It’s you who doesn’t understand our system, and I never mentioned once a two party state.
Yes, yes you did. You said:
and the only thing I said was that An NDP vote in most ridings for our last election would be in effect a vote in favor of the Tory in that riding. As in most ridings the liberals were the most likely to beat the Tories.
This is a two party system that you’re describing.
This is not what you have. A vote for a party is a vote for that party (or coalition). It is not a vote for whom you believe is the enemy party because its not for your preferred party.
Americans use the exact same reasoning, which resulted in the last two presidents having approval ratings under 40% within 2 years. "If you don’t vote for ‘shitty compromise which is objectively as bad as this other party but marginally different, you’re just voting for the other party.’
We need to vote strategically in our system of we don’t want to throw away our votes or support Tories.
No. You have a parliamentary system. This is specifically designed to not devolve or degenerate into a two party system via ‘strategic’ aka American-style voting decisions. You vote for what you want. The more parties that win seats, the less power any party has, and the need for coalitions increases, which results in a better outcome than the American-style system you’re ascribing to Canada.
You have the solution to two-party politics. You have the solution to strategic voting. It’s already implemented. You just need to not ruin it by doing American-style politics. That’s it.
That’s the reality of our system, I’m not that interested in the fantasy version where we vote NDP and then everyone gets a rainbow and a family doctor and an education
No, if everyone voted for the party that most represented their interests, then no single party has power and a coalition will have to form to produce a PM. Then you get a half rainbow, a chiropractor, and free American college; which is a half measure but infinitely better than sabotaging yourself because you think this is a team sport.
Yes, yes you did. You said:
This is a two party system that you’re describing.
This is not what you have. A vote for a party is a vote for that party (or coalition). It is not a vote for whom you believe is the enemy party because its not for your preferred party.
Americans use the exact same reasoning, which resulted in the last two presidents having approval ratings under 40% within 2 years. "If you don’t vote for ‘shitty compromise which is objectively as bad as this other party but marginally different, you’re just voting for the other party.’
No. You have a parliamentary system. This is specifically designed to not devolve or degenerate into a two party system via ‘strategic’ aka American-style voting decisions. You vote for what you want. The more parties that win seats, the less power any party has, and the need for coalitions increases, which results in a better outcome than the American-style system you’re ascribing to Canada.
You have the solution to two-party politics. You have the solution to strategic voting. It’s already implemented. You just need to not ruin it by doing American-style politics. That’s it.
No, if everyone voted for the party that most represented their interests, then no single party has power and a coalition will have to form to produce a PM. Then you get a half rainbow, a chiropractor, and free American college; which is a half measure but infinitely better than sabotaging yourself because you think this is a team sport.
Thanks for confirming you truly don’t understand our politics or system at all.
Assume I want to vote for party A, party B is acceptable to me, party C is unacceptable to me.
Polling shows party B and C are virtually neck and neck, party A is unlikely to win.
I vote for party B, party B wins, we get a chiropractor.
I vote for party A, party C wins, and we get fascism.
Explain to me why I should take a principled stance and vote A anyway. After all they’re who I most want to vote for