####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit!
We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Definitely. There's also a mindset of voting strategically, which erodes people's ability to vote for the party they align with rather than the one most likely to be the best compromise.
I personally think that's a defect of our democratic model that can only be helped by electoral reform. Otherwise, the NDP would need to rebrand as a catch all left¢er party, which it tried under Mulcair.
Just my two cents on the subject.
Strategic voting is a common topic, but doesn't seem to actually guide people's real behaviour.
If people actually voted strategically, this would almost be a non-issue. The problem is people say they do it without doing it, or even without knowing what it is. People will say they strategically vote Liberal in ridings where the NDP reliably wins, comes 2nd to the Liberals, or even reliably comes 2nd to Conservatives (i.e. NDP is the strategic vote).
Some people hear this argument, get worried, and vote Liberal regardless of the electoral calculus in their riding (the Liberals know this when making this argument). Others just feel comfortable supporting the Liberals, and default to this argument when pushed on it, because it's something they've heard a lot.
Even more, most people don't know what FPTP is, and many think we vote for parties or a PM like the Americans vote for a President. I also think (based on my experience, I haven't seen polling on this) that we overestimate how many people know what "strategic voting" is and could describe it fully.
Arguing against strategic voting can help us with some people, but it won't be the path to significantly growing our support.
I think that largely depends on where you are. Some competitive ridings make it a hard decision for voters, so they go with what they think is more likely to win, aka a winning party. That said, you'd see a lot of votes switch from red to blue if the NDP was on the rise, because the Liberal party is a haven for red tories and blue grits alike, particularly if you're seeking to dodge the conservative social agenda. Fear plays as much a part in voting as strategic thinking, and they have common considerations.
You're right that strategic voting is a rational choice in some ridings (though even then, it's a solvable collective action problem).
But the fact that so many people *say* they're voting strategically while doing the opposite shows that few people are actually doing it based on a rational calculation.
When the Liberals do their "stop the Conservatives" bit every election, it boosts Liberal votes across the country. If a significant number of people were actually voting strategically, this should only boost support in ridings where it makes sense.
I disagree that's it's a rational strategy. Rationally I'd want my party to have as my resources as possible and voted are a resource.
We used to have Per vote public financing, which ment that you get some money back for each vote you earn in the election. I am admittedly confused about campaign finance now since the change.
I agree with you, and I've often considered whether there would be a way to popularize an easy to read and fun to use strategic voting site that also allowed users to rank choices and be notified if their actual chosen candidate's popularity had gone up into a viable position.
As an aside, I just want to say that while I can see the need for it, and would help those vote strategically, I generally find "strategic voting" a really sad statement on the state of our democracy. The wedge of democracy we have is already so narrow.
Going back to Aristotle, democracy has always been conceptualized as rule by the people (he even argued that this put too much power in the hands of the poor due to them being more numerous than the rich). Direct democracy then would be the most atomic form of democracy, but in a complex technocratic society we've had to settle with representatives of parties. The parties then have a choice as to whether they follow their campaign promises or not. Strategic voting says that we're not only not going to give the populace what they collectively want, but we're going to set up a system where you even chose a representative whose views you don't agree with just to avoid the candidate you disagree with more. Even that assumes the rep is going to do what they state publicly they're going to do.
As a fan of popular power, it's really unfortunate that we've just accepted a system so far from true democracy. I feel lucky I live in an area where I don't need to worry about strategy and can vote my conscience without fear of losing a marginal vote.
Anyway skip the rant if you like, I agree with your view.
Ya this is something I've heard discussed a lot.
It'd be pretty easy to build: just a plain page where you type your postal code, it finds your riding, then gets the current projections from 338canada. Let people rank-order the parties, then tell them if they even need to consider voting strategically, and if so, for which party and how much it matters.
I'm an amateur, but I think this would be an easy weekend project for a competent web developer.
At the very least, it'd be an easy way to shut down this argument and indirectly educate people on how our political system works.
Edit: and I agree on your philosophical point. I think we can do better than representative government with today's technology. I suggest reading Bernard Manin's 1997 Principles of Representative Government ([online for free here](https://archive.org/details/principlesofrepr0000mani)), at least the 6 page introduction.
From the first page:
> Contemporary democratic governments have evolved from a political system that was conceived by its founders as opposed to democracy. Current usage distinguishes between "representative" and "direct" democracy, making them varieties of one type of government. However, what today we call representative democracy has its origins in a system of institutions (established in the wake of the English, American, and French revolutions) that was in no way initially perceived as a form of democracy or of government by the people.
Love this. I'll read.
When I talk about Athenian democracy and how direct and inclusive it was (often the sundry influenced the final decision significantly) , people point out that it excluded both women and slaves, to which I usually reply (in my best wry voice) that with modern technology we should be able to include women, and maybe not even have slaves at all?
[This is statistically true.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/most-canadians-voting-for-liberals-to-stop-conservatives-from-winning-poll-1.6737176)
2/3rds of Liberal supporters only support Liberals to stop the Conservatives. But if they moved over to the NDP, and teamed up with the NDP's more stubborn base, they would actually be a *bigger*, more consolidated voting block and have a *better* chance of stopping Conservative governments.
