Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Lib-NDP swing voters, strategic voting, and why some Liberals should be marked for death.
Over here, Idealistic Pragmatist has some excellent advice on how the specific class of Liberal-NDP swing voters should vote strategically in order to give the Conservative Party of Canada a swift boot to the family jewels. In a nutshell, she suggests that, all things being equal, that class of swing voters should vote for whichever of the Liberal or NDP candidate stands a better chance of winning.
While I agree with most of IP's prose, I would add one important qualifier: that Liberal or NDP candidate who's more likely to win should get the progressive vote, unless that candidate is acting like a dumbass conservative.
Case in point: the recent national vote on same-sex marriage, during which (despite that vote being an utter waste of time and doomed to failure) 13 Liberals actually voted to re-open the debate. From a progressive point of view, every one of those 13 Liberals should be political roadkill come the next election, regardless of whether they represent the better bet to defeat the Conservative candidate.
Could this backfire and let the Conservative sneak up the middle? Of course. But there comes a point when progressives should be getting really freakin' tired of strategically having to support Liberal candidates who act like right-wing wankers.
In cases like that, I think it's incumbent on progressives to send a message -- there's a limit to our patience and accommodation. If closet conservatives are caught hanging out in the Liberal party, they should be outed and punished, even if it means some short-term pain.
It's time to do some Liberal Party of Canada ideological cleansing. And those 13 wanks mentioned above would be just the place to start.
ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. Commenter "rabbit" seems appalled by the idea of allowing a "free" vote, then canning people who don't vote the "right" way. Au contraire, this is exactly the way the idiots should be weeded out.
By way of analogy, let's say I was the head of a science teachers association, and we were holding a vote as to whether to replace the teaching of biological evolution with strict young-earth creationism. Being the democratic kinda guy that I am, I might allow a free vote on the subject, but what happens if someone actually votes for that kind of replacement?
First, we can conclude that that person is at least one level worth of stupid, if they take creationism seriously. And that level of stupid alone would be enough to get their sorry asses kicked out of an organization dedicated to science education. But that's not all.
Even worse, they're an extra level of stupid for not understanding that voting the way they did would have obvious consequences. I mean, how dense do you have to be to not only be a scientific illiterate, but to further advertise that fact in the midst of an association of science teachers?
I think free votes are terrific, since they give people the opportunity to show just what kind of lunatic wingnuts they really are. And then the culling can begin.