So, it was a big day last Sunday as my 18-year-old son and I walked over to the Steveston Buddhist Temple to cast our votes in the advance polls — he for the first time ever.
Being of that notoriously non-voting demographic, I thought I’d take advantage of him being home for the long weekend to nudge him into a polling booth.
On our way there, he accused me of being “undemocratic” for applying undue pressure on him to vote the way I was. I thought I was merely laying out the various platforms, but perhaps a little bias crept in there. And so what? Debate is at the heart of a political democracy. Besides, he’s my kid, I get to tell him what to do, no? (Actually, that horse bolted long ago.)
But the conversation quickly turned from platforms to the notion of strategic voting. The merits of strategic voting come up every election, but never have I seen it so voraciously argued as in this one.
I hate strategic voting in principle. It’s just too depressing to think one feels compelled to vote against, as opposed to for, a candidate, platform or leader.
The other concern is that it can backfire. Unless there is thorough polling done in your particular riding, you may actually be voting for your less favourite candidate only to give your least favourite candidate a way up the middle. While polls can be telling, rarely are enough polls conducted in a particular riding such as Richmond for anyone to be sure who the second runner is.
All that said, I understand why people may be inclined to vote strategically. It’s a way to counter our crazy first-past-the-post system that makes it possible for a party with 30-something per cent of the popular vote to hold a majority government.
So, what about a system of proportional representation? Despite all the talk, no government has seriously tried to implement it. The cynic would say that’s because such a system doesn’t serve the interests of a ruling party. Maybe, but there’s also concern it would undermine strong, decisive leadership and lead to protracted arguments and wheel spinning. I don’t doubt bringing more voices to the table would take patience, but it could also lead to an electorate feeling heard — not to mention an end of this tiresome talk about strategic voting.
Walking back from the temple, our conversation had a different tone. It was not about platforms and strategies. It was about the fact there are places in the world where people die in the streets fighting for the right to do what we just did. A little gratitude please.
Our system is far from perfect, but it’s not insignificant. A vote may be a drop in the ocean, but look what a tsunami can do.
