .
The sad reality is that if the current polling trends continue, and I don't see why they won't, we are going to wind up with a Conservative MAJORITY government, and then the differences between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc won't make a bit of difference, because the Barbarians will have seized power.

I will continue to vote NDP provincially and proudly do so.
But I will not be bullied by anyone to do so federally in this election campaign.
. . .
You can go ahead and tar and feather me for putting fear ahead of party label, but my progressive values haven't changed.


Jesse Hoffman makes the key point, though.
What constituency you're in is *not* of no consequence. Voting out of fear can be a valid option--but if you're going to do it, you need to vote out of fear *effectively*. You can't become so hypnotized about the idea of making a grand sacrifice for the country that you in fact help your enemies by making the *wrong* sacrifice.
If you're in a constituency where the Liberals are stronger than the NDP, and are the only party likely to beat the Conservatives, then vote for them strategically if you fear the Conservatives enough that you feel it's worth it. But if you're in a constituency where that's *not* the case, voting Liberal would likely *help* the Conservatives get the seat. It's that simple. You can't just look at nationwide percentages and say I'll vote strategically for the party with more percent. The contest is divided into ridings whether you like it or not, and strategic votes have to reflect that reality or they're thrown away. There's nothing more pathetic than a strategic vote which fails to be strategic. If you vote your conscience and it backfires practically, at least you can console yourself that you stood on principle. But if you decide to vote out of pragmatics and it backfires practically, you're just a screwup.
Nobody should vote strategically without checking their riding out very carefully. And nobody should do anything Erik Poole is advising them to do, because he's a troll who will doubtless go back to some board and snicker to his friends that he suckered a dipper into shooting himself in the foot.

In any case, it's all moot. The Conservatives aren't going to form a majority. I think their poll movement is about finished. This is about the best election I've seen for voting your real beliefs.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 17 June 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by albireo:
His main goal is to stop the Conservatives. He apparently lives in a riding that is a Con-NDP battle, with the Liberals a poor third. He is thinking of going against his own main goal by "strategically" voting for the 3rd-place Liberal, possibly allowing the Con to win. "Sophisticated" indeed.


We all know what the game is. The game is about power, keeping it, holding it, treasuring it, enjoying it, dispensing it, using it. And if it's about to be taken away, making sure it goes to a place where it can't stay long, and therefore will soon be coming back to you.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Erik Pool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6137

posted 17 June 2004 03:19 PM      Profile for Erik Pool     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:

This is about the best election I've seen for voting your real beliefs.


Sure. Provided those beliefs are in fact "real", instead of some idealistic BS about what a better world it could all be, someday over the rainbow, ... etc.


From: Burnaby, BC | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 17 June 2004 03:26 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, much better to make promises, then conveniently forget them.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BugBear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3379

posted 17 June 2004 04:00 PM      Profile for BugBear   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:
Normally I would be quite comfortable voting NDP.
Unfortunately, this time the Barbarians are at the Gate.
If Stephen Harper wins on June 28th, regardless of the size of his win, he will implement changes that no future PMs will be able to reverse.
The prosperity and sovereignty of Canada are at stake.
Think before you vote this time.

The Cons ain't gonna get a majority. Generally speaking the polls are skued to the Right. Only by voting NDP will you get the best gov't possible at this time: Lib with NDP support: keep em honest and swing them towards compassion.


From: 2nd London Tractor Factory | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
BugBear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3379

posted 17 June 2004 04:09 PM      Profile for BugBear   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jesse Hoffman:
All the same babblerwannabe, don't let the media talk of strategic voting discourage you. Polls show no reason to believe that it's happened so far. The last SES poll out today shows them at 19%, which is not going down. Strategic voting hasn't taken an effect, at least not yet.

