Editor:
Re: Strategic voting.
One of the most spurious arguments I’ve heard is this one: we agree with your policy but implementation by us alone, without acceptance by the majority, will put us at an economic, social, cultural (you supply) disadvantage and will have no effect.
I heard this rebuttal on CBC’s Almanac some weeks ago. Someone promoting a ban on one-use plastic bags in Victoria was told that all the communities around Victoria would have to support the ban in order for it to have any effect on lessening the landfill.
Of course, Mr. Harper used this argument to cancel our climate change commitments.
Apart from the negativity and the tunnel vision on the bottom line (in the first example the amount of landfill), this thinking neglects moral responsibilities such as following one’s principles, leading by example, inspiring thought and debate which might lead to amended techniques and methods.
The same negativity and tunnel vision pervades the idea of strategic voting. Strategic voting demands that you vote against something rather than for what you believe in. It implies a vote for your principles is a wasted vote because it won’t affect the larger picture. It ignores the thought of leading, of inspiring people to think things out. How will the ideas you try to live by, the actions you take hoping to make a difference for something better, the positive thoughts and words you spread hoping for some small change, ever become reality if you don’t support them in the last bastion of our freedom, an election by secret ballot?
Most politicians are whipped, told how to vote. Don’t let anyone tell you how to vote. Don’t hold your nose. When you mark your ballot, vote with your heart and the feeling of pride will be with you.
Ted Leathley, Sechelt
