Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Fog at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2012
Fog
29°/18°
It is forcast to be Chance of a Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2012
Chance of a Thunderstorm
31°/19°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
26°/16°

16 Comments

news

Being Strategic and Voting


Franz Hartmann is the executive director of the Toronto Environmental Alliance. In a series of posts leading up to the municipal election this fall, he’ll be discussing environmental priorities for the city and assessing the leading candidates’ environmental policies.

Three-way elections like Toronto’s mayoral race always lead to the same question: should a person vote strategically for another candidate if their number one choice appears unlikely to win? Political pundits love this question because it allows them to recycle decades-old arguments either for or against strategic voting. The fact is it’s extremely difficult to determine—until after the election—whether strategic voting will help or hurt in achieving a particular outcome. In the end, people who care about strategic voting will have to decide what to do based on what their gut tells them, not the evidence.
For those who care about building a green Toronto, here is a quick reality check about strategic voting: stop agonizing about which mayoral candidate to vote for. Instead, put your energy into getting people who otherwise aren’t planning on voting to vote, and to vote for the environment. Our collective focus should be on electing a majority of city councillors who are committed to building on the last ten years of environmental progress. (Remember, the mayor only has one vote.)


In 2006, only 39.3% of eligible voters cast a ballot. Too often, advocates focus on getting people who are already planning to vote to adopt their priorities. The challenge with this approach is that someone who is going to vote likely already has strong opinions and is less open to considering new points of view.
The big opportunity lies with the 60% who didn’t vote last time. If even a small portion of this group can be convinced to vote, and to vote for a candidate who is committed to the environment, we have a much better chance of building a green city than we do by agonizing over strategic voting.
With this in mind, the first step is to increase voter turnout. The best way to do that is to focus on your friends, family, neighbours, and co-workers that have shown no interest in voting. Then, when you’ve got them thinking about voting, talk to them about voting for the environment.

With this in mind, here are five tips about what you can personally do to increase voter turnout:

  1. Talk, talk, talk to people who aren’t engaged about the election (and, where appropriate, the environment). It’s not often that talking actually leads to something, but this time it will. People don’t vote because they have other priorities, haven’t thought about it, or because they don’t think their vote counts. But it’s difficult to be apathetic about (or ignore) something when everyone around you is talking about it. This is a lesson advertisers learned long ago: when they create buzz for a product, people start paying attention. You need to help create this buzz.
  2. Think outside the green box. While the environment may be the number one issue for you (it is for me), others may have different priorities. A great place to go for non-partisan information on a host of issues (eg. city finances, arts, housing, public transit, the economy, the environment) is OneToronto. (Once they are there, they can look at our report card, which scores candidates’ stances on six priority issues.
  3. Throw an election party. We have Grey Cup parties, Superbowl parties, and World Series parties. Elections are simply another sort of sport, albeit one that changes our lives. Invite people over or head to a local bar to watch the results—but make it clear people should vote first.
  4. Organize a “let’s vote” campaign at your place of work. Send a memo around reminding people to vote and that under Ontario law, every employer must ensure eligible voters have three consecutive hours available to vote. If this requires the employee to be away from the office during their regular shift, the employer must pay for the time spent voting. If the workplace is big enough, set up a competition amongst divisions to see who can get the biggest voter turnout. Try to get your employer to give a prize (eg. pizza lunch, donation to favourite charity) as a way of motivating people to vote.
  5. Help a candidate who you think deserves your support. Every serious candidate will be grateful to anyone who volunteers on election day to help get out the vote: call the candidate’s office and volunteer. Whether you are on the phone, knocking on doors, or making coffee for your fellow volunteers, you will be playing an important role.

Finally, for those of you who want to vote for the environment and are still agonizing about whether to vote “strategically,” here is my two cents’ worth: chill, and follow your gut. In the meantime, go have some fun and talk about the election to people who aren’t your usual suspects.
Get more municipal election coverage from Torontoist here.

Comments

  • http://undefined Matthew

    So, according to One Toronto both Smitherman and Pantalone are both equally awesome for the environment, both getting an A+. So, why is there even a question about voting strategically for the environment?
    Then again I don’t think either of them supports toll roads (except perhaps Smitherman in that wishy washy if-the-polls-support-it Liberal kind of way), so how they can both be scored an A+ is beyond me.

  • http://undefined Matthew

    Oops, I misread that. On second glance they rate Pants 100%, while Smitherman is 90%.

  • CanadianSkeezix

    While I think Hartmann’s “the most important thing is to actually get out and vote” message is a good one, his comments about strategic voting (such as “chill and follow your gut”) are just naive. Yes, the mayor has only one vote, but Hartmann ignores the mayor’s power to set the agenda and push issues (like the environment, in particular) onto the backburner. Where the leading mayoral candidate (in most polls) was given an “F” on the report group issued by Hartmann’s group (and promises to dismantle much of the positive environmental legacy established by previous administrations), Hartmann must be delusional if he thinks strategic voting next Monday isn’t absolutely essential to advancing the green agenda in this city.