I think that strategic voting abounds. The Lib vote is far too high. New Democrats are there now. Remember no vote is wasted. The lower the NDP vote, no matter where it is the less compassionate is our society. Unless the enemy sees votes for the NDP they will not try to "buy" those votes. Even if it means pulling the NDP up from 7% to 9% where you live - do it. All progress in Cdn society has been accomplished by *both* of the other parties stealing the NDP prograamme.


From: 2nd London Tractor Factory | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
venus_man
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6131

posted 17 June 2004 04:31 PM      Profile for venus_man        Edit/Delete Post
I’ve heard may be 50 people saying that they scare of Cons, and therefore would not vote NDP but Libs-WRONG tactics. Fear is not a good adviser. Follow your heart! Jack doing all he can, almost 24 hours a day, shouldn’t we do our best, and support our views and believes. In unity our strength- old saying, proven to work in times like this. It is NDP time- period.
From: outer space | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Polunatic
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3278

posted 17 June 2004 04:45 PM      Profile for Polunatic   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Unless you are out actively campaigning and swaying dozens or hundreds of voters, you have control over only one vote: your own.
I agree. There's nothing strategic about a single vote motivated by fear.
quote:
Nobody should vote strategically without checking their riding out very carefully.
I agree with the logic behind the statement but still don't think it's strategic if it's left for individuals to figure out themselves.

Strategic voting should be the exercise of voting power by groups seeking to reach a particular objective. Without research, organizing, communication and co-ordination there can be no "strategic" voting.

I would also agree that once we have a proportional system of representation, "strategic" voting will not be necessary.


From: middle of nowhere | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Johan Boyden
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4661

posted 18 June 2004 12:46 PM      Profile for Johan Boyden   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Strategic voting is a tactic people who have nothing new to offer tell you to do.

Strategic voting undercuts the very principle of democracy: that you can make up you own mind which way is best and then cast a vote for that direction.

For example, if you want to send a clear message against big bussness in this election, you should vote for the Communist Party of Canada


From: the working class | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 18 June 2004 05:19 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How come lonecat is not responding?
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sean in Ottawa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4173

posted 18 June 2004 06:06 PM      Profile for Sean in Ottawa     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you like the NDP... Here is the problem with strategic voting:

you have to question what your strategy is.

If you support the Liberals to keep out the Cons you pay long term for that short term gain. If the Cons can't get a majority, that gain is quite minimal.

What if all NDpers voted Liberal to keep out the Cons? We would not have a hope in any seat.

We are unlikely to come from nothing to take seats we have no strength in now. It may be the better strategy if you live in a weak NDP area to vote NDP to retain a base to grow from. Sacrificing that may be more disastrous as you could be sacrificing NDP potential for many years. A strong NDP vote still sends a message that our message and values are being listened to. The winner, if it is not us, will be worried about losing to us later. If you want to see a federal NDP government in your lifetime, start voting for it -- lead, don't follow. We can't play this game of waiting to see someone else do it first.

Another strategy. Think delivering a message with your vote. If you believe in progressive policies, nobody will misunderstand the message of an NDP vote. A Liberal vote could mean anything. You don't even want to think about what a Con vote means.

Vote strategically! Vote for the party you want to see do well! If that is the NDP get out there and do it.

I don't think the Cons will get a majority and I actually don't think the BQ could work with them. His base at home would implode, permanently. If the BQ supported Harper to tear at the federal government of insitutions, Quebec federalists who voted for Duceppe's social democratic side would never do so again. I don't think Duceppe Hates Canada and would dismantle it from the head. He would like to pull Quebec out but he has no interest in destroying the remainder. A Harper government would have a very short shelf life...


From: Ottawa | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 18 June 2004 06:35 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
How come lonecat is not responding?

The green smiley face is NOT appreciated, for what it is worth.

Anyhow, I will quote what I said earlier, in this discussion...

"I will continue to vote NDP provincially and proudly do so.
But I will not be bullied by anyone to do so federally in this election campaign.
I have work to do, so I won't continue this debate any further - obviously I am in the minority in this issue, and debating this issue further is pointless, because I'm going to get a lot of emotional arguments about why I should vote for Jack Layton (who is the better leader, by the way)."