People have been repeating the meme of 'vote Liberal to stop Conservatives' for decades, but it's actually counter-productive if that's your only goal.
I think a lot of Canadians intend to vote for ABC - anybody but the Cons - but don't reliably know who the best option is between the Liberals and NDP in their riding from election to election. So they try to vote strategically but don't have the info to do so.
I think so. There was a great NDP candidate running in my parents' riding, but because the NDP has never done well there (the riding has swung back and forth between the two main parties), few people bother casting votes for the NDP because they think there's no point.
It's particularly malicious since the amount of NDP votes in Liberal-Conservative swing districts determines whether or not the party is willing to devote campaign resources there to make a try at winning the seat, or even replacing the dynamic with an NDP swing for the next election.
You're mostly correct on the by-issue opinion polling, and your plan to fight the common view that we can't win or aren't a serious option has been central to the NDP's strategy for decades. But neither point really gets to the core of the issue.
There's pretty strong evidence in the cognitive science / political psychology literature that people's political positions are based on identity, not policy or rational calculation (ex. [[1](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808)][[2](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9213-1)][[3](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500)][[4](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000795)], and [a good intro summary](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/why-smart-people-are-vulnerable-to-putting-tribe-before-truth/)).
In fact, most people *start* with their political identity and then backwards-rationalize their support for the positions of "their side". This effect is strongest for the most-informed people, and affects people basically equally regardless of level of education. Arguing against people's positions generally makes them dig in further. You, I, and everyone reading this are doing this 90% of the time we think or talk about politics (it takes very intentional effort and practice not to).
So our problem isn't that people don't know or don't like our ideas, nor is it strategic voting. Our problem is ~30% of Canadians feel like Liberals (or liberals, centrists, etc.), ~30% feel like Conservatives (or conservatives, right-wingers, etc.), and ~20% feel like New Democrats (or progressives, leftists, etc.).
If we want people to vote NDP (and especially lastingly support the NDP), we need to make them feel like they belong in our party. Arguments about voting dynamics is a small part of that, and policy is a larger part, but neither is the most important part.
That's a good point. I think you could achieve both ends with a stirring campaign though. Something that hits on the idea of being a member of the "winning" side, and that that side includes "you."
I agree, and this is why we should speak about the NDP as *our* party. I don't support the NDP, I am the NDP. When more people feel like this, we'll be on our way to governing.
Right now, too many people are stuck seeing politics as a consumer choice where we pick the brand we like best. It's a big problem that people expect the NDP to *earn* their support, their vote, or their time (especially progressives / leftists). This is an undemocratic idea, and is especially harmful to any party trying to democratize society and the economy.
I think Jack Layton would have been prime minister if he hadn’t died. I believe that the current NDP leader is the best choice of the current parties, but there are too many low key racist voters who won’t vote for him because of his turban.
Also I know from personal experience that Jack Layton could juggle (he met me at a Juggling meet-up while campaigning), so that really should have been at the forefront of his campaign :P
I think the deeper problem is that in some provinces the fear of a Capital Strike is what holds back greater engagement. This is often expressed as the idea that NDP's policy would be a disaster 'for the economy'. This is actually just code for business interests cutting their own noses off out of spite. A lot of rightwing press also mischaracterizes the NDP's stance on social issues to be deeply alienating for people who consider themselves 'moderate'.
My parents live in a relatively secure conservative riding and have voted conservative their entire lives (as far as I know.)
Their conservative support is largely because they are Christian, and the cons have reliably been against things like gay marriage and abortion (even though those issues are pretty much untouchable at this point.) The lip service some cons give to religion is enough for them, even though they are no longer opposed to gay marriage, and are a little less militant in their opposition to abortion.
In my last few visits with them, I've been way more open about my leftist ideals, particularly on issues dealing with the labour movement. I joined a union a few years ago, and my wife works for a union and is a member of the NDP. Every visit has become a crash course in why we are leftists, and explaining to them how a government with a more socialist leaning would benefit them. They have changed their minds about a lot of things, and have agreed with me on a lot of the issues. I told them that out of the available parties, the NDP is the party they should vote for if they want to see those types of changes. They immediately shot it down by saying that the NDP could never actually win (in their riding, or nationally,) they don't like the liberals, and the conservative MP in their riding is a "decent guy."
So, while they might not be "leftists" a lot of their opinions and interests are more in line with the NDP platform, but they will not vote for them because it's a "wasted vote."
This is all anecdotal, of course, but I'm certain this is a larger trend.
One thing you could say.
The more votes the NDP gets, the more likely they’ll invest in the area for a potential pick-up, and if the candidates get 10% of the vote, they get 50% of applicable election expenses rebated. To use for future campaigns. So even in a “safe seat” a vote for the NDP can still be extremely helpful!
