The genuinely strategic vote

I've never been hesitant to indicate my distaste for strategic voting as defined by PMPM. But before I discuss the rule as to why the Liberal strategic vote is self-defeating, I'll point out that this election does provide one exception where a strategic vote could make perfect sense. That exception comes in the form of platform planks targeted at democratic reform whose effect could realistically offer one's preferred party enough of a boost down the road as to be worth losing votes in the immediate election.

The prime example, of course, lies in the NDP's support for proportional representation, and potential to push for PR if it receives a solid balance of power. If passed, PR would substantially improve the opportunity of the Greens and other smaller parties to increase their standing - changing the political landscape from one where such parties are unlikely to win a single seat, to one where there's a reasonable prospect of such parties wielding significant power within a governing coalition.

For a smaller-party voter, then, there's a strong incentive to vote for the party whose position in this election will most favour the voter's preferred party down the road. And that's true regardless of whether the smaller-party supporter would normally have any affinity at all for the NDP: the reason for the strategic vote isn't that the NDP is the lesser of a number of evils, but that the NDP vote now can lead to greater influence for the smaller party later.

So what makes for a reasonable vote for a party other than the one that best matches one's own views? Here's how I'd set out the criteria:

1. A reasonable strategic vote should be aimed at effecting positive change, not merely trying to block a given party from power.

2. In turn, the change should improve the influence of one's preferred party in future elections to a degree sufficient to make up for the loss of a vote in the current one.

3. The strategic vote should be on a one-time basis alone if successful: once the party receiving the vote receives the necessary support to achieve the specific reform, the reform should be passed and the issue should cease to be available as a basis for a strategic vote.

I'll grant with respect to a PR-strategic vote that some have claimed that the NDP should have done more to push for PR in the last Parliament, and thus should be considered to have had their chance already. I'd argue that the NDP never secured the balance of power in 2004, and thus wasn't in a position to make a strong push for PR implementation; but if that argument isn't accepted, then I'll readily acknowledge that a strategic vote wouldn't make sense under #3 above.

(In contrast to the reasonable basis for an NDP vote on behalf of a smaller-party supporter depending on how one weighs the above criteria, any Lib claim to strategic votes from the NDP plainly fails on all three grounds.)

There may well be other grounds on which to base a genuine strategic vote in this election - particularly if one sees potential for greater influence through an elected Senate, and thus votes strategically for a Con government on that basis. (That said, I wouldn't see much immediate opportunity for most other parties to win substantial influence that way, so #2 would likely be problematic.)

In any event, the underlying premise is that one should vote so as to ensure that one's own vision for the country is best reflected in future governments. In some exceptional cases which meet the above criteria, that may mean voting for a different party solely for the purpose of better positioning one's own preferred option in the future. For the most part, though, it'll mean voting for the party that best matches one's political vision.

Update: Idealistic Pragmatist notes that the Cons are willing to at least talk about PR as the NDP's price for support in a minority. I'd want to see Harper do much more than just "discuss" the issue before the NDP supported any substantial part of the Cons' platform, but there's definitely an opportunity for a deal if the NDP wins the balance of power.