For what it is worth, I will vote NDP on June 28th if we appear headed for a Liberal minority or majority government. I have nothing more to say on this matter.


From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 18 June 2004 06:40 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But i thought it was explained to you already that if you want to vote stragetically, you would stragetically vote for the NDP in your riding because every riding has a different political situation and the national poll does not nesscarily reflect the reality of your riding.

"His main goal is to stop the Conservatives. He apparently lives in a riding that is a Con-NDP battle, with the Liberals a poor third. He is thinking of going against his own main goal by "strategically" voting for the 3rd-place Liberal, possibly allowing the Con to win."

Unless you are not really an NDP supporter..


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 18 June 2004 06:45 PM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This is EXACTLY why I said earlier I didn't wish to talk about this anymore.
I knew I would get a lot of emotional arguments.
Furthermore, I won't have YOU or anyone else questioning my loyalty to the party. I think its very shameful that up and comers in Tommy Douglas' party are filled with the likes of you. GOODBYE.

From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953

posted 18 June 2004 06:56 PM      Profile for babblerwannabe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
whatever.
I cant help it if you cant defend your own position for planning to vote for the liberal "strategically"

Maybe i am missing something but it just doesnt make any sense to me.

[ 18 June 2004: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]


From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 June 2004 06:58 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
But (and I know that some people will hate me for saying this), there are also SOME seats in suburban areas and rural areas of Ontario where the NDP is very unlikely to win more than 15% of the vote. Hypothetically you might have a progressive Liberal like Paul deVilliers in Simcoe North being opposed by a religious right Tory crackpot and where it is in the NDP's interest to have more Liberals and fewer Conservatives. I can see the rational for strategic voting in those rare cases.

I agree with this completely. If I lived in a riding where the NDP didn't stand a chance whatsoever, and the race was close between a Liberal and a Reformatory, I'd very seriously consider holding my nose.

Let's face it, we can spin the "they're exactly the same" rhetoric all we want, but we know darn well that it's just not true. Our best shot for change is a Liberal minority government that has to negotiate with a strong NDP. And to get that, you need more Liberals than Reformatories to get in - so if the dipper in my riding has no chance, I have no problem justifying a Liberal vote.

Luckily, I'm not in that situation, thank goodness.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
East/West
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4987

posted 18 June 2004 07:10 PM      Profile for East/West     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:
This is EXACTLY why I said earlier I didn't wish to talk about this anymore.
I knew I would get a lot of emotional arguments.
Furthermore, I won't have YOU or anyone else questioning my loyalty to the party. I think its very shameful that up and comers in Tommy Douglas' party are filled with the likes of you. GOODBYE.

Most people are logical. Your faulty reasoning offends that sense of logic.


From: west bank of the east branch of the Don | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 18 June 2004 07:35 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:
This is EXACTLY why I said earlier I didn't wish to talk about this anymore.
I knew I would get a lot of emotional arguments.
Furthermore, I won't have YOU or anyone else questioning my loyalty to the party. I think its very shameful that up and comers in Tommy Douglas' party are filled with the likes of you. GOODBYE.

Where are the "emotional arguments" of which you speak? Several of us have given clear reasons why voting Liberal in your riding is not a good strategy. Quite logical, not emotional at all really.


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 18 June 2004 08:19 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm in the riding where Ujjal Dosanjh (a nominall progressive former NDP premier) is facing the Cons, with Bev Meslo in the rear for the NDP. I'll be voting for Bev, because Ujjal or the other guy needs to know that they will be answering to a progressive element in their riding.