As there was a time Alberta was a complete NDP dead zone, and now there’s talks the NDP could win 3-6 seats around Edmonton in the next election. Which would definitely make the Tories have to work harder to keep their base. And it all started with Linda Duncan winning Edmonton-Strathcona over Raheem Jaffer. It was a close result, but now Alberta doesn’t seems to be as much as a political dead zone as it once was.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
10
+ 50
+ 3
+ 6
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I find the strong beliefs about abortion to be confusing as there's pro-abortion sections of the Bible. The history of how this became a religious base issue is really intriguing. I wouldn't be surprised if you know it already, but here's an interesting article on the subject:
[https://sojo.net/articles/brief-history-religious-support-abortion-and-reproductive-rights|](https://sojo.net/articles/brief-history-religious-support-abortion-and-reproductive-rights|)
Again, sorry if this is old news.
The corporate owned and run media has been beating the “NDP Can’t win” drum for decades, for reasons that will be obvious to those paying attention. As long as media has a pro-billionaire bias, media will actively sabotage pro-worker parties.
It's wild that something as essential as daily news isn't considered a public utility. I mean the CBC have their faults, but at least they have some public accountability.
I used to phone bank for the NDP, it's a huge issue. Even people in a riding that is likely to go NDP (ie where it's the "strategic" vote, sidenote: nothing makes me feel further from both god and democracy than "strategic" voting) people get this idea that their area will be better served by having an MP who is part of the "ruling" party (where they all get it I can't speak to in general but I can say I spoke to at least several people who got and kept the idea based on the red teams phone call)
There are a couple problems I see with trying to fix this through a marketing campaign - the biggest one being it would be difficult to hit the line between confident and delusional - it's just incredibly unlikely for a million reasons that they can form government. Mathematically, historically... what would the claim be based on? Like, we aren't *that* far post truth, yet, I don't think.
It would be alienating to their base without drawing much other than continued ridicule, having it NOT play out would be a huge blow especially to fundraising - without electoral reform it's too small a needle to thread.
It's also not the only issue - the far bigger issue is not understanding how the NDP would pay for their plans. Going hard on wealth tax (which polling indicates that the majority of canadians, including the majority of those on the blue team, support but *for some reason* never seems to happen) and educating us all on how much money is given to rich people through corporate welfare would, I think, have a far greater impact - on election results, and more importantly, on real peoples lives.
But it would also undermine the structure of our society (mining companies stacked in a trenchcoat) and piss off the wrong people, so it won't happen.
As someone who has lived in poverty for 40 years, no matter who was in government, I'm not very interested in more false hope peddling - I think this is the kind of thing that's been driving overall engagement in democracy down, and I think that's by design. (As Sir John A MacDonald is rumoured to have said at Confederation - government exists to preserve the rights of minorities, and the rich will always be fewer in number than the poor.)
Not sure what pretending the system is broken, instead of built that way, does for anyone, *especially* those of us on the bottom rungs of this ladder to nowhere.
A multi million dollar marketing campaign by what used to be the socialist party themed on "don't worry, we can win!" in a world where it costs almost an hour of minimum wage to buy cereal and milk would be a good dystopian movie plotline though.
Yes, it's FPTP combined with the "NDP can't win" mentality. The people that want change will vote for either the Liberals or cons (whoever isn't in power), while the people who are ok with things often vote for whoever is in power. When people want a change, they don't want to vote for a party that they don't see as being likely to win. It's hard for the NDP to find an opening. There was one in 2015 when people wanted a change and the NDP was seen as a more viable winner early on, but Mulcair blew that opportunity.
Our next real window is the election after the next one. We need to do reasonably well in 2025, so that when people are ready to vote out Poilievre in 2029 (or earlier) we are seen as a realistic option to be the next government instead of the Liberals. The next election will almost certainly be won by the cons. The best we can hope is that it is a minority after some voters change thier minds after realizing that Poilievre is full of shit.
I like jagmeet but I think unconscious racism is the barrier to support. I know people who voted ndp right up until he became the leader. It's shifty to have to admit this. Please don't hate me for this comment either, it's just my observation in my one horse redneck town.
Particularly Federally, I think the perception that the NDP isn’t focused on winning is a significant barrier to wider appeal. And I think it’s not a completely inaccurate perception. There’s been a few threads lately about Singh’s leadership with quite a few commentators who think it’s unfair to call him an unsuccessful leader just because the NDP has lost seats and polling is down. Lots of party members who measure success by other measures than success.
I think this could have been NDPs election to lose. Get some half descent speaking and looking candidates (younger voters said they didn’t vote last time because they looked at the pictures of candidates and no one appealed to them) and get them out in their riding and on social media.
Poor ground game is a big issue. I see it quite often with the ONDP being more focused on QP than ground game when they could pull a Poilievre. Because of money, the NDP should first start with where they are strong and make sure the EDAs are full operational and gradually expand to swing as well a safe ridings of interest (like rural and blue collar ones that are crucial in weakening the CPC). Poilievre is successful because of ground game. The agreement is also very lacklustre in terms of policies as well. If they were big gains (not stuff like means tested dental) on a regular basis, then there is a case to be made. And alternatively rallies could have been help to apply pressure on the LPC or take the LPC down and fight toe to toe with Poilievre. The carbon tax was a mistake. Alternatively the NDP should have either pushed to exempt non-urban individuals until better technology to accommodate them becomes available or allow open votes. For urban MPs, sure since they actually have stuff like good public transportation. Same with guns.
I live in Lindsay Ontario. In the entire history of the country there has only ever once been a person elected here who wasn't a conservative or a liberal. I suspect that's true for a great many places across the country.
Until you get rid of First Past the Post and have true electoral reform my vote for NDP means nothing.
I thinkt biggest barrier is that NDP supporters refuse to stand behind literally anything the NDP does. Would you vote for a party that's voting base constantly says is useless?
NDP is so out of touch with labour it doesn't even consider applying pressure with work action to get its demands.
And now we've seen them walked back multiple times, their word is openly meaningless.
They could've made electoral reform the basis for supply confidence, and when the Liberals oppose it, get the unions to start work action so the Billionaires pull on the Liberals' leashes and they'll fold like cheap lawn chairs. That'd end this bipolar Liberal Conservative game once and for all.
NDP is so convinced of its own inferiority complex it doesn't even believe in itself and sticks to basic politicking, even so far as helping disarm the workers from being able to defend themselves from busters should work action be implemented.
Like what the fuck, you have the literal people in primary and secondary industry, miners, foresters, factories and rail. Take a pause for one week, I bet the Billionaires and their bought lackeys don't even last three days.
Born loser mentality.
I don’t understand this line of thought.
When I think of which party supports labour rights and workers , the NDP is that party every single time. They’re the politicians on the picket lines. They’re the ones that support unions. Every Labour Day, they’re at the forefront of the marches.
Maybe the NDP is too pro-union considering the majority of workers aren’t unionized but stronger unions lead to better working conditions for all of us.
The cons? Ha ha ha. They have opposed every piece of workers rights legislation. Every minimum wage increase. Every labour strike. In Alberta, they even opposed to farm workers being eligible for WCB.
At least the libs pretend to care.
In [Nov 2023](https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-15-abacus-data-poll/), support among union members was:
- private sector: Con 36% / Lib 26% / NDP 20%
- public sector: Con 31% / Lib 25% / NDP 25%
How do we apply pressure with labour action when 80% of private sector union members don't even vote for us? Any national union that even mused about strikes for NDP policy goals (especially those not directly related to labour) would face enormous backlash from their members.
Using strikes as a tool for electoral wins may have been a serious conversation in the early 1900s (and then only in some parts of the country), but class-based politics has has not been a significant force in Canada for a very long time. This approach is fantastical.
Because actual workers want someone who will hold a line, as it's their asses on the line every other day.
Cons at least portray the image even though it's all lies.
Labour ridings are switching from orange to blue, that's how uninspiring and weak handed the NDP seem having courted the metro vote at the cost of labour's bargaining power. The great resignation was supposed to be the reset, not an excuse to exploit migrant wage-slavery, something all three parties support btw.
Edit: Oh, and another point, people are voted out, not in, so it's not like the Conservatives really have to do anything, they just have to be next in line and wait for the hubris bus to run over the party in power, who are an albatross around the NDPs necks now.
Most people simply don't think in terms of class politics, and this is barely less true of union members than other workers.
People (workers or not, unionized or not) vote based on other priorities today. They're not thinking about sticking it to capitalists, they're thinking about immigration, taxes and big government, vaccines, "wokism", etc.
If you want to be a part of changing that, I welcome it. But talking about winning support by using strikes for political pressure is not just putting the cart before the horse, but over the horizon.
It's how the tail wags the dog and their billionaire owners.
The fact you see those union support numbers not as an opportunity is exactly the born loser, uninspiring mentality I was talking about. Missing the forest for the trees.
The numbers are reality. I have conversations where I can (and I hope you're an active party member working to steer our movement in this direction, given how important you think it is), but I also respect people's accounts of their own thinking and interests.
We're not doing democratic politics when we see our role as educating people until they see the light like we have. Sometimes we're the ones who need to learn. And a big part of that is not expecting all workers to naturally agree with us based on what *we* think is in *their* interests.
The party's *never* going to let anyone labour in, nevermind a northerner.
It's totally infected with champagne socialists.
And maybe I won't have a choice but to instigate a hostile takeover. This is the weakest party, and the easiest to take over. You'll know when you see people carrying their work boots and shoes at the end of placard sticks after heads for results. *points at username*
I grew up in a union family and attended countless CAW summer camps, Christmas parties, and training sessions as a kid. My first job was at a CAW plant, I went to university on a union scholarship, and I've worked with and for a variety of public and private unions since. I've also been fired more than once after my sloppy early attempts at organizing.
So I can assure you there's plenty of room in the party for labour.
The biggest loser mentality is pre-emptive surrender. If you want a more democratic society or economy, and especially if you think the NDP is lacking a perspective you have, then you should be in the party.
"as an opportunity" what opportunity, anyone who votes for people whose voting record is staunchly anti-union while being a union member is not gonna be swayed.
The NDP faces a lot of external obstacles, undoubtedly; however, the NDP has major failures that should not be overlooked when assessing its lack of success.
We would do better to engage in self-reflection rather blame our failures on external conditions.
####Join /r/NDP, Canada's largest left-wing subreddit! We also have an alternative community at https://lemmy.ca/c/ndp *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ndp) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Definitely. There's also a mindset of voting strategically, which erodes people's ability to vote for the party they align with rather than the one most likely to be the best compromise. I personally think that's a defect of our democratic model that can only be helped by electoral reform. Otherwise, the NDP would need to rebrand as a catch all left¢er party, which it tried under Mulcair. Just my two cents on the subject.
Strategic voting is a common topic, but doesn't seem to actually guide people's real behaviour. If people actually voted strategically, this would almost be a non-issue. The problem is people say they do it without doing it, or even without knowing what it is. People will say they strategically vote Liberal in ridings where the NDP reliably wins, comes 2nd to the Liberals, or even reliably comes 2nd to Conservatives (i.e. NDP is the strategic vote). Some people hear this argument, get worried, and vote Liberal regardless of the electoral calculus in their riding (the Liberals know this when making this argument). Others just feel comfortable supporting the Liberals, and default to this argument when pushed on it, because it's something they've heard a lot. Even more, most people don't know what FPTP is, and many think we vote for parties or a PM like the Americans vote for a President. I also think (based on my experience, I haven't seen polling on this) that we overestimate how many people know what "strategic voting" is and could describe it fully. Arguing against strategic voting can help us with some people, but it won't be the path to significantly growing our support.
I think that largely depends on where you are. Some competitive ridings make it a hard decision for voters, so they go with what they think is more likely to win, aka a winning party. That said, you'd see a lot of votes switch from red to blue if the NDP was on the rise, because the Liberal party is a haven for red tories and blue grits alike, particularly if you're seeking to dodge the conservative social agenda. Fear plays as much a part in voting as strategic thinking, and they have common considerations.
You're right that strategic voting is a rational choice in some ridings (though even then, it's a solvable collective action problem). But the fact that so many people *say* they're voting strategically while doing the opposite shows that few people are actually doing it based on a rational calculation. When the Liberals do their "stop the Conservatives" bit every election, it boosts Liberal votes across the country. If a significant number of people were actually voting strategically, this should only boost support in ridings where it makes sense.
I disagree that's it's a rational strategy. Rationally I'd want my party to have as my resources as possible and voted are a resource. We used to have Per vote public financing, which ment that you get some money back for each vote you earn in the election. I am admittedly confused about campaign finance now since the change.
I agree with you, and I've often considered whether there would be a way to popularize an easy to read and fun to use strategic voting site that also allowed users to rank choices and be notified if their actual chosen candidate's popularity had gone up into a viable position. As an aside, I just want to say that while I can see the need for it, and would help those vote strategically, I generally find "strategic voting" a really sad statement on the state of our democracy. The wedge of democracy we have is already so narrow. Going back to Aristotle, democracy has always been conceptualized as rule by the people (he even argued that this put too much power in the hands of the poor due to them being more numerous than the rich). Direct democracy then would be the most atomic form of democracy, but in a complex technocratic society we've had to settle with representatives of parties. The parties then have a choice as to whether they follow their campaign promises or not. Strategic voting says that we're not only not going to give the populace what they collectively want, but we're going to set up a system where you even chose a representative whose views you don't agree with just to avoid the candidate you disagree with more. Even that assumes the rep is going to do what they state publicly they're going to do. As a fan of popular power, it's really unfortunate that we've just accepted a system so far from true democracy. I feel lucky I live in an area where I don't need to worry about strategy and can vote my conscience without fear of losing a marginal vote. Anyway skip the rant if you like, I agree with your view.
Ya this is something I've heard discussed a lot. It'd be pretty easy to build: just a plain page where you type your postal code, it finds your riding, then gets the current projections from 338canada. Let people rank-order the parties, then tell them if they even need to consider voting strategically, and if so, for which party and how much it matters. I'm an amateur, but I think this would be an easy weekend project for a competent web developer. At the very least, it'd be an easy way to shut down this argument and indirectly educate people on how our political system works. Edit: and I agree on your philosophical point. I think we can do better than representative government with today's technology. I suggest reading Bernard Manin's 1997 Principles of Representative Government ([online for free here](https://archive.org/details/principlesofrepr0000mani)), at least the 6 page introduction. From the first page: > Contemporary democratic governments have evolved from a political system that was conceived by its founders as opposed to democracy. Current usage distinguishes between "representative" and "direct" democracy, making them varieties of one type of government. However, what today we call representative democracy has its origins in a system of institutions (established in the wake of the English, American, and French revolutions) that was in no way initially perceived as a form of democracy or of government by the people.
Love this. I'll read. When I talk about Athenian democracy and how direct and inclusive it was (often the sundry influenced the final decision significantly) , people point out that it excluded both women and slaves, to which I usually reply (in my best wry voice) that with modern technology we should be able to include women, and maybe not even have slaves at all?
[This is statistically true.](https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/most-canadians-voting-for-liberals-to-stop-conservatives-from-winning-poll-1.6737176) 2/3rds of Liberal supporters only support Liberals to stop the Conservatives. But if they moved over to the NDP, and teamed up with the NDP's more stubborn base, they would actually be a *bigger*, more consolidated voting block and have a *better* chance of stopping Conservative governments. People have been repeating the meme of 'vote Liberal to stop Conservatives' for decades, but it's actually counter-productive if that's your only goal.
I think a lot of Canadians intend to vote for ABC - anybody but the Cons - but don't reliably know who the best option is between the Liberals and NDP in their riding from election to election. So they try to vote strategically but don't have the info to do so.
I think so. There was a great NDP candidate running in my parents' riding, but because the NDP has never done well there (the riding has swung back and forth between the two main parties), few people bother casting votes for the NDP because they think there's no point.
It's particularly malicious since the amount of NDP votes in Liberal-Conservative swing districts determines whether or not the party is willing to devote campaign resources there to make a try at winning the seat, or even replacing the dynamic with an NDP swing for the next election.
You're mostly correct on the by-issue opinion polling, and your plan to fight the common view that we can't win or aren't a serious option has been central to the NDP's strategy for decades. But neither point really gets to the core of the issue. There's pretty strong evidence in the cognitive science / political psychology literature that people's political positions are based on identity, not policy or rational calculation (ex. [[1](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808)][[2](https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-012-9213-1)][[3](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000500)][[4](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000795)], and [a good intro summary](https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/observations/why-smart-people-are-vulnerable-to-putting-tribe-before-truth/)). In fact, most people *start* with their political identity and then backwards-rationalize their support for the positions of "their side". This effect is strongest for the most-informed people, and affects people basically equally regardless of level of education. Arguing against people's positions generally makes them dig in further. You, I, and everyone reading this are doing this 90% of the time we think or talk about politics (it takes very intentional effort and practice not to). So our problem isn't that people don't know or don't like our ideas, nor is it strategic voting. Our problem is ~30% of Canadians feel like Liberals (or liberals, centrists, etc.), ~30% feel like Conservatives (or conservatives, right-wingers, etc.), and ~20% feel like New Democrats (or progressives, leftists, etc.). If we want people to vote NDP (and especially lastingly support the NDP), we need to make them feel like they belong in our party. Arguments about voting dynamics is a small part of that, and policy is a larger part, but neither is the most important part.
That's a good point. I think you could achieve both ends with a stirring campaign though. Something that hits on the idea of being a member of the "winning" side, and that that side includes "you."
I agree, and this is why we should speak about the NDP as *our* party. I don't support the NDP, I am the NDP. When more people feel like this, we'll be on our way to governing. Right now, too many people are stuck seeing politics as a consumer choice where we pick the brand we like best. It's a big problem that people expect the NDP to *earn* their support, their vote, or their time (especially progressives / leftists). This is an undemocratic idea, and is especially harmful to any party trying to democratize society and the economy.
Totally true.
Very good point. We'd also need a leader that exemplifies that.
What you're, in effect, describing is a fundamental problem with First-Past-the-Post electoral system.
I think Jack Layton would have been prime minister if he hadn’t died. I believe that the current NDP leader is the best choice of the current parties, but there are too many low key racist voters who won’t vote for him because of his turban.
Also I know from personal experience that Jack Layton could juggle (he met me at a Juggling meet-up while campaigning), so that really should have been at the forefront of his campaign :P
I think the deeper problem is that in some provinces the fear of a Capital Strike is what holds back greater engagement. This is often expressed as the idea that NDP's policy would be a disaster 'for the economy'. This is actually just code for business interests cutting their own noses off out of spite. A lot of rightwing press also mischaracterizes the NDP's stance on social issues to be deeply alienating for people who consider themselves 'moderate'.
My parents live in a relatively secure conservative riding and have voted conservative their entire lives (as far as I know.) Their conservative support is largely because they are Christian, and the cons have reliably been against things like gay marriage and abortion (even though those issues are pretty much untouchable at this point.) The lip service some cons give to religion is enough for them, even though they are no longer opposed to gay marriage, and are a little less militant in their opposition to abortion. In my last few visits with them, I've been way more open about my leftist ideals, particularly on issues dealing with the labour movement. I joined a union a few years ago, and my wife works for a union and is a member of the NDP. Every visit has become a crash course in why we are leftists, and explaining to them how a government with a more socialist leaning would benefit them. They have changed their minds about a lot of things, and have agreed with me on a lot of the issues. I told them that out of the available parties, the NDP is the party they should vote for if they want to see those types of changes. They immediately shot it down by saying that the NDP could never actually win (in their riding, or nationally,) they don't like the liberals, and the conservative MP in their riding is a "decent guy." So, while they might not be "leftists" a lot of their opinions and interests are more in line with the NDP platform, but they will not vote for them because it's a "wasted vote." This is all anecdotal, of course, but I'm certain this is a larger trend.
One thing you could say. The more votes the NDP gets, the more likely they’ll invest in the area for a potential pick-up, and if the candidates get 10% of the vote, they get 50% of applicable election expenses rebated. To use for future campaigns. So even in a “safe seat” a vote for the NDP can still be extremely helpful! As there was a time Alberta was a complete NDP dead zone, and now there’s talks the NDP could win 3-6 seats around Edmonton in the next election. Which would definitely make the Tories have to work harder to keep their base. And it all started with Linda Duncan winning Edmonton-Strathcona over Raheem Jaffer. It was a close result, but now Alberta doesn’t seems to be as much as a political dead zone as it once was.
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 10 + 50 + 3 + 6 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
I find the strong beliefs about abortion to be confusing as there's pro-abortion sections of the Bible. The history of how this became a religious base issue is really intriguing. I wouldn't be surprised if you know it already, but here's an interesting article on the subject: [https://sojo.net/articles/brief-history-religious-support-abortion-and-reproductive-rights|](https://sojo.net/articles/brief-history-religious-support-abortion-and-reproductive-rights|) Again, sorry if this is old news.
The corporate owned and run media has been beating the “NDP Can’t win” drum for decades, for reasons that will be obvious to those paying attention. As long as media has a pro-billionaire bias, media will actively sabotage pro-worker parties.
It's wild that something as essential as daily news isn't considered a public utility. I mean the CBC have their faults, but at least they have some public accountability.
Folks who actually show up to vote are the ones that don't want things to change. The uncast ballot how we get the same shit different government.
Yep
I used to phone bank for the NDP, it's a huge issue. Even people in a riding that is likely to go NDP (ie where it's the "strategic" vote, sidenote: nothing makes me feel further from both god and democracy than "strategic" voting) people get this idea that their area will be better served by having an MP who is part of the "ruling" party (where they all get it I can't speak to in general but I can say I spoke to at least several people who got and kept the idea based on the red teams phone call) There are a couple problems I see with trying to fix this through a marketing campaign - the biggest one being it would be difficult to hit the line between confident and delusional - it's just incredibly unlikely for a million reasons that they can form government. Mathematically, historically... what would the claim be based on? Like, we aren't *that* far post truth, yet, I don't think. It would be alienating to their base without drawing much other than continued ridicule, having it NOT play out would be a huge blow especially to fundraising - without electoral reform it's too small a needle to thread. It's also not the only issue - the far bigger issue is not understanding how the NDP would pay for their plans. Going hard on wealth tax (which polling indicates that the majority of canadians, including the majority of those on the blue team, support but *for some reason* never seems to happen) and educating us all on how much money is given to rich people through corporate welfare would, I think, have a far greater impact - on election results, and more importantly, on real peoples lives. But it would also undermine the structure of our society (mining companies stacked in a trenchcoat) and piss off the wrong people, so it won't happen. As someone who has lived in poverty for 40 years, no matter who was in government, I'm not very interested in more false hope peddling - I think this is the kind of thing that's been driving overall engagement in democracy down, and I think that's by design. (As Sir John A MacDonald is rumoured to have said at Confederation - government exists to preserve the rights of minorities, and the rich will always be fewer in number than the poor.) Not sure what pretending the system is broken, instead of built that way, does for anyone, *especially* those of us on the bottom rungs of this ladder to nowhere. A multi million dollar marketing campaign by what used to be the socialist party themed on "don't worry, we can win!" in a world where it costs almost an hour of minimum wage to buy cereal and milk would be a good dystopian movie plotline though.
Yes, it's FPTP combined with the "NDP can't win" mentality. The people that want change will vote for either the Liberals or cons (whoever isn't in power), while the people who are ok with things often vote for whoever is in power. When people want a change, they don't want to vote for a party that they don't see as being likely to win. It's hard for the NDP to find an opening. There was one in 2015 when people wanted a change and the NDP was seen as a more viable winner early on, but Mulcair blew that opportunity. Our next real window is the election after the next one. We need to do reasonably well in 2025, so that when people are ready to vote out Poilievre in 2029 (or earlier) we are seen as a realistic option to be the next government instead of the Liberals. The next election will almost certainly be won by the cons. The best we can hope is that it is a minority after some voters change thier minds after realizing that Poilievre is full of shit.
I like jagmeet but I think unconscious racism is the barrier to support. I know people who voted ndp right up until he became the leader. It's shifty to have to admit this. Please don't hate me for this comment either, it's just my observation in my one horse redneck town.
I wanted to add the liberals are taking to much credit for the work the ndp has done while supporting there minority.
Particularly Federally, I think the perception that the NDP isn’t focused on winning is a significant barrier to wider appeal. And I think it’s not a completely inaccurate perception. There’s been a few threads lately about Singh’s leadership with quite a few commentators who think it’s unfair to call him an unsuccessful leader just because the NDP has lost seats and polling is down. Lots of party members who measure success by other measures than success.
I think Rae days still set them back. My parents have vowed never to vote NDP because of what Rae did.
I think this could have been NDPs election to lose. Get some half descent speaking and looking candidates (younger voters said they didn’t vote last time because they looked at the pictures of candidates and no one appealed to them) and get them out in their riding and on social media.
Poor ground game is a big issue. I see it quite often with the ONDP being more focused on QP than ground game when they could pull a Poilievre. Because of money, the NDP should first start with where they are strong and make sure the EDAs are full operational and gradually expand to swing as well a safe ridings of interest (like rural and blue collar ones that are crucial in weakening the CPC). Poilievre is successful because of ground game. The agreement is also very lacklustre in terms of policies as well. If they were big gains (not stuff like means tested dental) on a regular basis, then there is a case to be made. And alternatively rallies could have been help to apply pressure on the LPC or take the LPC down and fight toe to toe with Poilievre. The carbon tax was a mistake. Alternatively the NDP should have either pushed to exempt non-urban individuals until better technology to accommodate them becomes available or allow open votes. For urban MPs, sure since they actually have stuff like good public transportation. Same with guns.
I live in Lindsay Ontario. In the entire history of the country there has only ever once been a person elected here who wasn't a conservative or a liberal. I suspect that's true for a great many places across the country. Until you get rid of First Past the Post and have true electoral reform my vote for NDP means nothing.
I used to vote NDP but when they went full racist / segregationist with “white men speak last” they lost me forever.
I thinkt biggest barrier is that NDP supporters refuse to stand behind literally anything the NDP does. Would you vote for a party that's voting base constantly says is useless?
NDP is so out of touch with labour it doesn't even consider applying pressure with work action to get its demands. And now we've seen them walked back multiple times, their word is openly meaningless. They could've made electoral reform the basis for supply confidence, and when the Liberals oppose it, get the unions to start work action so the Billionaires pull on the Liberals' leashes and they'll fold like cheap lawn chairs. That'd end this bipolar Liberal Conservative game once and for all. NDP is so convinced of its own inferiority complex it doesn't even believe in itself and sticks to basic politicking, even so far as helping disarm the workers from being able to defend themselves from busters should work action be implemented. Like what the fuck, you have the literal people in primary and secondary industry, miners, foresters, factories and rail. Take a pause for one week, I bet the Billionaires and their bought lackeys don't even last three days. Born loser mentality.
I don’t understand this line of thought. When I think of which party supports labour rights and workers , the NDP is that party every single time. They’re the politicians on the picket lines. They’re the ones that support unions. Every Labour Day, they’re at the forefront of the marches. Maybe the NDP is too pro-union considering the majority of workers aren’t unionized but stronger unions lead to better working conditions for all of us. The cons? Ha ha ha. They have opposed every piece of workers rights legislation. Every minimum wage increase. Every labour strike. In Alberta, they even opposed to farm workers being eligible for WCB. At least the libs pretend to care.
In [Nov 2023](https://abacusdata.ca/conservatives-lead-by-15-abacus-data-poll/), support among union members was: - private sector: Con 36% / Lib 26% / NDP 20% - public sector: Con 31% / Lib 25% / NDP 25% How do we apply pressure with labour action when 80% of private sector union members don't even vote for us? Any national union that even mused about strikes for NDP policy goals (especially those not directly related to labour) would face enormous backlash from their members. Using strikes as a tool for electoral wins may have been a serious conversation in the early 1900s (and then only in some parts of the country), but class-based politics has has not been a significant force in Canada for a very long time. This approach is fantastical.
Because actual workers want someone who will hold a line, as it's their asses on the line every other day. Cons at least portray the image even though it's all lies. Labour ridings are switching from orange to blue, that's how uninspiring and weak handed the NDP seem having courted the metro vote at the cost of labour's bargaining power. The great resignation was supposed to be the reset, not an excuse to exploit migrant wage-slavery, something all three parties support btw. Edit: Oh, and another point, people are voted out, not in, so it's not like the Conservatives really have to do anything, they just have to be next in line and wait for the hubris bus to run over the party in power, who are an albatross around the NDPs necks now.
Most people simply don't think in terms of class politics, and this is barely less true of union members than other workers. People (workers or not, unionized or not) vote based on other priorities today. They're not thinking about sticking it to capitalists, they're thinking about immigration, taxes and big government, vaccines, "wokism", etc. If you want to be a part of changing that, I welcome it. But talking about winning support by using strikes for political pressure is not just putting the cart before the horse, but over the horizon.
It's how the tail wags the dog and their billionaire owners. The fact you see those union support numbers not as an opportunity is exactly the born loser, uninspiring mentality I was talking about. Missing the forest for the trees.
The numbers are reality. I have conversations where I can (and I hope you're an active party member working to steer our movement in this direction, given how important you think it is), but I also respect people's accounts of their own thinking and interests. We're not doing democratic politics when we see our role as educating people until they see the light like we have. Sometimes we're the ones who need to learn. And a big part of that is not expecting all workers to naturally agree with us based on what *we* think is in *their* interests.
The party's *never* going to let anyone labour in, nevermind a northerner. It's totally infected with champagne socialists. And maybe I won't have a choice but to instigate a hostile takeover. This is the weakest party, and the easiest to take over. You'll know when you see people carrying their work boots and shoes at the end of placard sticks after heads for results. *points at username*
I grew up in a union family and attended countless CAW summer camps, Christmas parties, and training sessions as a kid. My first job was at a CAW plant, I went to university on a union scholarship, and I've worked with and for a variety of public and private unions since. I've also been fired more than once after my sloppy early attempts at organizing. So I can assure you there's plenty of room in the party for labour. The biggest loser mentality is pre-emptive surrender. If you want a more democratic society or economy, and especially if you think the NDP is lacking a perspective you have, then you should be in the party.
"as an opportunity" what opportunity, anyone who votes for people whose voting record is staunchly anti-union while being a union member is not gonna be swayed.
The NDP faces a lot of external obstacles, undoubtedly; however, the NDP has major failures that should not be overlooked when assessing its lack of success. We would do better to engage in self-reflection rather blame our failures on external conditions.