  • http://undefined Moonmoth

    This strategic voting blather is a thinly disguised liberal ploy rolled out to get lefties to vote for Smitherman. Don’t fall for it!! Vote for who you would like to see elected!
    Go Joe!!!

  • CanadianSkeezix

    A vote for Joe is a vote for Rob.

  • http://undefined Ben

    And how do you plan to convince all of the strategic voters of that? Even if your contention were true, it seems that getting people to believe it at this stage of the game is an intractable problem.

  • http://undefined mark.

    I would hope that every time someone casts a vote, they do so strategically. Otherwise, they’re casting a vote based on ideological or party allegiance, or they have an idealized “belief” in a particular candidate. What I find more disturbing that calls for strategic voting are injunctions to “vote with your heart” as though one candidate is flawless and can do no wrong – and, as though voting for your preferred (yet sure to lose) candidate is some morally superior stance. Get ahold of yourself – your voice/conscious doesn’t really count in a *representative* democracy.

  • http://undefined Usus

    I intended to vote until I received my notice that said that my voting location was in the middle of a very dangerous public housing complex. I won’t be venturing in there Monday night.

  • http://undefined Moonmoth

    There should be a Fat tax introduced to cover the fiscal imbalance that was brought on by the Harris downloading of services in the 1990′s which David Miller is being hung out to dry for. Yep that’s right a fat tax. Anyone who has over 30% body fat (thyroid problems exempt) will be taxed at a higher level for their overuse of resources. Fat people take up more room on the TTC, eat more junk food, lead unhealthier, more sedentary lifestyles, drive more, watch TV more, consume more resources, and it should be taxed! Hey – Rob Ford can lead the charge! He could be the poster boy for the fat tax. That’d be getting rid of the gravy train – literally!

  • http://undefined EricSmith

    “vote with your heart” as though one candidate is flawless and can do no wrong

    And as though you could detect that perfection through your own earnestness, like Linus finding the most sincere pumpkin patch.

    and, as though voting for your preferred (yet sure to lose) candidate is some morally superior stance

    Under certain circumstances — ones that aren’t relevant to the current mayoral race — voting for a loser can be a strategic win: breaking the 10% threshold in a federal election means that you get your registration fee back, for instance, which might encourage a worthy candidate to run again.

    Casting a ballot in such a way as to produce in your considered opinion the best result for the city (or the country) is never morally inferior to just picking your favourite.

  • rek

    The existence of a dangerous housing complex should motivate you to vote all the more.

  • mark.

    Contact your councillor candidates. One or more will be happy to escort you – they’ll probably even give you a ride.

  • http://www.michaeljeremybrown.ca/ Michael Brown

    Yesterday’s shooting in broad daylight that saw 2 people end up in hospital happened at Bloor and Shaw…no housing complex there…in fact that shooting was much closer to the Annex than Regent Park, St. Jamestown or Alexandra Park…Go vote with a friend!

  • http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

    Perception is 90 percent. Reality is 10 percent.
    Go to the public housing complex. Go in daytime. It’s expected to rain. Go and vote there. Then go reward yourself with a tasty lunch out of your typical routine.
    It’ll be a pretty sedate affair, I can assure you. Also, your remark smacks of things I’m not going to get into here, except that you’re far, far more likely to be the victim of a crime by someone you know whilst in a small city, than around strangers in the middle of the day in a major city. Not that you should take it from me, a lousy planner (or at least how that’s how they’re moulding me in Clown School of Planning): take it from a criminologist who lives, breathes, and eats this stuff day in and out. I’m just a stupid generalist.

  • http://flickr.com/aged_accozzaglia accozzaglia

    I’d prefer a municipally forced uploading — would that involve our civic finger being shoved to the back of our throat? — back to Queen’s Park in what would be known to most as Nutty Buddy . . . no, sorry, I meant the Critical Wisdom Revolution.

  • http://undefined Gary Dale

    The various comments about strategic voting lead to make a few proposals:
    - let’s call it what it is – negative voting or at least tactical voting. There is nothing strategic about it.
    - It is most often called for by the most central party or individual. In some cases in the last election, the strategic voting actually gave the Conservatives many seats they wouldn’t have won if people has just voted how they believed.
    - the call for strategic voting really indicates that there is a problem with our democracy – people feel afraid to vote for the candidate of their choice.
    The quick fix of putting in a ranked ballot actually makes the problem worse. Under a ranked ballot you could find it “strategic” to vote for the third place candidate even though your preferred candidate would have won under our current system.
    You’d have to do this, for example, if your preferred candidate was likely to lose on the second ballot due to second round preference splits. The same dynamic makes it harder to elect women, visible minorities and other underrepresented groups.
    Perhaps the real solution is to remove the election for Mayor. After all, the need for money and media coverage overshadows a candidate’s actual qualifications for the job. What if City Council used a parliamentary style process and chose one from among their number to fill the mayor’s chair?
    Give council back the ability to decide who fills the various committee chairs too and the Mayor’s job is just one more important position among many that the council we elect fills with people it has confidence in.