Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
On the one hand I agree. People should vote for the candidate they most believe in and whose values corresponds with theirs. On the other hand...what if that candidate doesn't exist? What if none of the options available are particularly inticing to you? Should you just not vote at all?
In the same vain, what if there is a candidate that you believe should they be elected, it would have negative consequences for you (i.e. your taxes will rise if this candidate is elected)? Is voting strategically a bad thing to avoid the worst result? For example, say you're in a riding that the NDP appears favored to win, with the Liberals the next most popular option. Would you just not vote? Or would you vote Liberal to ensure the NDP doesn't get in?
Ultimately, since its the individual who has the right to vote, I can't actually have a problem with them making a decision based on what they feel is in their best interest. The beauties (and pitfalls) of freedom.
|
I just feel that polls have an undue influence in this matter, which is why I think we would be better off without them a week before an election. Polls can exacerbate the anti vote, and you end up with results that are more influenced by the party's position in the latest poll than by the party's platform.
And this sword cuts both ways. Not only can it affect the party leading or close to leading the polls but it can also affect the support that the 3rd place party gets... in fact if there is enough strategic voting, due to polling results, there is a very good chance that 3rd place parties can be virtually eliminated through lack of voting support.