Admittedly, if it is Ujjal or the Conservative, I'll take Ujjal, but I think he's got it nailed. I'm voting NDP, because until everyone who likes the NDP votes for them, social values and progressive politics will be sidelined in this country.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
LukeVanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2735

posted 18 June 2004 08:31 PM      Profile for LukeVanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Most people I talk to misunderstand the meaning of strategic voting. Many people mix the parliamentary system up with the presidential system. They think they are voting for Layton or Martin, and confuse it with a vote for Nader or Gore/Kerry. Most people (thanks to the Liberals) simply believe, like lonewolf, that voting "Liberal" in every circumstance is the strategic vote, even when in many circumstances the Liberals are not in the equation.

In BC, for instance, a strategic vote for the Liberals will likely only prevent Stephen Rogers from defeating Stephen Owen in Van-Quadra. Elsewhere Liberal support is falling and it is safe to say you can park your vote with the NDP, because the NDP is the primary competition with the Cons in most ridings. Ujjal is safe in Van South so a vote for Meslo is better... besides, do you really want to vote for Ujjal after what he did? Or Haggard in Coquitlam/New West? Liberals do not deserve NDP votes in any riding.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 June 2004 11:12 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Stockholm:
there are also SOME seats in suburban areas and rural areas of Ontario . . . where it is in the NDP's interest to have more Liberals and fewer Conservatives.

IF you know the sitation in both the local riding and nationally with great accuracy, yes.

If the Liberals rebound and are on the verge of a majority, it would be not be strategic to elect another Liberal. If the Liberals keep dropping, the Conservatives are on the verge of a majority, but you are sure the Liberals are still ahead of the NDP in your riding, it would be strategic to vote Liberal.

The problem is, people who think they are voting strategically don't have polls taken nationally and locally the night before the vote. And even if they did, some voters who read those polls in the newspaper the morning of election day would change their vote, either because they had been undecided, or because of a bandwagon effect, or because of strategic voting.

It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: you just can't observe accurately enough to make strategic voting work right.

[ 18 June 2004: Message edited by: Wilfred Day ]


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Charles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 200

posted 18 June 2004 11:16 PM      Profile for Charles   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If lonecat is reaing this, and we know he is, I am fascinated by his unwillingness to answer the question:

--Do you understand what strategic voting really is?--

Do you actually live in Lorne Nystrom's riding? Do you not understand that voting Liberal would be the OPPOSITE of "strategic voting"? Do you not understand that voting Liberal would help to elect a Conservative, the very thing you claim to be trying to avoid? Do you not understand why people would be frustrated with you for claiming a desire to "vote strategically" yet to also be acting in a manner that would achieve EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE RESULT you claim to desire? What about this scenario confuses you?

If you live in Wascana, fine a Liberal vote might make sense "strategically" to keep a Tory out (though it's still an absurd counter productive act, but that's for another discussion), but if you live in a riding where the NDP ARE FIRST/THE INCUMBANT and the Liberals are A DISTANT THIRD, can you now understand the simple math here - a strategic vote means voting NDP!!!

This isn't meant to attack you, it's to point out that your stated objective and your plans to achieve that objective are at opposite end, there is total disconnect there and I simply don't understand why you are so unwilling to comprehend that.

I live in a riding where its the same situation. My incumbant is a New Democrat. A co-worker suggested she should vote "strategically" for the Liberals. I slowly, painstakingly pointed out to her that was, well, wrong and a total miscalculation and made no sense mathematically. She voted NDP in the advance today. She slowly understood that Liberal Party propaganda aside, so called "strategic voting" doesn't mean "voting Liberal" it means voting for the person best positioned to beat the Conservative. In Halifax that's the NDP. In Qu'Appelle it's the NDP. I still think it's a simplistic short term harmful act but if you're going to do it at least understand what it means.

My co-worker finally got it, why is this lost on you? Instead of getting defensive why not listen to why your logic doesn't make sense in your particular case (unless again, you live in Wascana which would be a very different situation). No one's attacking you they are just trying to educate you about something you quite honestly don't seem to understand...


From: Halifax, NS | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca