Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Mark Crowley

GET UPDATES FROM Mark Crowley
 

The Case for Strategic Voting in Calgary's By-Election

Posted: 11/22/2012 12:00 am

So in case you hadn't heard there is a by-election coming up on Thursday, three in fact, and the polls look interesting.  The most exciting is the by-election in Calgary Centre where polls indicate a three-way race between the Conservatives, the Liberals and (deep breath) the Green Party.

Now I'm on the record as being very in favour of strategic voting in elections so I won't go over all that again. Check out this amazing site run by 1CalgaryCentre which is trying to organize voters to choose a single progressive representative for their riding. If this works it could be a template for how to elect progressives going forward.

For all the talk of the NDP and Liberals merging to defeat the Conservatives, Canada is a multi-party system for a reason. Canadians recognize there are more than two sides to any issue. But this reasonable mentality is a handicap within our winner-take-all voting system which is rigged for two parties.

What could the parties do about this? They could support proportional voting for a start. But short of that the most I think parties could consider in future elections is strategically cooperating to not run against each other in a selection of ridings to increase each other's chances. Even this seems unlikely to happen. So barring the complete collapse of the NDP or the Liberals, it is up to voters to take it upon themselves to vote intelligently and strategically to achieve the goal they want.

Remember that the goal of voting is not simply to show support for the one party which you prefer. We have lots of polls for that and you can donate money to parties as well. I consider myself a progressive non-partisan voter, so rather than pick one I recently donated an equal amount of money to four progressive political organizations: The Green Party, the NDP, the Liberals and just to keep them all honest LeadNow.

An election is still a poll, the best possible poll in terms of accuracy, but the true purpose of voting is to elect someone to represent you in Ottawa who is closely aligned with your point of view. As a progressive voter these days that surely means if your favourite candidate or party is one of the three progressive, federalist parties and they cannot win, then the next best outcome is for one of the other progressive candidates to win.

By voting for a losing candidate, to show support, you may be helping to elect the worst possible outcome from your point of view. That simply isn't rational. Despite all the attempts by politicians and even the media to make elections about emotions and gut feelings, we all know it should be about rationally choosing the best candidate for you, for your riding, for your province and for your country.

So if you live in Calgary Centre and are an NDP voter, a Green voter, a Liberal voter; if you voted for Joe Clark in days gone by, then I suggest you consider yourself, first and foremost, a progressive voter. Let this guide your choice rather than the label of a single party and take a look at all the options before you vote. Consider not only which candidate or party you like the best but which one is most likely to win as well. Then go out and vote on Thursday and send a message that no one will be able to forget.

If the Conservative party wins Calgary Centre as expected, but with much lower support than ever before it will be a message politicians will take notice of but which the media will talk about for a few days at most. But imagine an actual member of parliament for the NDP, the Liberals or the Greens (!). They would rise in parliament regularly for the next three years and be announced as "The honourable member from Calgary Centre" and then proceed to tear into the regressive Conservative policies of this government. No one can ignore that. Make that happen Calgary, for all of us.

Loading Slideshow...
  • Harvey Locke 32.6%

    Liberal Party Of Canada.

  • Joan Crockatt 36.9%

    Conservative Party Of Canada

  • Antoni Grochowski 0.5%

    Independent

  • Tony Prashad 0.4%

    Libertarian

  • Dan Meades 3.9%

    NDP

  • Chris Turner 25.7%

    Green Party



Loading Slideshow...
  • I was raised by parents who believed that each citizen had a duty to speak up for justice and a better world. My grandmother had a saying ‘Thought without constructive action is demoralizing.’ And my mother raised us on the same principle. This slide shows two eras of protest. The first is the British Aldermaston march in 1960 opposing nuclear weaponry in the Cold War era. People came from over one hundred nations. My mother walked the whole six days from Aldermaston, UK (where the nuclear weapons research took place), to Trafalgar Square. The rest of us, my dad, my younger brother and I, stayed with my paternal grandparents in my father’s hometown of Barnet. On the last day I was allowed to walk with my mother to Trafalgar Square, where she – representing the North American movement – spoke to a crowd of 100,000. The tradition of family involvement continues as this photo of Thanksgiving weekend in 2010 shows. We held a 10-10-10 event (see 350.org for details) to take climate action by planting trees on my step-daughter Jo’s front lawn in Haliburton, Ontario, where my extended family had gathered for Thanksgiving. Pictured with me and local Green candidate Susanne Lauten are my daughter, Victoria Cate and her two older sisters, Nadya and Jo, plus several grandchildren and local supporters.”

  • My mother was a co-plaintiff with 17 Nobel Prize winners in a law suit against the governments of the UK, the US and the USSR for carrying out nuclear weapons testing, distributing cancer-causing radionuclides (Strontium 90) globally in the atmosphere. The press conference was in Washington, DC. I am seated next to my mom, far left. In the centre of the table, speaking, is Dr. Linus Pauling. Chatting with my mother, another co-plaintiff, Bertrand Russell (photo taken at his home in Wales). Atmospheric nuclear weapons testing ended with the signing of the Test Ban Treaty in 1963.

  • We moved into this house in Bloomfield, Connecticut when I was one year old. My father had started work with Aetna Life and Casualty in Hartford. We had seven acres and, as I got older, had an increasingly large menagerie.

  • Menagerie!

  • Menagerie!

  • My god-father is actor Cliff Robertson, here pictured with his former wife, Dina Merrill, and my younger brother Geoff. The other picture is of my mum and Paul Newman at a fundraising event for Eugene McCarthy in 1968. Paul Newman was enormously generous with his time and my mum worked closely with him. They were both delegates for McCarthy to the 1968 Democratic convention, which I attended with her at age 14.

  • A trip around the Cabot Trail in 1972 changed our lives and by 1973 we had moved, lock stock and barrel (with two ponies, an elderly wether, three dogs and two cats) to Cape Breton Island. My parents sunk their life savings (and then some) into a derelict tourism business at Margaree Harbour. We put in a sewage treatment plant, re-furbished a restaurant on board an old Bluenose fishing schooner (build in 1918 by the same Lunenburg firm that built the Bluenose), and renovated a log cabin gift shop to look like Dickens London. We hired a staff of 50. As you can see, my dad and brother grew beards and wore kilts, as well as learning Gaelic. We were a hit with customers, but lost our shirts — and our socks. I could not afford to go to university, so cooked and waitressed until 1982. The Schooner Village operated seasonally until 2002 when the NS government expropriated us to build a new bridge. The 1918 schooner, plus Farley Mowat’s “Boat who Wouldn’t Float” which he had given us to have on display, were demolished and hauled them to the dump. Heartbreaking.

  • In 1980 I discovered that Dalhousie Law School had a programme for mature students, opening the possibility to go to law school without an undergrad degree. From 1975-1979, I had been a key organizer with many others of a grassroots effort to prevent the aerial spraying of Cape Breton Island with toxic (now banned) chemical pesticides. The fight to stop spraying was seasonal, and fortunately was the opposite season from my work in the restaurant. In the fall of 1985, as soon as we closed for the winter, the pulp company demanded the government approve the spraying. The infestation of spruce budworm could only be sprayed in the early larval stages, so the government decision was demanded by spring. By spring 1986, the government agreed with the citizens and turned down the application. Every year, until the budworm epidemic collapsed of natural causes in 1979, the pattern was repeated. Every year, we succeeded in persuading the NS government not to spray. I worked in the background for the first few years, but by 1978 the media noticed I was running a major conference we organized in Halifax and from then on I was doing media interviews. Dalhousie took into account my volunteer environmental work and my desire to be an environmental lawyer. That, plus doing well in LSATs, got me back on track for what I had always wanted to do. In my second year at law school, my first book chronically our successful campaign to prevent spraying was published. (Budworm Battles, Four East books, 1982). While in law school, I still worked summers in the kitchen in the Schooner Restaurant. That made it difficult to stop an approved spray programme with Agent Orange in June 1982. Spraying was demanded not to kill insects, but for killing hardwood trees – “competing” with the coniferous trees favoured for pulp. Agent Orange was already banned in the US and in Sweden where the pulp company was based, but legal in Canada. At first, the NS government appeared to have yielded to the public outcry and cancelled the permits. It turned out to be trickery, as they silently re-approved spraying with Agent Orange from the ground. With less than ten days until the spraying was planned, we, local residents, myself included, raced to court for emergency help. Residents from areas near all the spray blocks in eastern NS and Cape Breton Island sought an interim injunction to stop the Agent Orange spray programme, with no concept that it would eat up two years of our lives, force us into brutal financial sacrifices, and pit us against forest industry giants and the pesticide industry. I worked as volunteer lawyer, hired the real lawyers, raised the money to pay them, and was a co-plaintiff. In the course of the court case, my family lost 80-acres of land overlooking the Bras d’Or Lakes. We managed to gain an interim injunction, preventing spraying for the 1982 and 1983 seasons. Once the NS court ruled Agent Orange and dioxin were “safe,” it turned out that it was no longer possible to spray it. The US government had reached a “voluntary” agreement with the manufacturer Dow Chemical, preventing Dow from selling any of its old stock to places where it was still allowed — like Canada. So, even though we lost the court case, they never did spray eastern Nova Scotia with Agent Orange. I missed my graduation from law school because I was cross-examining an expert witness.” I practiced law in Halifax with the firm of Kitz, Matheson, Green and MacIsaac, first articling and then as an associate from 1983-1985. An offer to serve as Associate General Counsel to the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, moved me to Ottawa.

  • In June 1986, as the World Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission) held hearings around the world, Canadian NGOS from environment, development and peace orientations held a major conference in Ottawa — The Fate of the Earth. Over one thousand people participated, including Guujaw, Nobel Laureate George Wald, poet Dorothy Livesay, Margot Kidder, and singer Pete Seeger. I was co-chair of the FOTE conference. These photos were taken by noted photographer, Robert del Tredici.

  • By summer of 1986, the federal Minister of Environment, Tom McMillan had persuaded me to join his staff as Senior Policy Advisor. Photo of the Hon Tom McMillan, Dr. Gro Harlem Bruntdland, Prime Minister of Norway, and me, taken at the landmark June, 1988 climate change conference in Toronto, “Our Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security”. Second photo of South Moresby Signing Ceremony in Victoria, July 12, 1987.

  • Photo of celebrations of the negotiation of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer in September 1987.

  • Celebration after saving South Moresby. That same week as the 1988 climate change conference in Toronto, I resigned with great sadness from the Minister’s staff, due to the approval of two dams in Saskatchewan without environmental assessment. Once I was suddenly out of work (resignation on principle is like that), I was offered contract work with Canada’s leading academic honorific academy, the Royal Society of Canada. In that period Tara Cullis phoned to say her husband David Suzuki had just phoned her in tears from the Amazon. She said we needed to raise money for a brave indigenous leader, Paiakan of the Kyapo people, who was attempting to stop a major dam on the Xingu River. He would be making a tour of Canada in October 1988 and we needed to drop everything to organize a fundraising tour. I threw myself into it, as did many others. We raised $80,000 with concerts in Vancouver, Ottawa and Toronto. We raised the money without any organizational structure, although many groups (like WWF and Nature Canada) helped. The primary reason for our success was that the concerts featured Gordon Lightfoot. These photos were taken in February 1989 with Gordon Lightfoot in the indigenous village. We met Sting in that village, although the photo with Sting was taken later in Toronto. With Sting is my friend Peter Dalglish, founder of Street Kids International, currently working for the UN in Afghanistan.

  • Pictured, my step-step daughter, Clare (now Executive Director of Women In Need Community Outreach, Victoria), my mother and father, brother his wife Rebecca Lynn, their son Andrew, and Victoria Cate’s dad, Ian. August, 1991.

  • I was on the board of Friends of the Earth Canada and Paul McCartney was promoting FOE in his world tour. As delightful as I could have imagined, he was very taken with Victoria Cate, then three months old. The next day, strangely enough, Victoria Cate and I spent with a business leaders forum on sustainability, hosted by HRH Prince Charles, at the Royal Canadian Yacht Club with a reception after on the Royal Yacht Britannia.

  • December, 1991 in Miami. The event was a strong precursor to the June, 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, which I also attended. Pictured here, the driving force of the event, former Congresswoman Bella Abzug and Vandana Shiva. We were all on the organizing committee along with, German Green Party founder Petra Kelly, Kenyan Green (later named Nobel Peace Prize Winner) Wangari Matthai, and other leading women activists.

  • My mother and my daughter on board our schooner restaurant, the Marion Elizabeth.

  • May, 1993. I first met former President William Jefferson Clinton in July, 1971. I was in high school, and he was a student at Yale Law School assisting the development of the campaign to nominate George McGovern as the Democratic nominee. We have remained friends.

 

Follow Mark Crowley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@rateldajer

FOLLOW CANADA POLITICS
So in case you hadn't heard there is a by-election coming up on Thursday, three in fact, and the polls look interesting.  The most exciting is the by-election in Calgary Centre where polls indicate a...
So in case you hadn't heard there is a by-election coming up on Thursday, three in fact, and the polls look interesting.  The most exciting is the by-election in Calgary Centre where polls indicate a...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 9
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mark Crowley
04:58 PM on 11/23/2012
Sorry, I got the date wrong. The byelection is Monday not Thursday.
03:13 AM on 11/23/2012
Even suggesting to someone to 'vote strategically' is wrong! The whole reason we have a multi-party system is that the voters should have option, look around.. there are 19 registered parties. Of course you will say 14 of them are 'fringe groups' but I beg to disagree - I'm sure you did not take the time to check them out. You may be surprised. But the smaller parties, although they might represent better options for Canadians, never stand a chance because of this idiotic 'strategic voting' which perpetuates the political establishment. Liberals and Conservatives take turns at abusing our imperfectly democratic system. When the Liberals were in power, the voters were advised to vote 'strategically' to topple them, because they're corrupt etc. etc. Now similar voices want to bring them back. Please stop this propaganda.

A better use of your skills and time would be to inform your readers about ALL options they have. There's the Green party, the Libertarian.. Online Party is the newest registered party and it offers internet enabled direct democracy. Any of these - plus a few more - are legit alternatives. There are good people in their teams and they've made the effort to register. Give them a chance before you cast yet another 'strategic vote' and perpetuate a broken political system that you will be complaining about later.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mark Crowley
05:09 PM on 11/23/2012
You're right there are lots of other parties and I wouldn't call them fringe, certainty not the Green party. I think there are two ways you could approach it. Try to start a new party and get enough excitement be elected in a few seats then grow from there. This takes a long time and seems to be very hard outside of Saskatchewan and Quebec and perhaps Alberta.

I prefer to take a second approach which is to see strategic voting as merely a temporary, unfortunate measure to get closer to the true goal. The goal being to get a government that will enact real electoral reform of some kind to allow votes to be counted in a more proportional manner. Then all the great parties you mention would have a chance of influencing the election and having an impact. And we wouldn't need to talk about strategic voting ever again.
07:47 PM on 11/22/2012
STRATEGIC VOTING has left Alberta with the worst Premier in the History of Alberta. Redford is destroying Alberta!! NEVER throw your vote away, vote for your candidate, PERIOD!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Burlesque Lea
the dog is the only animal that has seen his god
04:04 PM on 11/22/2012
I would like to add Mark, that voting for a politician is not like an International contest looking for the Hottest men or women of the world, it's not about sexism, this is not a reality show like the bachelorette or something. Think about the future you want for your children, or you as a future parent.

People are too confused and insecure these days and that's why they make awful choices, like the one we are dealing with as a Majoritarian government.

Thank you.
02:42 PM on 11/22/2012
I'm not sure I buy the Liberals as a "progressive" voice. Socially, perhaps. But fiscally and economically, the Liberals are a centre-right party. All that said, we need electoral reform in this country. Unfortunately, the mainstream media peddles the idea that "Canadians don't want electoral changes". But if the current system and all the possible alternatives are explained, I predict that most Canadians would favour a proportional or mixed proportional system.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mark Crowley
05:03 PM on 11/23/2012
I agree completely that electoral reform is what is needed. People who are vehemently against strategic voting seem to often assume it is suggested to keep certain parties in power. Perhaps te parties use it that way but I only suggest strategic voting as a stopgap, a hack of an imperfect system. The true goal is to use strategic voting to get parties into parliament who support electoral reform and then we never need to have this discussion again. Then all those small parties could actually have a chance of mattering.

As for the Liberals, you're probably right. When I say progressive I mean it in the broadest sense that all these parties can agree on which is social issues. The difference over different economic policies is important and there are real differences between the parties there. But I feel like those issues can be discussed in a more constructive way once everyone agrees on the social issues, equality, value of science and education and the role of government.
07:02 PM on 11/23/2012
I agree. I'll give the Liberals credit for being socially progressive. And that's probably the more "important" issue. Economic issues and positions can be discussed more dispassionately and are more apt to change than social positions.
A creationist, for example, cannot be reasoned with. And no matter how many peer-reviewed studies come to the same conclusions, some people will refuse to believe that vaccines are safe.

No one can defend our current electoral system on principal. Conservatives try to frame the debate as one of position; i.e. you don't like Harper, so you want to change the system. This is patently false. The system that disproportionately rewards regionalism (HarperCons, Bloc Quebecois in the past) is a flawed one.
10:42 AM on 11/24/2012
Of greatest importance when people decide to vote "strategically" is not to vote for the parties which will perpetuate the necessity to continue to vote strategically (the Liberals and Conservatives), as these two parties do not generally advocate for proportional representation. The Liberals, in my perspective, are therefore not progressive. Danny Handelman